1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1234/2010) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. Date of Judgment: December 06, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Keshav Agrawal, for the petitioner. Mr.Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2010, passed by the Special Court (women Atrocities and Dowry Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has enhanced the interim maintenance granted to the respondent from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.3,000/-, the petitioner has approached this Court. Mr. Keshav Agrawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that according to a report submitted by the Police dated 18.02.2009, the Police was of the view that no domestic violence had been committed by the petitioner against the respondent. According to 2 the learned counsel, despite the fact that this particular report was placed before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not considered the said report and has enhanced the maintenance. Secondly, the maintenance has been enhanced without assigning any reason. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the order dated 22.1.2009 clearly reveals that the respondent, in the complaint, had levelled certain allegations against the petitioner. Considering the fact that prima facie a case of domestic violence was made out, the learned Magistrate had granted a maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent. Although a report of the Police does exist, but the Police has failed to consider the definition of word “domestic violence” given in Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short). Domestic Violence is not limited to merely physical abuse of a person. In fact, it includes not only physical abuse, but also “economic abuse”, and “verbal” and “emotional abuse”. The 3 terms “physical abuse”, “verbal and emotional abuse”, and “economic abuse” have been defined separately. Moreover, cruelty has not been limited only to physical cruelty, but has also extend to mental cruelty. Therefore, it is not necessary that the petitioner should go into the house of the respondent and physically assaulted her. According to the definition, even an omission can tantamounts to domestic violence. Allegedly because of the harassment meted out to the respondent by the petitioner, she had left her matrimonial home. Admittedly, she has been staying with her father for the last two years. Thus, she is not looked after by her husband. Such an omission would tantamount to domestic violence as by such an omission the petitioner is depriving the respondent of her “economic basis” and is committing “mental cruelty” upon her. Therefore, the report submitted by the Police dated 18.2.2009 is clearly contrary to the very definition of the word “domestic violence” as defined in the Act. In the report, the Police believed that domestic violence is limited only to a physical assault or physical abuse. Hence, even if this report had been submitted, the learned Judge would be justified in ignoring the said report. Moreover such a report is not binding on a Judicial Officer. For, a Judicial Officer is required to apply his mind to the evidence which is produced 4 before him. The order granting the maintenance was initially passed on 22.1.2009. The order for enhancement has been passed on 28.10.2010. Thus, the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 has been passed almost after one year. Considering the fact that there is a phenomenon price rise during this interim period, the learned Judge was certainly justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. Moreover, the maintenance amount, so enhanced, is merely an interim maintenance amount and is not the final one. Hence, the same can be modified later on, if necessary. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki