Bombay High Court
Ramchandra Nathuji Sontake vs Smt. Vrusali Wd/O Vivek Sontake on 24 February, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
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..
