w^ '&.-. '^.^^^-^s, ^ tfe 1 i 1 IWi l3S Si K 1 •INII K/Si^s 11 ;1^ ^I1 m. w i -D^ FTj 1 i 1u mu w .ffi; 1 ' :;SK •siB .Q?% :SI 11 w:. ^M ^•^-'•••-^•'r:'.-''^^:^. 3t;: M Mliiii 1iw 318 1 ffi! M w. l^ IIOs »• 13 '"•^^^h^.^!' ^•.^^'K^'w, -.^•'.''•";.,cl:"1^.•;'".'';'-•^.'^•^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH ^ CORAM: HON'BLE MR, T.P. SHARMA AND HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR, JJ. APPELLANT/: (Non-appliGant) RESPONDENT/: (Applicaht) First Appeal (Ml No.35 of 2010 Sunil Singh S/.o Shri M.L, Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Nirgla Nagar, Bus Stand Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus Smt. Neetu Singh D/o Shri S.S. Bargoti (Wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Singh), Caste Hindu, aged about 32 years, R/o Koni, I.T.I. Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Djstt. Bilaspur {AppealunderSection 19 (1)0fthe Family CourtsAct, 1984} Present; Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for theappellant. Mr. Rahul Birtharey, counselfQr the respondent. ^ /'."' .(•^•'.•. •:'"'" JUDGMENT (3rd September, 2010) • The followina iudament oftheCourtwas passed bv T.P. Sharma. J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25-2-2010 passedbythe Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Misc. Criminal Case No.592/20Q5, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has awarded mpnetary relief of Rs.3,000/-per month and Rs.5 lakhs as one time payment under, Sections 19 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005'), to the respondent. 2.0rder isjmpugned on the ground that the Judge, Famjly Court was not having jurisdiction to award such relief and by awarding such relief, the Judge, Family Cburt has commjtted illegality. 3. Brief case of the parties is that the parties are legally wedded spouses andas per the application filed before the Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur /' •' '•.(•;"]. ^o jQHeiu 9Lii ui eoueiiej p90B|d |8sunoo p9ujeo-| •pv p!e88JOAe 9L|i jo4U9iu90JO^U9 o^ joud seiiJBcl Qqi Aq peuiLULUoo loe eqi JO^^QIIQJ Aue iuej6 Q} 4U9l8duu6o }ou si pnoo AiiLued 941 'es.iMJetjio U9A9 'ejo^ejsqi •SAipedsojiejiou si pue 900Z-01.-9Z uo QOJO^ oiuj QLUBO 9003P40V941 IBLII p9n6je jeqijn^ |8sunoo peujee-] •Me| 941 jepun eiqeuieisns ioy S! p9u6ndLU!J9pjo eq; 'ejojsjeq^ 'pue ^eiiej^eieuoLU yons peiuejB seq inq 'uonoipsunf BujAeq iou SBM pnpo AIIIUBJ '96pnr eqi 'eseo ^uesejd eqi uj 'J9A9MOH 'ijnoo leuiiuuQ jo ynoo Aiiluej 'ijnoo |!A!O 841 sjojeq Buipued Bujpseoojd |e68| Aue ui peiuejB PIIQ-I Aue 01 uoiijppe u! Qq ABLU gooz 10 PV 941 P SUQ!S!AOI-id 84l JQpun j9!|eJ luejBoi lUQiedLuo? sem peujeouob 9lBJlsjBe|/\| eqi A|UO pue gooz 10 pv 941 io suoisiAojd 941 jQpun ^9!|9j Aue lyejB 01 iu9i©dLuoopu SBM ijnoQ Aijiuej 'egpnp 9Ljt 'eseo }U9S9jd 941 ui ieqi pan6je A|iu9iu949A lueijedde eqi JQJ lesunQO peujee-i •g •Moieqijnoo eqip pjooej pue psuBndLui japjo eqi pesnjed 'seiijed QLJI JQJ lesunoo p9uje9| pjeeq eAeq 9AA 'V •SOOZPPV8411PZZ ^ 61 suoipas jepun jeiiej Aje^uouu pjesejoje peiuejB 'epoo eqi ^o QZ\, uonoag jepun p9|!j uoiieoiidde eqi BUISSILUSIP OIILIM 'ljnoo AIIUBJ 'eBpnf QL|I 'BuueQq p AiiuntJOddo BuipjAOJd jeye 'Aiieuij •iue||9dde eqi Aq pepefqo SBM uojieoiidde eqi •QOQZio PV 841 jo 02 uoipes p siujei ui j8i|9j Ajeieuoiu p luejB jo^ (,17961. P pv 841, I-IOL|S Jo^) ^QQ\, 'pv sijnoo AIILUB^ eqt p z U01138S qii/w peej SQOZ P lov 941 P 93 ^ ZZ 'OZ '61. '81- 'ZI. suoipes jQpun uojieoiidde p9|y seq luspuodsej eqi 'Buipeeoojd 8L|i p Aouepued eqi 6uuna •iue||9dde eqi Aq peiuep SBM LUIBIO 8i|i •)ue||9dde ©qiisuieCe (,epoo eq^ijoqs joj) 9/.61- 'ejnpeoojd leuiuiuo p epoo eqi p 9ZI. uojpes jSpun L|IUOIU J9d -/ooO'S'sy jo eoueuQiuieuj pQLuiep seq luepuodsej eq^ AiieuiBuo 'iuepuodsej oqi p ^eLieq uo ^/."