Mayangkhut Wagar @ Kala vs Sajina Shahani

MV Muralidaran, J

This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East dated 30.11.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2017 preferred against the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East in Criminal (DV) Case No.6 of 2015, which is a proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the said Act").

The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife.

The revision petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East against the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, wherein and whereby, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent on or before 10th of every English calendar month and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation within a period of three months from the date of the said order. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East while confirming the maintenance amount, modified the compensation to the effect that the revision petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in four instalments of Rs.25,000/- each on four successive months and the first instalment was directed to be paid within 15 days of the receipt of copy of the order. Assailing the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

Succinctly stated, the respondent had filed a petition under Section 12 of the said Act for various reliefs. Her case was, after one year of living together at the matrimonial home, the revision petitioner started neglecting her and threatened to give divorce and asked her to return to her parental home under the influence of alcohol and other intoxicated things. According to the respondent, the revision petitioner harassed her in various forms mentally and physically. In fact during the month of May, 2014, the revision petitioner and others started fierce arguments about her pregnancy and forced her to abort, which has no basis and thereafter, abused her by using filthy language, dragged her inside the room, kicked on the thigh and forced her to lie on the bed after physical assault and tried to do unwarranted acts which the revision petitioner ought not do and to the objection made he slapped on her face and head, for no reason. Consequent to this, the respondent ran out of the room to the neighbour's house for saving her and finally, decided to leave the matrimonial home for her parental home to save her life and started living at her parental home from the month of May 2014.

According to the respondent, later on she went to the clinic and incurred expenditure of Rs.20,000/- towards medicines and treatment. The cruel and unreasonable acts to which she was subjected to, including the mental agony and harassment in the hands of the revision petitioner, made the respondent emotional, and the revision petitioner never sought apology. The respondent has no other source of income of her own and without financial support from the husband, it would be impossible for her to survive and support her body and soul together, whereas the revision petitioner is a Mason and by doing the said work he is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and as such, he is having means to maintain the respondent. Hence, the respondent sought maintenance as well as compensation.

The revision petitioner contested the petition, denied the petition allegations and contended that there had been no verbal physical, mental, emotional and economic violence inflicted upon her by the revision petitioner and others as alleged and the respondent left her matrimonial home without any valid reason and on her own accord. It is stated that there was no reason whatsoever for treating the respondent cruelly by the revision petitioner and he was not informed about the alleged illness and medical treatments of the respondent. The revision petitioner denied that he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month and in fact, the revision petitioner had no fixed income and he earns about Rs.4,000/- per month whenever he gets some work. The revision petitioner averred that he has no objection to the respondent joining the petitioner and living with him.

The parties entered into trial. On the side of the respondent, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and on the side of the revision petitioner, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined.

Upon consideration of the matter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered maintenance in favour of the respondent at Rs.1000/- per month and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation.

In an appeal by the revision petitioner, the lower appellate Court i.e., the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East, modified the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Considering the financial status of the revision petitioner, the lower appellate Court reduced the compensation amount to Rs.1,00,000/- payable with four instalments at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month.

Assailing the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order of the lower appellate Court is without any basis and also without considering the evidence on record. In fact, the lower appellate Court had not properly applied its mind while awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. The learned counsel would submit that the compensation fixed by the lower appellate Court is excessive and not tenable in the eye of law, as the same was not proportionate with the income of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner has no means to pay the maintenance amount as well as the compensation amount as he is earning Rs.300/- per day by doing Mason work, that too when engaged by somebody.

On the other hand, reiterating the findings of the lower appellate Court as well the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that being satisfied with the financial status of the revision petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered maintenance of Rs.1,000/-, which was not disturbed by the lower appellate Court. However, the lower appellate Court, modified the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. Though the respondent is aggrieved by the said reduction, she has not preferred any revision/appeal and requested this Court to confirm the order of the lower appellate Court.

The factual aspects like relationship between the parties; staying of the respondent at her parental home and also avocation of the revision petitioner, are all admitted.

It is settled that even though the husband and wife are not residing under a common roof at the time of filing the petition, the wife is entitled to invoke her remedy under Section 12 of the said Act.

In the instant case, after analysing the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate arrived at a finding that the respondent was subjected for mental abuse and emotional abuse by the revision petitioner and she, being the aggrieved person, is entitled to monetary relief under Section 20 of the said Act and the compensation under Section 22 of the said Act. Considering the oral evidence of the revision petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner is a daily wage earner doing Mason work and getting Rs.300/- per day. Observing that the revision petitioner is bound to maintain his wife (respondent) and the revision petitioner, being a healthy person, is presumed to be capable of earning and maintaining the respondent, ordered payment of Rs.1,000/- towards maintenance.

Though before the lower appellate Court, the revision petitioner contended that his earning is not regular and that he does not get his earnings if he does not get work and also stated that he is maintaining his old aged parents, nothing has been produced to substantiate his plea. Considering the facts in conjunction with the order impugned before it, the learned lower appellate Court confirmed the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- ordered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In my considered view, though the revision petitioner earns a meagre amount, he is bound to maintain the respondent and, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Courts below in ordering monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent on or before 10th day of every English Calendar month.

As far as compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is concerned, considering the fact that the revision petitioner as Mason will have a hard time saving up for his personal/social upliftment, that too to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, the lower appellate Court, modified the said sum to Rs.1,00,000/- payable in four monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. The aforesaid findings of the lower appellate Court appear to be reasonable inasmuch as the respondent is a married woman and during her stay at her matrimonial home, she has been subjected to physical and mental abuse by the revision petitioner and as such, being an aggrieved person, she is entitled to get compensation from the revision petitioner as per the said Act.

It is reiterated that the lower appellate Court passed the order modifying the amount to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation after considering the capability of the revision petitioner and the mental torture physical torture suffered by the respondent. More over, as per Section 22 of the said Act, the lower appellate Court awarded a reasonable compensation and in my considered view, the same does not warrant any interference in the present revision petition and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the only leverage that could be granted to the revision petitioner by this Court in this revision is to direct him to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed by the lower appellate Court in ten monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

In the result,

(a) The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

(b) The order dated 30.11.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East, is confirmed.

(c) The revision petitioner is directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the respondent on or before 10th day of every English calendar month, as ordered by the Courts below.

(d) The revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal East in ten monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,000/-per month to the respondent.

(e) The first instalment to be commenced from the month of June 2019 payable on or before 5th day of every English calendar month.