Smt. Sarita ......Revisionist. State of Uttarakhand and Another … v. Presence

Judgment

1. The present criminal revision has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Revisionist, Smt. Sarita, assailing the judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023 (Mohit Singh Chauhan v. Sarita).

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned appellate court allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, in Case No. 102 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the D.V. Act'), by which the Revisionist was granted monthly maintenance of ₹ 3,000 and a direction for residential accommodation.

3. The marriage between the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 22.02.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Roorkee, District Haridwar. Following the marriage,

Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 1 Ashish Naithani J. the relationship between the parties deteriorated due to alleged demands for dowry and repeated acts of cruelty perpetrated by the Respondent and his family members. The Revisionist claims that she was subjected to harassment and was ultimately forced to leave her matrimonial home on 31.12.2017.

4. Thereafter, the Revisionist instituted proceedings under two different enactments. First, she filed Case No. 11 of 2019 before the Family Court, Laksar, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby she was granted ₹ 3,000 per month as maintenance vide order dated

17.12.2021. Second, she filed Case No. 102 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, wherein the learned Magistrate by order dated 02.06.2023 directed the Respondent to pay ₹ 2,000 per month as maintenance and to provide a room with a kitchen and bathroom for the Revisionist in his present residence.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, who, by judgment dated

08.08.2023, allowed the appeal and set aside the maintenance order, holding that since the Revisionist was already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she was not entitled to any further amount under the D.V. Act. The present revision has been filed to challenge that finding.

6. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment is erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law. It was argued that the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 12 of the D.V. Act were initiated in the same year (2019) and were conducted simultaneously. Therefore, the maintenance Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 2 Ashish Naithani J. awarded under the D.V. Act cannot be treated as a duplicative relief but as a distinct and supplementary measure towards the economic security of the aggrieved woman.

7. It was further urged that the learned appellate court failed to consider the true scope and object of the D.V. Act, which is a beneficial legislation meant to protect the rights of women against domestic abuse and economic deprivation. The court below, instead of harmoniously interpreting the two statutes, has treated the relief under the D.V. Act as barred merely because of the earlier order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

8. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was held that there is no bar for a wife to seek maintenance under different enactments such as the D.V. Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., and that while deciding the quantum of maintenance, the amount awarded in a previously instituted proceeding is to be taken into account only to avoid duplication, not to deny relief altogether.

9. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellate court has also ignored the material evidence on record showing that Respondent No. 2 owns immovable property and earns approximately ₹ 50,000 per month as a medical representative. Despite this, the impugned order accepted his unsubstantiated plea of being a daily wage labourer without any fixed income. It was contended that such a finding is perverse and contrary to the record.

10. It was further contended that the Revisionist is living in dire financial hardship and is dependent upon her parents for subsistence. The sum of ₹ 3,000 awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is grossly Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 3 Ashish Naithani J. inadequate to meet her basic needs, and the additional amount of ₹ 2,000 granted under the D.V. Act was both reasonable. The appellate court’s interference with that order has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

11. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellate court has rightly avoided a situation of double maintenance. It was argued that since the Revisionist is already receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the order of the learned Magistrate was not sustainable.

12. This Court has carefully examined the material available on record and considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the Revisionist as well as by the learned Counsel appearing for the State. The central question that arises for determination is whether a woman, already granted maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be denied the benefit of monetary relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, solely on the ground of such prior award.

13. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under the D.V. Act operate in different statutory fields. The former is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy, summary remedy to wives, children, and parents unable to maintain themselves. The latter, on the other hand, is a welfare-oriented legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence in its broadest sense, including economic abuse, and to secure their right to maintenance, residence, and protection orders as part of a composite framework of reliefs. The objectives of the two enactments, though Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 4 Ashish Naithani J. related, are not identical; rather, they are complementary and co- extensive in scope.