-..'1.-';1'-.'..:'- 1/';.'''^-''..;1.;.':'--•';'.••-:\ . 111.:":;"1-:,...- ^ Shyamlai & others v. Kanta Bai in which the High Cburt of Madhya Pradesh has held that the Act of2005 is not retrospective, theref6re,the parties are not entitled for any relief relating to the act committed prior to enforcement of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opppsed the appeal and submitted that no provisiohs for appeal fo High Court have been provided under the Act of 2005 and, therefore, the in^tant appeal is not majntainable. The Legislature has provided for appeal under the Act of 2005 that too before the Sessions Judge, therefore, appeal before this Court is not competent. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reiiance in the matter of Smt. Neetu Singh v. Sunil Singh in which this Court has held that any application under Section 12 oftheAct of 2005 is not maintainable before the Family Court andisonlymaintajnablebeforetheconcerned Magistrate. 7. Vide order impugned, while denying the claim of maintenance of the respondent under Section 125 of the Codeon the ground of her ability to maintain herself, the Judge, Family Court has awarded monetary relief to the re$pondent under Sections 19 &22 of the Act of 2005. Secfion 19 of the Act of 2005 does not provide provision for majntenanceor grant of compensation, but clause (d) ofsub-section (1) of Section 20 of theAct of 2005 provides provision for maintenance in additipn to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. Section 22 of the Act of 2005 provides for award of compensation on account of damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic vjolence committed bythatrespondent. Para 41 ofthe order impugned reveals that impliedly the appellant has committed ~~^ 2 12010(I)MPWN 50 i2008(1)C.G.LJ.97(DB) ^y^..."-, !;,'x^^fj ^*..sy' ^ domesticviolence and hascaused mental torture and emotional distress tQ the respondent. Sections 20 & 22 oftheAct of2005readasfollows^",, "20. Monetary reliefs.^—(1)While disposjng of an application under sub-section (1) of SeGtion 12, the Magistrate may direet the respondent to pay monetary reliefto meetthe expenses incurred andlosses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child ofthe aggrieved person as a resylt of the domestic violence and such reljef may include, but is not limitedto,- (a) the loss ofeamings; (b) the medical expenses; . (c) the loss caused due to the destruction,' damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order pf maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 to 1974) or anyother law for the time being m •force. .. , •" ..' • • ,' ' ', •1.' •:,,.- . 11 l.'"-l,'':..'