High Court
Legal Reasoning
11341.2015WP+.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.11 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1341 OF 2015DR. ANIL SURAJMAL ZAWAR AND ORSVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND ANR...Advocate for the Petitioners : Mrs. Deshmukh Charuta Sunil APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. Patil Vijay B. ...AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2016SUNIL S/O. SURAJMAL ZAWARVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND OTHERS...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar)APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr. V.B. Patil …ANDCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1404 OF 2022 IN WP/1341/2015DR. ANIL SURAJMAL ZAWAR AND OTHERSVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND OTHERS...Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Deshmukh Charuta Sunil APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1405 OF 2022 IN WP/190/2016SUNIL S/O. SURAJMAL ZAWARVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND OTHERS...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar)APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale 21341.2015WP+.odt WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2375 OF 2016 IN WP/1341/2015DR. ANIL SURAJMAL ZAWAR AND ORSVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND ANR...Advocate for Applicant : Mrs. Deshmukh Charuta Sunil APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2376 OF 2016 IN WP/190/2016SUNIL S/O. SURAJMAL ZAWARVERSUSSMT. SNEHA SUNIL ZAWAR AND OTHERS...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar)APP for Respondent/State : Mr.S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.B. Patil ...CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.DATE :29th July, 2024. ORAL ORDER :1.The learned counsel for the applicants in Criminal ApplicationNos.1404 of 2022 and Criminal Application No.1405 of 2022 submitsthat by these applications, the applicants are seeking permission forproduction of documents and these documents are produced onrecord, hence these applications have become infructuous and can bedisposed off. 31341.2015WP+.odt2.Considering the submissions of learned counsel for theapplicants, these applications are disposed off as they have becomeinfructuous. 3.The issue involved in Writ Petition Nos. 1341 of 2015 and WritPetition No.190 of 2016 is same as in these writ petitions, thepetitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal (For short, “ LowerAppellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2014 dated 16thSeptember, 2015. By way of the impugned judgment and order, thelearned Lower Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal filed bythe petitioners and has modified the order passed by the JudicialMagistrate, First Class, Muktainagar (For short, “ trial Court”) inCriminal Misc. Application No. 29 of 2009. The trial Court by thejudgment and order granted a maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to originalpetitioner i.e. respondent no.1 and also directed the original opponentsi.e. petitioners to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as a compensation to therespondent no.1, for indulging into domestic violence. The learnedLower Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and directed theoriginal opponents i.e. petitioners to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.4.In writ petition no.1341 of 2015, the petitioner no.1 is the brother-in-law and petitioner no.2 is the sister-in-law of the respondent no.1.During pendency of the petition, petitioner nos. 3 and 4 have died. In 41341.2015WP+.odtwrit petition no.190 of 2016, the petitioner is the husband ofrespondent no.1. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners in both writ petitionssubmits that they are not disputing the maintenance amount ofRs.10,000/- per month, hence they are not pressing the issue ofmaintenance amount.6.Brief facts of the case are as under :-The respondent no.1 got married with the petitioner in criminalwrit petition no.190 of 2016 on 7th June, 1993. After marriage, sheresided in a joint family consisting of the petitioners. It is alleged thatthe petitioners harassed the respondent no.1 mentally and physicallyon different grounds. The respondent No.1 had filed an applicationseeking various reliefs under the provisions of Protection of WomenFrom Domestic Violence Act ( For short, “D.V. Act”) in the trial Court.She alleged inter alia that in the marriage her father had given 70 Tolasgold, some silver ornaments and cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- andmany other things for domestic purposes as stridhan. It is alleged thatthe petitioners used to say that the marriage was not performed uptotheir expectations and they have been deceived in the marriage. Theyused to insult respondent no.1. It is further alleged that respondentno.1 was forced to go for an abortion. In the year 1999, the petitionershad assaulted the respondent no.1 and abused her. They used tomake demand of money from her parents. It is alleged that respondent 51341.2015WP+.odtno.1 told to her parents about the ill treatment by petitioners. It isfurther alleged that when respondent no.1 was pregnant for 2nd time,the petitioners used to say that second child would be a female childand she was forced to go for an abortion. It is alleged thathusband/petitioner assaulted the respondent no.1 mercilessly due towhich her tooth was broken. In sum and substance, it is alleged thatthe petitioners would cause mental and physical harassment to therespondent no.1. 7.It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that theallegations against the petitioners are false and baseless. Thepetitioners have been acquitted from the offenses punishable undersection 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint filed by therespondent no.1. No allegations of mental harassment and physicaltorture are proved against the petitioners but these facts are notconsidered by the trial Court and Lower Appellate Court. The learnedcounsel further submitted that as per section 22 of the D.V. Act, thecompensation should be for damages of injuries. No injuries arecaused to respondent no.1 but these facts are not considered by theLower Appellate Court. The learned counsel further submitted thatthere is no proof and even doctor, who had issued certificate forloosing of the tooth, has not been examined. The trial Court and LowerAppellate Court have observed that husband of respondent no.1petitioner tried to commit suicide would amount to domestic violence, 61341.2015WP+.odtwhich is erroneous. The trial Court and Lower Appellate Court havenot given reasons on which basis the compensation amount ofRs.5,00,000/- is given. The reason for the attempt to commit suicide bythe husband of respondent no.1 was due to quarrel between thepetitioners, it can not be considered as mental harassment to therespondent no.1. The order passed by the Lower Appellate Court iserroneous, hence requested to allow the writ petitions. 