Jagat Ram vs Twarku Devi

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2016, whereby order dated 24.08.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. in D.V.A. Petition No. 3 of 2015 has been set aside.

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as “wife”) filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “husband”) with a prayer to grant protection and residence orders besides monetary relief. It was alleged by the wife that after her marriage with husband, two children were begotten. Initially her relations with husband were cordial, but after about 5-6 years of the marriage, husband started maltreating her. The wife had also acquired the knowledge that husband was maintaining illicit relationship with another lady. Once, the dispute inter se the parties was taken to Gram Panchayat and a compromise was effected, however, husband did not adhere to its terms. Husband did not leave the company of another lady despite repeated requests by the wife. The husband had even started living permanently with the other lady at Chandigarh. On 09.04.2015, husband had misbehaved with wife and after threatening to kill her had taken her jewelery. Husband had also snatched keys of the shop and had taken a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the shop. As per wife, husband was having sufficient means to maintain the wife, but had neglected to do so.

Husband contested the petition and made counter allegations against the wife. He has also alleged that the wife is a quarrelsome lady and has been misbehaving with the husband. The husband was not allowed to visit his shop and the entire earnings were usurped by the wife. It was also alleged that the wife had beaten the husband and had demanded huge money by blackmailing him. The allegations of unchastity were also leveled against the wife.

Learned trial Court dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the wife had filed the petition after about 16 years from the date of marriage which was not a normal circumstance. The wife was disbelieved only on the ground that her conduct in approaching the Court belatedly was sufficient to discredit her version.

Wife filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, which came to be allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide impugned order. Wife has been held entitled to live in the house owned and possessed by the husband. She has also been held entitled to the monetary relief to the extent of Rs.3000/- per month to be paid by the husband from the date of filing of the petition and lastly, the husband has been restrained from committing, aiding or abetting the commission of any act of domestic violence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

The wife has examined one witness besides herself in order to prove the allegations of domestic violence against the husband. She has also placed on record document Ex.PW1/A that evidenced the compromise recorded between the husband and wife before the Panchayat. On the other hand, husband examined only himself as his witness and placed on record document Ex. R-1, a legal notice issued by him to the wife.

The term “domestic violence” has wide amplitude. Verbal and emotional abuses as also the economic abuse are also the manifestations of domestic violence.

Learned Appellate Court after scanning the evidence has concluded that the dispute has existed between the parties. The statement of the parties, witness and documents placed on record have been taken into consideration. The findings returned by learned Appellate Court cannot be faulted with as learned counsel for the husband has not been able to point out any illegality, impropriety or perversity in such findings.

Admittedly, there are allegations and counter allegations of maltreatment. The husband is legally bound to maintain the wife. He is also bound to provide the wife with decent and honourable means of living. The longstanding strained relations between the husband and wife have been established on record by way of allegations and counter allegations made by the husband and wife. The husband has not been able to establish any such conduct on the part of the wife, which may disentitle her to the relief(s) under the Act.

Keeping in view the aim and object of the Act, also the status held by her, it will be inappropriate to expect strict proof of the allegations by the wife. The standard of proof required in proceedings under the Act is that of preponderance of probabilities.

It has also been established on record that the wife has been getting Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance from husband under the orders of the Court in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. That being so, the willful neglect of wife by husband is otherwise proved, which not only amounts to economic abuse but also generates of physical and emotional abuse.

In light of above discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court needs no interference. The order passed by the learned trial Court had rightly been set aside as the reason on which the petition of wife was dismissed was not sustainable. Learned trial Court had clearly ignored the fact that the parties had at one instance approached the Panchayat and on another occasion they had contested their respective claims before the Court of competent jurisdiction in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The wife had made specific allegations of maltreatment in the year 2015, immediately whereafter she had filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act.

In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to the costs.