Allahabad High Court
Anil Vishwakarma And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:82687
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3145 of 2023
Revisionist :- Anil Vishwakarma And 6 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamlesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Aggrieved with judgement and order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2021, the present criminal revision has been preferred.
2. The factual matrix of this case is that an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was moved by Smt. Salini Vishwakarma, the opposite party no.2 in the present revision, and an application for interim maintenance under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act was also moved which was disposed of by the Civil Judge Junior Division/Fast Track Court-2nd (Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur) vide order dated 11.10.2021 wherein the revisionist no.1/husband was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to opposite party no.2, the wife. The said order was challenged by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2021 by the wife, Salini Vishwakarma which was disposed of by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Mirzapur vide order dated 02.05.2023 wherein it was held that the order passed by the Magistrate directing revisionist no.1 to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to present opposite party no.2 is not being interfered with and that order was confirmed and the appeal was partially dismissed on the said point. It was further ordered that respondent nos.2 to 8, who are revisionist nos.1 to 7 in the present revision, shall ensure a residential facility to the appellant, wife in the capacity of the husband of Anil Vishwakarma, the revisionist no.1 in House No.9/162 Mohalla Habibpura (Ramayanbagh) Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. It is noteable that the claim of residential facility made by the wife Salini Vishwakarma was denied by the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division/Fast Track Court-2nd, Judicial Magistrate Mirzapur vide order dated 11.10.2021.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA and perused the entire record.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that he has no grievance to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to Smt. Salini Vishwakarma, opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance but so far as the direction to provide residential facility to her by respondent nos.2 to 8 is concerned, the said part of the impugned judgement and order is illegal, arbitrary and against the evidence on record. The learned appellate court failed to take into consideration that revisionist nos.4 to 7 are not residing with the revisionist nos.1 to 3 in House No.9/162 Mohalla, Mohalla Habibpura (Ramayanbagh) Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. Further revisionist nos.4 to 6 are married sisters and are living with their husband and the revisionist no.7 is the brother-in-law (bhanoi) of revisionist no.1 and he is also residing separately and as such they are not liable to pay expenses of the independent residence for opposite party no.2., if revisionist no.1 fails to provide residential accommodation to opposite party no.2. Hence, a prayer has been made to set aside the aforesaid portion of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.05.2023.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the revision and it has been submitted that opposite party no.2, the wife of the revisionist no.1, is fully entitled to reside into the house in question and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Court-3rd, Ghazipur was competent enough to grant this relief to opposite party no.2, the wife which was well within the purview of power of the court by virtue of Section 19 of Domestic Violence Act. It is therefore submitted that the revision has no force and it deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
7. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has certain social purposes to achieve. The object of this Act is to protect the women who have been subjected to domestic violence. The reliefs which may be granted under this Act are quite wide in extent. There is an attempt to take care of all the probable reliefs leaving scope for moulding them which, in the peculiarity of circumstances of each case, may be required. The scheme of the said law, in my view, is explicit that the women should be protected from any person, who is guilty of committing domestic violence as defined in section 3 of the Act. In this case the Civil Judge (JD)/FTC-II/ Judicial Magistrate, Ghazpur vide order dated 11.10.2021 directed the revisionist no.1 to pay Rs. 3,000/- to opposite party no.2 per month as interim maintenance but the appellate court vide the impugned order dated 2.5.2023 affirmed the order to the extent of interim maintenance and dismissed the appeal partially but ordered that respondent nos.2 to 8, who are revisionist nos.1 to 7 in the present revision, shall ensure a residential facility to the appellant/wife in House No.9/162 Mohalla Habibpura (Ramayanbagh) Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi. It appears that the victim lady has not lived in the shared household with the opposite party nos. 5 to 8, (opposite party nos. 4 to 7 in the present revision) therefore, they are discharged for their liability and the liability fixed for revisionist nos.1 to 3 by the appellate court shall remain the same. The order dated 2.5.2023 passed by the appellate Court is liable to be modified to that extent and it is modified accordingly.
8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is partly allowed.
9. Let the copy of this order be sent to the court concerned for further compliance.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
Shivangi
