{"id":174333,"date":"2021-06-08T19:04:44","date_gmt":"2021-06-08T13:34:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=174333"},"modified":"2021-06-08T21:24:42","modified_gmt":"2021-06-08T15:54:42","slug":"delhi-high-court-dismisses-petition-challenging-trial-court-order-in-dv-act-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/delhi-high-court-dismisses-petition-challenging-trial-court-order-in-dv-act-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court dismisses petition challenging trial court order in DV Act case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong> on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the order passed by a Trial Court on the ground that the case before it is only at an interim stage and does not require interference with the direction of the Trial Court. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Subramonium Prasad noted: “It cannot be said that the order of the courts below warrants interference of this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Since the case is only at an interim stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the direction of the courts below awarding interim maintenance to the respondent herein towards the maintenance of the child and also towards the rent\/ accommodation,” remarked the Bench.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner and respondent entered into a marriage agreement in 2014 after the respondent obtained a divorce from her earlier spouse. The respondent had a son aged 13 years from her previous marriage. The petitioner informed the respondent that he was already married and that his wife was on dialysis and would not survive long, and therefore, he is looking for a life partner. The petitioner arranged a rental accommodation, wherein both the petitioner and the respondent were living as husband and wife. Furthermore, the school records of the child and the bank accounts of the respondent show the petitioner as the father of the child and as the nominee respectively. In 2020, differences arose between the parties, and the respondent was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the petitioner, following which she lodged an FIR against the petitioner. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thereafter, she filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, praying for an order restraining the petitioner from evicting her from the rented accommodation and also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. The petitioner prayed for dismissal of the application filed by the respondent on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to any relief under the DV Act as she is not an aggrieved person. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated\u00a017.08.2020, restrained the petitioner\u00a0from dispossessing the respondent\u00a0from the rented\u00a0property, and rejected the plea of the petitioner\u00a0for\u00a0dismissal\u00a0of the\u00a0case on the ground that\u00a0the question as to whether the respondent\u00a0was an aggrieved person or not and whether she was in a domestic relationship with the petitioner or not could be decided at that\u00a0stage without leading evidence. The Ld. Magistrate vide\u00a0order dated 26.10.2020, further directed the petitioner to pay ad-interim maintenance of Rs 10,000 per month\u00a0to the respondent towards the maintenance of the child and payment of rent. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the impugned orders. The Ld. Additional Sessions Judge upheld the orders passed by the Ld. Magistrate. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals against the orders before the Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The counsel for the petitioner contended that an application under Section 12 of the DV Act can be filed only by an aggrieved person and the respondent is not an aggrieved person in as much as the petitioner and the respondent had never been in a domestic relationship which is the sine qua non for maintaining an application under the DV Act. He further contended that till the issue of maintainability was decided, Ld. Magistrate ought not to have passed any orders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the parties\u00a0resided together for six years before the disputes arose between them in 2020;\u00a0it was not as if the petitioner was a casual visitor to the house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read Also:\u00a0Asaram doesn\u2019t have any specific health problem of immediate attention, says Rajasthan affidavit in Supreme Court<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench observed that \u201cthe couple has held themselves out in the society as being akin to spouses which fact is evident from the marriage-cum-agreement deed, affidavits, the school records of the child and the bank statements of the respondent.\u201d It further observed that the question as to whether the respondent is entitled to any protection under the DV Act can be determined only after the evidence is led.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pointing the narrow scope of the Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Court directed the Trial Court to hear the matter and decide the matter finally within a period of one year.<\/p>\n\n\nSMP07062021CRLMM4202021-130929<\/a>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Single Judge Bench led by Justice Subramonium Prasad noted: \u201cIt cannot be said that the order of the courts below warrants interference of this Court by exercising its revisional jurisdiction.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":129147,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,58578],"tags":[1377,105601,92384,4444],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2020\/12\/09125246\/Delhi-High-Court-JNU-Student-min.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174333"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174333\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129147"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}