-;: '—,, (2)The monetaryrelief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with thestandard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an approprjate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case mayreqyire. (4) The Magistrate shall send a copy ofthe order fpr monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the. parties to the application and to the incharge of the police station within the local limits ofwhose jurisdiction the respondent resides. (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period ^ specified in theorder undersub-section (1). ^' rt' ';. ir. ../•^''. -:'.'' !t ./•^''.. -:"'"- (6) Upon the failure on thepart of the respondent to ^ make payment in terms of the order under sub-sectioh (1), the Magistrate may directtheemployer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the Court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted ' • "; towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. 22. Compensation orders.—Inaddition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent." • '-''\ .•.'•:•:•.. ^.-.,^-^:.-':- 8. Definitely, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 20 &22 ofthe Act of 2005, the Court competent to grant such relief is competent to award monthly maintenance in additipn to an orcjer passed under Section 125 of the Code and also competent to award compensation on aGCount of mental torture and emotional distress cay§ed by the appellant. 9. As regards competency to grant such relief by the Family Court, the, , ' Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) came into force in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh on 19-11-1986 vide notification No.79/6/86 dated 14-11-1986and the Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (No.43 of2005) came intoforce on 26-10-2006. "lO.As per Section26of the Act of 2005, any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 pftheAct of 2005, may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a Civil Court, Family' Court or a Criminal Court.' . " Section12 of the Act of 2005 provides for filing of an application by an •lUQiedtuoosi 17961. ^o PV 941 P 61. uoipes p (O uoipes-qns jepun leedde 'ejo^ejQqi 'pue jepjo luesuoo e IQU si jo epoo 941 p xi jeideLjo jepuh pQssed uaeq IQU SBL| peu6ndiu! jopjo eqi 'eoueuetuieLU 0^ ©uiieiQj'e'jQpoQ eqi ^o xi jaideqo j9pun pessed jepjo Aue jo jepjo luesuoo 01 6uiie|9J leedde BUI|IJ ui jeq ssieejo f96|< jo py 941 P 61. uoipes p (z) uoiioes-qns •fr86i. jo PV 81UP 61. uojp93 p (i.) uoipes-qns jepun 8|qe|e8dde sj ijnoo AIILUBJ 'eBpnc e^Aq pessed jepjo 941 'SOOZ jo PV 9W P 9Z uoipQS jepun p9u6nduij jepjo 941 pessed seq ynoo AIIIUBJ <96pnf e^ pye jepjo Aue pessed iou seq 9ie4si6e|/\| eqi 'eseo luesejd eqi u| 'sudisses p ynoo 8i<i sJojeq 9|qe|B9dde si eieJisiBei^ 9Ml Aq epBLU jepjo 041 'QOOZ p pv 941 P 6Z uoipes jed se 'ieedde siqi p Aousiedtuoo spjeBej sv'€l. '• : ' '•..'.•..' . ; • . '.'.. '. . . • . •sooz jo PV QMiJO 92 uoipes jo SLUjelyi jepjo ssed oiiuQiedLuoo seMijnoo Ajituej 941 'ejo^Qjeqi •epoo equo szi. uoipQS jo 6uip980ojd Buipued U! pnoo AIILUBJ 941 9Jojeq uoiieojidde peiijseLi luepuQdsej e^ 'AipsuitjupvZI. •6u!p980Qjd Suipued Aue uj ijnoo leujLuuo e jo ijnoQ AIILUBJ 'ijnoo IIAIQ e ejo^Qq eiqeuieiuietU si SOOZ P40V 9M»P 22 pue (.2 'oz '61. '81 suoipes JQpun 8|qe|ieAe ^eiiej p IUBJB jo^ uo!ieoi|dde eqi inq 'ijnoo Aiituej QL|I ejo^eq QiqeuieiujBLU lou si QOOZ P PV 9MIP Zl uoipas jepun uoiieoiidde luepuedepu! leiii pspioep seq ijnoo siqi 'uoiisenb euies qijM 6ui|eap QIIMAA'I-I' •Bujpeeoojd |e68| qons uj t4Bnos eq Aeuu ^jiej qons 'gooz p pv 84UO ^zpue 1.Z 'QZ '6i '81' suojp9S Jepun peujQOUoo uosjed 9L|l oi 9|qe|!eAe eq ABLU qoiiiM jsjiej Aue 0} 6u!ie|aj ijnoo leuiLuuo e jo Ijnoo AIILUBJ 'ijnoo IIAJO e ejojeq fiuipued si ©uipeeoojd|eB9| Aue^! inq '^9i|9j qons tuejB oi tueiedLubo 8ieJiS!6e|/\| eqi sjojeq uosjed p9A9uB6e ji 1 •s;I ^.m^ ^N- ^<Qi, .ST^ :'w. :s-:ili1 ^.i t. ^.iii 1% s'f ^ ^.