The Bombay High Court has ruled that an aggrieved person, as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, “must be alive at the time of filing the petition” and someone else cannot file the application for monetary reliefs under the act after her demise.
Factual Background
Suchita and Kedar got married in November 2009 and their daughter was born to them in 2012. She passed away in 2013 after prolonged illness. The minor daughter filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that Suchita was neglected by her husband and in-laws throughout.
It was further alleged that husband Kedar and his parents did not look after Suchita in her lifetime and even during her illness and the gold gifted to her is also in the custody of her mother-in-law. The application under the DV Act claimed the return of all the ornaments and compensation for her and the grandmother of the applicant.
Case of the Petitioner
The main contention raised by the petitioner Karnataka Sapre was the use of the expression “any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person” in Section 12 of the DV Act, which mentions presenting an application before the Magistrate.
Observation of the Court
The right to claim monetary reliefs, protection order and compensation under the D.V. Act, are personal statutory and inalienable rights of the ‘aggrieved person” For that reason, such rights are not enforceable by legal representatives of the “aggrieved person” The Court also observed that the meaning of the word “aggrieved person” has to be restricted in view of the Statement and Object and Reasons of the Act.
The Court further said that the Act does allow an application to be filed by any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person. The “other person” cannot maintain an application independently of an “aggrieved person”, the other person cannot maintain an application independently of an “aggrieved person”. Indeed, Section 12 of the D. V. Act simply, enables the “aggrieved person" to present an application under the Act via any other person.
Justice Shinde observed that the petitioners did not claim to be aggrieved persons and were asserting their right on behalf of the deceased, who according to them was an "aggrieved person”. The court observed that the petitioners were seeking “enforcement of personal rights of the deceased Suchita, which she had not sought in her lifetime”, which cannot be allowed.
Case Details
Before: Bombay High Court
Case Title: Kanaka Kedar Sapre and another v. Kedar Nahar Sapre
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Jutice Sandeep K Shinde
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
