Ramchandra Nathuji Sontake vs Smt. Vrusali Wd/O Vivek Sontake

     Judgment                                           1                                  wp555.13.odt




                                                                                     
                   
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                            
                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 555  OF 2013




                                                           
     Ramchandra Nathuji Sontake,
     Aged about 67 years, Occupation :
     Agriculturist, R/o. Sindhi (Railway),




                                             
     Tahsil : Selu, District : Wardha.
                              ig                                          ....  PETITIONER.

                                         //  VERSUS //
                            
     Smt. Vrursali Wd/o.Vivek Sontake,
     Aged about 27 years, R/o. C/o.
     Pravin Mohanrao Morghade, 
      


     In front of Agragami Convent,
     Arvi Road, Wardha. 
   



                                                          .... RESPONDENT
                                                                              . 
      ______________________________________________________________
     Shri R.P. Masurkar, Adv. h/f. Shri S.S.Ghate, Advocate for Petitioner. 
     Ms  Anjali A.Joshi,Advocate for Respondent.   





     ______________________________________________________________

                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : FEBRUARY 24, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 wp555.13.odt

3. The petitioner (father-in-law) has challenged the judgment passed by the Sessions Court in appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2005") and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance of the respondent and her daughter from the date of the application filed before the trial Court i.e. 7 th September, 2007. The Sessions Court has further directed the petitioner to pay lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- as future maintenance for daughter of the respondent.

4. Shri R.P. Masurkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is daughter-in-law of the petitioner and after death of Vivek (husband of the respondent) she is residing separately. It is submitted that the subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to pay maintenance and lump sum amount of maintenance while exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act of 2005. It is submitted that Section 12 of the Act of 2005 enables the Court to pass an order directing payment of compensation or damages to the aggrieved person. It is submitted that as per Section 12(2) of the Act of 2005, the order can be passed against the "respondent" which is defined under Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 and reads as follows :

Judgment 3 wp555.13.odt "2(q). "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;"

It is submitted that "respondent" means any adult male person who is or has been in "domestic relationship" as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 with the 'aggrieved person'. It is submitted that the father-in-law is not covered within the meaning of "domestic relationship" as per Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005. It is urged that the Sessions Court has committed an error and has directed the petitioner to pay the amount of maintenance, overstepping its jurisdiction.

5. Smt. Anjali Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

6. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and examining the documents on the record, I am of the view that the proviso below Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 negatives the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The issue will have to be decided on the basis of the factual aspects and as the petitioner has failed to raise this issue before the subordinate Courts, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider this issue for the first time in the supervisory jurisdiction.

Judgment 4 wp555.13.odt As far as merits of the matter are concerned, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is not disputed that Ojasvini is daughter of deceased Vivek and granddaughter of the petitioner.

7. Looking to the amount of maintenance granted by the Sessions Court and the admitted relationship of petitioner and Ojasvini, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

8. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE RRaut..