8.It is contention of the learned counsel for respondent no.1 that atpresent respondent no.1 is staying with her parents. When she wasstaying with the petitioners, she was subjected to mental and physicalharassment by the petitioners. Though the petitioners have beenacquitted from the offence under section 498-A of the Indian PenalCode, it can not be a ground to deny the compensation under the D.V.Act. The Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court have considered thesefacts and on that basis the compensation is awarded, which is proper.No interference is required in it, hence requested to dismiss the writpetitions. 9.I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the judgment andorder passed by the Lower Appellate Court. 10.Admittedly all the petitioners were living together. Their family isjoint family. After marriage, the respondent no.1 was living in jointfamily. It is alleged that while she was staying there she was subjectedto domestic violence by the petitioners. To prove her case respondent 71341.2015WP+.odtno.1 has examined herself at Exhibit-31 and also examined witnessSanjivkumar Kalantri at Exhibit-52. The husband of respondent no.1has examined himself in support of his case. From the evidence ofthese witnesses it appears that when respondent no.1 was stayingwith the petitioners' family, she was subjected to mental and physicalharassment by the petitioners. Medical certificate at Exhibit-42 issuedby the Medical Officer Pachora Hospital show that the respondent no.1was treated in hospital and she had swelling and congestion lower limbalong with broken tooth. In this certificate it is mentioned that the saidinjuries caused due to assault by one of the petitioner that is husbandof the respondent no.1. All the petitioners and respondent no.1 wereliving together. 11.It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that asper section 22 of the D.V. Act compensation should be given fordamages for the injuries. The section 22 of the D.V. Act reads asunder:- “22. In addition to other reliefs as may be granted underthis Act, the Magistrate may on an application beingmade by the aggrieved person, pass an order directingthe respondent to pay compensation and damages forthe injuries, including mental torture and emotionaldistress caused by the acts of domestic violencecommitted by that respondent.” 12.This section provides damages be given to injuries including 81341.2015WP+.odtmental torture and emotional distress. In the present case, therespondent no.1 has categorically stated that she was subjected tomental and physical cruelty by the petitioners. It has come on recordthat the husband of respondent no.1 had tried to commit suicide due toquarrel with other petitioners. Though the petitioners are stating thatdue to inter-se quarrel he had tried to commit suicide but being thewife, respondent no.1 must have suffered trauma of the said incident.So it amounts to mental torture and emotional distress. I do not seemerit in the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that asper section 22 of the D.V. Act, compensation can be given to damagesfor the injuries only. In my view the expression domestic violenceincludes actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual,verbal, emotional or economic. The scar of injury can appear onhuman body but scar’s of mental torture and emotional distress remainin mind of that person and these scar’s are invisible so it can not besaid that aggrieved person is not entitled for compensation. 13.It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that theallegations under D.V. Act and under section 498-A of I.P.C. are same.The petitioners have been acquitted from the charges levelled undersection 498-A of the I.P.C. so the petitioners are not entitled to paycompensation. It appears from the record that after passing order inD.V. proceeding the petitioners have been acquitted from the chargeslevelled under section 498-A of I.P.C. In my view, section 498-A was 91341.2015WP+.odtadded in I.P.C. with a view to punish a husband and his relatives whoharass or torture the wife to satisfy unlawful demands, when a womanis subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives. The legislaturesintent is clear to enact a D.V. Act keeping in view the rights guaranteedunder Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India to provide for aremedy under the Civil law which is intended to protect the womanfrom being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrenceof domestic violence in the society. Though the petitioners have beenacquitted form the charges under section 498-A, it can not be a groundto deny the compensation to the aggrieved person under Civil law. 14.It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that thecompensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded is on a higher side. The LowerAppellate Court has observed that the petitioner – husband ofrespondent no.1 runs various agencies and financial position of thepetitioners is sound. Moreover, the trial Court has awardedRs.5,00,000/- in the year 2013 and out of the said amount, amount ofRs.50,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners. The value ofRs.5,00,000/- in the year 2013 and in year 2024 is certainly reduced.The petitioners have capacity to pay this amount. Considering abovereasons, I do not find merit in the petitions and I pass the followingorder :- ORDER(i)Both writ petitions are dismissed.
Decision
101341.2015WP+.odt(ii)The petitioners shall deposit the remaining amount ofRs.4,50,000/- in D.V. Recovery Application No.4 of 2021 pendingbefore the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktainagar within twoweeks from the receipt of this order.(iii)In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, nothing survives inCriminal Application Nos.2375 of 2016 and 2376 of 2016, the samestand disposed of. [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] sga