Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.02.2011 Anand Parkash Singh .......... petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby the complaint under Section 20(6) and 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 has been allowed. Challenge is also to the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide which the appeal has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are :- That the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Manju (since deceased) daughter of Sh. Binda Paswan resident of H. No. 959, Type IV, N.H.-4, N.I.T., Faridabad, District Faridabad, on 29.4.2005, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Some dispute arose Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 -2- between the couple in 2006. Mrs. Manju wife of the petitioner after attending the wedding of his sister on 10.3.2006, left for her paternal house at Faridabad. During the course of her stay in her parental house, she gave birth to twins and thereafter she never came back to her matrimonial house. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of Conjugal Rights in the Family Court, Kanpur, which was lateron converted into a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. FIR No. 174 dated 25.8.2007 under Section 498-A, 406, 323, 506 IPC was registered at Police Station S.G.M. Nagar, Faridabad. Thereafter she moved an application seeking monetary relief, in the Court of Ld. Magistrate at Faridabad under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the proceedings arising out of the abovesaid FIR. This application was allowed vide order dated 15.3.2008 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000/- as lump sum payment for maintenance of the complainant and further to accept her medical bills and seek their reimbursement from his employer as per Rules. An application under Section 20(6) and 25 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was filed before the Magistrate. This application was allowed vide order dated 5.4.2010. A direction was given to the employer of the petitioner to reimburse the medical claim bills of Mrs. Manju. A direction was given to deduct the amount of pending medical bills along with the monthly maintenance amount, if any, from the salary of the Mrs. Manju. The employer of the husband was directed to receive the future reimbursement claim from the wife of the petitioner and to put Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 -3- them before the insurer immediately after receiving. Adequate direction for protection of Mrs. Manju was also given to SHO Police Station Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Nagar, Faridabad. The petitioner Anand Parkash Singh filed an appeal in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Manju expired. Her father Sh. Binda Paswan and two minor children namely Daksh and Jeeya, moved an application that they are aggrieved person as per Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, so they may be impleaded as party in the appeal. The said application has been allowed. Mr.Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated order dated 5.4.2010 and 17.7.2010 on the following grounds :- 1. That Sh. Binda Paswan not aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act. He is not the legal guardian of the children under the Guardianship Act of the minor children. Hence, he can not be impleaded as an aggrieved party under Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under :- 12. Application to Magistrate.-(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 -4- incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent: Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off. (3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto. (4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court. (5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. Crl. Misc. No. M-5230 of 2011 -5- As per Section 12 of the Act he is not only the aggrieved person but even any other person on her behalf can move such an application. Father of the deceased Manju, who was looking after her can certainly is covered under Section 12 of the Act to be aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act. 2. The challenge is to the direction given by the Magistrate vide order dated 5.4.2010 to the employer of the petitioner to directly deduct the amount of the pending medical bills along with the maintenance amount from the salary of the petitioner is uncalled for. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit as this direction has been issued in accordance with the High Court direction in the case of Rajwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and others 2002(1) RSJ 183 and Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous is dismissed with no order as to costs. 28.02.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE