Chandan Singh vs Smita Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8137 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       CRLREV No.589 of 2018


                 Chandan Singh.           ....            Petitioner
                           M/s. Deepali Mahapatra, S.K. Panigrahy,
                                                        Advocates

                                 -versus-
                 Smita Singh.                ....      Opposite Party
                  M/s. Saswat Ku. Acharya, S.K. Mohanty, S. Pholgu,
                              N. Samal, R.P. Mohapatra, D.R. Nayak,
                                     J.B. Jena, A.K. Dey, Advocates

                 CORAM:
                 JUSTICE S. PUJAHARI
                              ORDER

Order                         04.08.2021
No.
  07.   1.      The petitioner calls in question the judgment

dated 16.05.2018 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Cuttack in D.V. Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2007

granting certain reliefs under the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the "PWDV

Act"), in favour of the present opposite party, over and

above the relief granted by the learned J.M.F.C.,

Cuttack vide the order dated 15.07.2017 passed in D.V.

Criminal Misc. Case No.6 of 2009, a proceeding initiated

at the instance of the present opposite party under

// 2 //

Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the present

petitioner and his relatives.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the available papers on record vis-à-vis the

impugned judgment.

3. Alleging to have been subjected to domestic

violence, the present opposite party initiated the

proceeding vide the D.V. Criminal Misc. Case No.6 of

2009 under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking

different reliefs, and the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack vide

her order dated 15.07.2017 prohibited the present

petitioner-respondent and other respondents from

committing any act of domestic violence against the

present opposite party, and also directed the

respondents including the present petitioner to pay a

sum of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party towards

compensation. The said reliefs were granted obviously

under Sections 18 and 22 of the PWDV Act, and the

other reliefs sought under Sections 19, 20 and 21 were

not granted by the learned J.M.F.C. with the findings,

// 3 //

inter-alia, that the present opposite party has sufficient

means to maintain herself and her daughter, and that

no evidence was produced showing any property to have

been owned by her husband or in-laws. The learned

J.M.F.C., Cuttack also took into consideration to

evidence adduced by the present petitioner that he

resigned from service on 19.04.2013, and that he was

suffering from different ailments like diabetes, cardiac

problems etc.

4. As reported, the present petitioner in compliance

with the aforesaid order of the learned J.M.F.C.,

Cuttack, paid the compensation amount to the present

opposite party. The present opposite party, however,

being aggrieved by the said order, preferred the appeal

before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack who vide

the impugned judgment has directed the present

petitioner to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the present

opposite party towards separate residence and

Rs.3500/- per month towards educational expenses of

their daughter with effect from the month of May, 2018.

While directing so, the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack

// 4 //

has observed that the daughter of the parties was 18

years old by then and that it was the obligation of both

the parents to rear up her. He has further held that in

the given circumstances, it would not be appropriate to

pass any order for living of the opposite party in the

house of the husband.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack

misdirected himself while passing the impugned

judgment, inasmuch as the finding rendered by the

learned trial Magistrate regarding financial affluence of

the opposite party-wife, and unemployment and ailment

of the petitioner-husband has not been interfered with

in appeal. It is his further submission that the opposite

party having evidently been staying with her mother on

her own accord and volition, no monetary relief towards

her separate accommodation could have been granted.

He further argued that the daughter having not

preferred any appeal, the relief granted in her favour is

uncalled for. It is also his submission that the petitioner

// 5 //

paid the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the education

of the daughter.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the opposite party submitted that the

learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack having cited sound

reasons for granting the reliefs, and the finding of the

trial Magistrate affirming "domestic violence" having

been conceded by the present petitioner, there is no

scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned

judgment. He seeks for dismissal of the present petition.

7. At the outset, it may be mentioned that although

vide para-13 of his judgment the learned Sessions

Judge took note of the fact that the daughter of the

parties was 18 years old, yet he remained oblivious of

the situation that the PWDV Act does not bring within

its ambit the case of any major offspring of the

aggrieved woman. Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act defines

"child" to be any person below the age of eighteen years.

Section 20 of the PWDV Act provides for monetary

reliefs for the aggrieved person and also for her child /

// 6 //

children, if any. In that view of the enacted provision,

the relief granted to the major daughter of the opposite

party under Section 20 of the PWDV Act can not be

sustained.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide para-

11 of his judgment has concurred the finding of the trial

Magistrate that the opposite party is working as a

teacher in DAV Public School, Cuttack, a school of high

repute with monthly salary of Rs.16,871/- and that she

can be said to be self sufficient. There is also nothing in

his judgment to show him to have disagreed with

finding of the learned trial Magistrate that the opposite

party is unemployed and ailing, and that there is no

evidence regarding any property being owned by him. In

the facts and circumstances, the direction issued to the

petitioner to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite

party towards separate residence also can not be held to

be proper and reasonable.

// 7 //

9. In view of the discussion made above, the

impugned judgment is set-aside. This revision petition

is allowed hence.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

proper application.

( S.Pujahari ) Judge MRS