Madras High Court
E.Govindaraj vs M.Bhuvaneshwari on 13 August, 2024
CRP No.2841 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.2841 of 2024 &
CMP.No.15092 of 2024
E.Govindaraj : Petitioner
versus
1.M.Bhuvaneshwari
2.Ms.G.B.Pooja : Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order dated 23.08.2023 made in Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.81 of
2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @
Ranipet, Vellore District confirming the Order dated 04.01.2023 made in
CMP.No.1495 of 2022 in DVC.No.11 of 2021 passed by the District cum
Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sudhakar
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.2841 of 2024
ORDER
This civil revision petition arises against the order of the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District, in Criminal
Appeal No.81 of 2023 dated 23.08.2023 in confirming the order of the
learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet in CMP.No.1495
of 2022 in DVC.No.11 of 2021.
2. DVC.No.11 of 2021 has been presented by the respondents as
against the civil revision petitioner. There is no dispute in the relationship
between the parties. The petitioner married the first respondent on
06.02.2014 at Chengalpet. From the wedlock, the second respondent was
born on 04.09.2016.
3. The first respondent alleged that the petitioner never used to lend
an ear to the troubles that the first respondent was facing or gave her any
financial solace during the time they were living together. In addition, she
would plead that the civil revision petitioner wanted only a boy child, but
since a girl child had been born, and that too with health complications, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had forsaken/deserted the mother and child and started living separately in
the BHEL compound at Ranipet. She would plead that Streedhana property
worth about Rs.3,00,000/-, which her father had given at the time of her
marriage, had been retained by her husband/petitioner, and he had been
utilising the same for the past five years. Therefore, she had presented the
aforesaid Domestic Violence Petition.
4. On being served with the petition, the husband moved an
application in CMP.No.1495 of 2022, invoking the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11. According to him, there was no cause of action for the Domestic
Violence Petition and the domestic violence complaint itself is barred by
limitation.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on perusal of the complaint, came
to the conclusion that the cause of action exists and therefore, dismissed
CMP.No.1495 of 2022 on 04.01.2023.
6. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred an appeal before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District,
which also came to be dismissed on 23.08.2023.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
8. Mr.B.Sudhakar would submit that both the courts below had not
appreciated the Domestic Violence Act properly and hence, dismissed the
petition and appeal. He would state that the first respondent/wife did not
seek any relief under Section 18(1) of the Domestic Violence Act and
therefore, she is not entitled to maintain the petition. He would then add that
in order to claim any benefit under the Act, the first respondent/wife would
have to plead that she had suffered domestic violence at the hands of the
husband. He would state that from a reading of the petition, it is clear that
the husband and wife had been living separately from the year 2016 and
therefore, the requirements of the Act had not met. He would state that these
facts have not been properly analysed by the courts below, reflecting
non-application of mind and hence, he would seek admission and stay of the
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. I have carefully considered the arguments of Mr.B.Sudhakar and
gone through the records.
10. On his first point that unless and until, the wife seeks for a relief
under Section 18, she is not entitled to maintain the domestic violence
complaint, I am afraid that I am not in agreement with Mr.B.Sudhakar.
11. Under Section 12 of the Act, an application can be filed before the
Magistrate by an aggrieved lady, who can claim one or more reliefs that has
been provided under the Act. Section 18 is one such relief. Apart from
Section 18, there are several other provisions, namely Section 19 which
speaks about residence orders; Section 20 which speaks about monetary
reliefs; Section 21 which speaks about custody and finally; Section 23 which
deals with the compensation orders. Any one of the reliefs can be claimed by
a wife under Section 12. It is not necessary that the wife, at all points of
time, should claim the relief only under Section 18 and the other reliefs are
subsidiary to such a claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. Each and every relief under Sections 18 to 22 are independent and
separate. An aggrieved woman is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act
under Section 12 and seek any one of the claims. It is clear from the use of
the word under Section 12 which speaks about “one or more reliefs granted
under the Act”. Therefore, the first submission of Mr.B.Sudharkar has to
necessarily be rejected.
13. At this stage, Mr.B.Sudhakar would invite my attention to the
judgment of Bombay High Court in Kishor vs. Shalini in Criminal Writ
Petition No.37 of 2008 dated 30.03.2010. Relying on this judgment,
Mr.B.Sudhakar would submit that as the first respondent/wife had not made
out any allegation as against the petitioner/husband, the petition is not
maintainable.
14. A scan of the provision is necessary for this purpose. Under
Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act, any woman who is in a domestic
relationship alleging domestic violence can make out a petition under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 12 of the Act. With regard to what a domestic relationship is, it is
defined under Section 2(f). Domestic violence is defined under Section 3.
These definitions are wide. Being a welfare legislation, it has to be given the
widest possible interpretation. It includes physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse. Therefore, if the
complaint contains any one of these abuses, that is sufficient for maintaining
the petition.
15. This revision arises against an order stating that there is no cause
of action. Therefore, I necessarily have to read the complaint to see whether
the necessary pleadings are available in order to come to a conclusion. A
reading of paragraphs 5 to 7 of the complaint shows that there has not only
been verbal and emotional abuse, but there has also been economic abuse. It
is alleged, the husband had not given any money for the wife's sustenance.
Apart from that, he had not given any money for the purpose of treatment of
the second respondent who is said to be suffering from a hole in the heart a
Cardiac condition.
16. In paragraph 8, the first respondent has specifically pleaded that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not a single paisa has been paid by the civil revision petitioner from his
pocket for the past five years. She would state that she had to give up the
opportunity to work because she has to take special care of the child. She
also pleads that those, who have gone to the civil revision petitioner for the
purpose of mediation, have all been turned back by using filthy and
colloquial language against the first respondent and her family. The
allegations taken at their face value, satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of
the Act.
17. Insofar as the judgment of the Bombay High Court is concerned, a
careful perusal of the judgment shows that in the complaint which was dealt
with in that case had no averments attracting Section 3 of the Act. It was in
those circumstances, the learned Judge proceeded to quash the complaint.
This is clear from paragraph 9 of the said judgment. Such circumstances do
not exist in the present case. Hence, the said judgment is inapplicable.
18. In the light of the aforesaid allegations made in the petition, I do
not think that the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet,
Vellore District and the learned District cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have committed an error in dismissing the petition to reject the domestic
violence complaint.
19. The civil revision petition only deserves one order and that is of
dismissal. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20. Taking into consideration the domestic violence complaint has
been pending for the past three years, the learned District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet is requested to give maximum attention possible
to the same and dispose it as expeditiously as possible.
13.08.2024
nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District
2.The District cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
13.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