€0i Wc.: y^^ 'M RSl ;:';;<Q% li l.il '^Q^S II :-'^ ;!OT5 :^ • - ::' M ':":^- 1:r ff' •^i: ^::;:i .:'Q-^ <DiMm ^i- (Dil M l%illi3i -ssiii; (ftI•t ^ •I ^^ ^.li :1f1m :^. i^i^\ st Tw^ ^ ?3r; S."-s CDi ^'Q)^,-1 •,^. 11 1^lil ^f^.:^i :^1 ^ ^ ••^ a> ^ 10 1 s ® ^t 'w^ o^m ^iii ^M •m :Gi il :;'.co& l'i: III ^p®. 'jii 3t 1 -^ ^i1 :-^. 1.e. ^|^^^:v% 'M 1 03 1 '•Q^ s^ M. f r ^i! •wg M 'a-^:I <D'M ^ii; ^ ^l i :::.f^i w ^ Ck<€fi ^ 'm '-Om t ^ .^g:: ^^cpi ^m iM 1 ^ I:I '•:M M A -—'r-^?--- ^^z .ii ^ri ^i: <0 m Qf (K •^. 3 w :M:. ^ ^ 1 01 1t 1t1 'M •wj w ii <D ^_.^ (D m li m •^ i %i- '^ :.i m ^GL.; •:rt.' j '.w. 1 1 •:m^:mm ^ i .;.o.-: w 1-ti ^^, ^ii -:M •'f^'i w:r ! c®% (Qw 1 ^ ^ a •M O) i i-^s ^Q-: K1 :^: 1 ^G>:' ^m Q, fl?i '^si ,1'.,(@^ .j^; ^ m ^:lt im w ^ .to^ ''^. 1 m -m'\ ^^ ,tn^ 1i;lt %t ^o;^ ':s. ^ 1M io- .^^. ^i .:@^:Ij ^'.••? ; w 1 ;.^^ Mif i Ot iil 1 w Q>0 ti ^l '^ i^>w ^'t; ii: '^i ^i-i ;1^ ^ i^wri m :"GE,, i i^>. •^im 'sm wt ^^ilii .iw ms^iss JWltii 1%: ^- \:^ ^s;;l'-.:''--^^: mm ^Q^1 a i8i ®^%aii a^~-S";l!S2w?-°n' V !^2^ .••-llll-:'/:r::-^;'' deserted her. Therefpre, the award of maintenance pf Rs.3,000/- per month under Section 20 (1) (d) ofthe Actof 2005is neither exGessive, , nor unjust. 18.As regards the compensation of Rs.Slakhs under Section22 of.theAct pf 2005, the respondent has not proved any immovable property or definitesourceofincomeoftheappellantonthegroundofmentaltortyre and emptional distress. The Judge, Family Court has awarded compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. At the time ofawarding compensation, the Gourts are required tp consider all surrouilding circumstances. As per, , evidence of the parties, marriage between the parties wassolemnized on 28-4-2003, they resjded together till 16-9-2004 and they are issueless. Both the parties have made allegations against each other. The appellant was in dbminating position and was under obligatibn to maintain his wife in dignified manner. However, the appellant has failed to discharge his aforesaid obligation. In these circumstances, definitely, the appellant is liable for payment of compensation to the respondent under Section 22 oftheActof2005, buttheamountofcompensationof Rs;5 lakhs is not only excessive and unjust, but award of such compensation is arbitrary. At the time of awarding compensation, the Coyrts are required to grant reasonable compensation. Considering the afQresaid facts, compensation ofRs.50,000/- under Section 22 ofthe Act of 2005 would be jyst and proper. IQ.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.. Compensation of Rs.5 lakhs awarded against the appellant underSection 22 of the Act pf 2005 is hereby modified and instead of Rs.5 lakhs the appellant is directed to pay compensatjon of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. However, the amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month awarded to the 'iSSSSSiSySSiSSISSKSSsliSSSSiS^ m respondent under Section 20 (1) (d) of the Act of 2005 is-hereby maintained. No orderas to costs. 20.AdvOcate fees as per schedule. 21. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 3-9-201 U / ' ' ' .1' •'. ••'"'' Spma l^..', ./''' .(•^•1. ••"'"•