Anshuraj vs Smt. Manisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 3623 MP

                                           1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                 ON THE 1st OF MARCH, 2023
           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40233 of 2022


       BETWEEN:-

       ANSHURAJ S/O LATE RAJENDRA
       MOHAN     CHAUDHARY,   AGED
       ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
       SERVICE 103, RENUKA PLAZA
       PADNEKAR NEAR NURSING HOME
       FREEGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                                 ........PETITIONER
       (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA- ADVOCATE)

       AND

       SMT. MANISHA D/O HOTAM SINGH
       JARENIYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
       NARMADA COLONY GANDHI ROAD
       MORAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                               ........RESPONDENT

       (BY SHRI AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH SISODIYA-ADVOCATE)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       ORDER

This Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner-husband praying to quash the order dated 28.01.2017 passed by Second Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in

Cr.A. No.6400324/2016 partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner granting Rs.2500/- as monetary relief and Rs.3000/- as house rent total 5500/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. Petitioner is respondent in a complaint filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence At, 2005. Respondent is the divorced wife of the petitioner. On hearing the parties and perusing the application and the objection, the learned JMFC Gwalior partly allowed the application and husband was ordered to not to cause domestic violence with the wife and husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as monetary relief and Rs.3000/- as house rent total amount of Rs.8000/-per month as interim maintenance to the divorced wife vide order dated 19.05.2016. It was called in question by filing an appeal in terms of Section 29 of the above Act before the Sessions Court at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No.23/2015. The said appeal has been partly allowed vide order dated 28.01.2017 reducing the monetary relief granted to the respondent-wife from Rs.5000/- to Rs.2500/-. Hence, present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. requesting this Court to quash the impugned order.

It is evident that there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and respondent as husband and divorced wife. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that since decree of divorce has been passed, no domestic relationship subsists between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, the order granting maintenance to the wife under The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that before passing the decree of divorce, the application under Section 12 of The Protection of

Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed by the wife. Hence, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 30 of the judgment rendered in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Anr. 2014 10 SCC 736 has held as under:-

"30. An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under Section 20, Child Custody under Section 21, Compensation under Section 22 and interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, after perusing the impugned judgment and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni (supra), this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned. Consequently, present petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha Digitally signed by YOGENDRA OJHA Date: 2023.03.03 18:08:23 +05'30'