The Bombay High Court dismissed an application challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant and allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by the non-applicant and enhanced the amount of maintenance.
The Court observed that the Court noted that the wife is entitled to lead the life and maintain the lifestyle and standard that she was accustomed to while staying with the husband.
Brief Facts:
The non-applicant is the original applicant. The applicant is the original non-applicant No.1. He would be referred to as a non-applicant. The applicant got married to the non-applicant on 07.01.2001. According to the applicant, there was a dispute between the relatives of the non-applicant and the relatives of the applicant. On the report of the relatives of the applicant, the relatives of the non-applicant were prosecuted in the Court of law.
It is stated that therefore, relatives of the non-applicant instigated him to ill-treat and torture the applicant, which he did. The matter was later settled and the applicant joined the non-applicant in the year 2006 again. There was no improvement in the behavior of the non-applicant. On 07.08.2012, the applicant-wife was mercilessly beaten. She managed to escape and lodged a report. Non-applicant went to Saudi Arabia and did not make any provision for maintenance and other reliefs for the applicant-wife. The applicant, therefore, prayed for maintenance.
Learned Magistrate partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance. Both parties challenged the said order. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by the applicant and enhanced the maintenance payable to the applicant. The non-applicant being aggrieved by this order has come before this Court.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant (husband, and non-applicant in the original application) pointed out that the application alleging domestic violence was filed after more than one year from the date the applicant left his house, and therefore, on the date of filing of the application, there was no domestic relationship between the parties, and the applicant was not covered by the definition of the aggrieved person as provided under Section 2 (a) of the DV Act. Hence, the applicant was not entitled to get any relief. Further, the Counsel submitted that the applicant being a divorced Muslim woman is not entitled to get maintenance from the non-applicant in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights On Divorce) Act, 1986.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the respondent (applicant in the original application) was in a domestic relationship with the non-applicant and as such an aggrieved person. The definitions of “aggrieved person” and “domestic relationship” do not contemplate that on the date of filing of an application for the relief under the D.V. Act, the aggrieved person should be actually residing and living together.” Further, he argued that unless and until it is pointed out that said finding suffers from patent error or perversity, the same cannot be interfered with.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the decisions rendered by the two courts below do not warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Court observed that, even assuming that the non-applicant was divorced by the applicant, an act of domestic violence once committed, the subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the D.V. Act, including monetary relief under Section 20 of the D. V. Act.
The Court noted that the wife is entitled to lead the life and maintain the lifestyle and standard that she was accustomed to while staying with the husband. The wife has a right to lead a life befitting the lifestyle and standard of the husband. On any ground, the husband cannot be allowed to question the wife on such count.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the application, held that there is no substance in the revision.
Case Title: Ahsanullah @ Javed Khan v Shahana Parvin @ Brijis
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G. A. Sanap
Case no.: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. R.N. Sen
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Mohtesim Badar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
