The aggrieved may be provided monthly relief by a Magistrate under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: High Court Of Meghalaya

Serial No. 04 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG CRP No. 219 Date of Decision: 29.09.2021 Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr. Smti Ruthani Ch. Marak Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew Judge Ms. T. Yangi B Sr. Adv. with Ms. S.A. Laloo Adv. Ms. R. Colney GAMr. P.T. Sangma Adv.For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s) i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Matter taken up via Video Conferencing. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for an enhancement of the monthly maintenance amount being paid by the respondent to the petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The same has been occasioned as per the submissions of the learned Senior counsel Ms. T. Yangi B in view of the fact that the proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class East Garo Hills had been disposed of by mutual consent CRP No. 219 on 25.05.2017 leaving her with no other recourse but to come before this Court under Article 227. She submitted that prior to the order of compromise interim maintenance of Rs. 6 000 has been allowed vide order 04.10.2016 by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate in the said proceeding but that due to the ignorance and illiteracy of the petitioner the same amount of Rs. 6 000 per month had been accepted as a final compromise amount without her understanding the entire implications of the finality of the matter. Learned Senior counsel submits that as the amount was too meagre and that the petitioner besides herself had to support three minor children and having no recourse has approached this Court for enhancement of the amount. Mr. P.T. Sangma learned counsel for the respondent No. 2submits that the respondent is not in a position to increase the amount of maintenance as there are many deductions made in his pay and further maintains that the amount of Rs. 6 000 had been agreed upon by mutual consent which has also put an end to the case. He further submits that the application under Article 227 is not maintainable as alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been made under Article 227 not assailing any order or the proceedings that had been concluded before the Court of the learned Magistrate but only with the prayer for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 6 000 to Rs. 12 000 . A perusal of the available records reflects that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate was under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 initiated in 07.04.2016 on CRP No. 219 Court. a complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and the same was registered as C.R.Case No. 216. The learned Magistrate granted Rs. 6 000 as interim maintenance to the petitioner which later on compromise was made final and the matter was disposed of on 25.05.2017 leaving the parties to settle their differences out of It is not disputed that the respondent is gainfully employed as a Constable with the Meghalaya Police and presently the said maintenance amount of Rs. 6 000 is being deducted from his salary monthly. It is also a fact that the petitioner has been left to care for three minor children for which she faces difficulty in sustaining on the amount that she has been receiving from the respondent. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides that a Magistrate may provide monthly reliefs to meet expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and at Section 20has provided as follows: “20. Monetary reliefs : . d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children if any including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973or any other law for the time being in force.” In the instant case it is to be noted that the maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as the children had been settled at Rs. 6 000 per month which the petitioner finds to be wholly inadequate but having settled the matter on compromise could not re open the same before the Court that granted the said maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence Act. CRP No. 219 An application under Article 227 not assailing any order nor impugning any procedure or report of any gross illegality or any grave mis carriage of justice will not ordinarily be entertained or found to be maintainable. However in the backdrop of the circumstances of the instant case in the interest of justice and looking into the provisions of Section 20of the Act which does not bar the petitioner from also seeking remedy under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it will be open to the petitioner therefore to approach the Court of the learned Magistrate to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which will be in addition to the amount already being received under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act or take such other steps permissible and in accordance with law Without going into any other aspects of the matter this revision application is accordingly disposed of with the observations and directions as given hereinabove. No order as to costs. JUDGE “V. Lyndem PS” CRP No. 219 

Summary: Any order, or report of any gross illegality, or any grave miscarriage of justice, will not ordinarily be entertained or found to be maintainable under Article 227. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew in the matter of Smti Ruthani Ch. Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya &amp; Anr [CRP No. 22 of 2019]. The facts of the case were associated with the petitioner who filed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner’s appeal was to enhance the monthly maintenance amount which was paid by the respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Senior Counsel, Ms. T. Yangi B, representing the petitioner stated that the petitioner given no choice to recourse had to come to the court under Article 227 because the proceedings had been disposed of by mutual consent on 25.05.2017, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, East Garo Hills. Furthermore, it was stated that a sum of Rs 6000 for interim maintenance was allowed by the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate on order 04.10.2016. It was contended by the Senior counsel that the petitioner besides herself had to support three minor children, and the amount was too meager to handle all expenses. Learned Counsel, Mr. P.T. Sangma representing the husband who is respondent No.2 contended that his client was in no position to increase the amount and that the said amount was decided by mutual consents between both the parties. The respondent work as a constable with the Meghalaya Police and the said maintenance amount of Rs.6000 was deducted from his salary.  Considering all the submissions, The Hon’ble High Court Of Meghalaya stated that “… in the backdrop of the circumstances of the instant case, in the interest of justice and looking into the provisions of Section 20 (d) of the Act, which does not bar the petitioner from also seeking remedy under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be open to the petitioner, therefore, to approach the Court of the learned Magistrate to seek maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which will be in addition to the amount already being received under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act or take such other steps permissible and in accordance with law. Without going into any other aspects of the matter, this revision application is accordingly disposed of.”