14. In the present case, the record reveals that the Revisionist was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 31.12.2017 after persistent cruelty and dowry demands. Having no independent source of income, she instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in early 2019 and was granted ₹ 3,000 per month vide order dated

17.12.2021. Subsequently, in separate proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated

02.06.2023, directed payment of ₹ 2,000 per month and provided for residential accommodation. The simultaneous institution of both proceedings is not prohibited by law; rather, it indicates the Revisionist’s attempt to avail remedies under distinct frameworks addressing different dimensions of domestic abuse.

15. The learned appellate court, however, reversed the order of the Magistrate on the sole reasoning that the Revisionist was already receiving ₹ 3,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and therefore, the order under the D.V. Act amounted to duplication of relief. This finding proceeds on a fundamental misconception of law. The D.V. Act contains no statutory bar against a claim for maintenance by a woman who is already receiving maintenance under another law. What is required is an adjustment of amounts to prevent double benefit, not a denial of jurisdiction or relief. The appellate court, therefore, erred in treating the second proceeding as legally untenable.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, after undertaking a detailed survey of prior authorities, including Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199, and Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 5 Ashish Naithani J. Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715, has categorically held that a wife is entitled to seek maintenance under different enactments and that such claims can coexist, provided that the total amount payable is rationalized by the court. The guiding principle laid down is of coordination between the different fora, not exclusion of jurisdiction. The duty of the court is to ensure fairness by adjusting the quantum in light of any previous order, rather than extinguishing the claim itself.

17. The expression 'economic abuse' under Section 3 of the D.V. Act includes deprivation of financial resources, denial of maintenance, and restriction of access to the shared household. Therefore, the order of maintenance under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not merely compensatory but preventive, intended to secure ongoing protection against economic hardship. In that sense, it serves a purpose distinct from that of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is primarily remedial and limited in quantum. The learned Magistrate had rightly taken note of the fact that the Revisionist, living separately without adequate support, was entitled to some additional financial assistance to meet her essential needs.

18. The material placed on record also indicates Respondent is not a destitute labourer as he claimed before the appellate court. The Revisionist has produced a registered sale deed of 2015 showing ownership of a 2400 sq.ft. property in the Respondent’s name and has further asserted that he is employed as a medical representative earning approximately ₹ 50,000 per month. These averments, supported by documentary material, were not specifically rebutted by the Respondent. The finding of the appellate court that the Respondent had no fixed income and was incapable of Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 6 Ashish Naithani J. maintaining his wife is, therefore, perverse and contrary to the record.

19. It is a well-settled principle that a husband cannot shirk his legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife, and any interpretation that deprives a woman of her right to sustenance would defeat the very object of the D.V. Act. The statutory mandate is to ensure that the aggrieved woman is not left in a state of helplessness or dependency upon her natal family. Maintenance, being a facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, must be viewed not as charity but as a continuing obligation arising from the marital relationship.

20. In the present case, the Revisionist’s uncontroverted assertion that she survives only on ₹ 3,000 per month, which is insufficient even to meet her basic living expenses, coupled with the Respondent’s financial capacity, makes the Magistrate’s award of ₹ 2,000 under the D.V. Act just and proportionate. The appellate court’s reversal of that finding amounts to a mechanical exercise devoid of sensitivity to the remedial intent of the legislation.

21. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the judgment dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, is legally unsustainable. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 02.06.2023, is reasoned, balanced, and based on correct appreciation of law and facts. The impugned order is accordingly liable to be set aside and the Magistrate’s order restored. ORDER Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 7 Ashish Naithani J. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds merit in the present revision; hence, it is allowed. The judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2023 (Mohit Singh Chauhan v. Sarita) are set aside. The order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, in Case No. 102 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is modified to the following extent. The monthly maintenance payable to the Revisionist under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is enhanced from ₹ 2,000 to ₹ 10,000, considering the Respondent’s income, living standard, and the increased cost of living. The enhanced amount shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Dated:06.10.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Revision No.118 of 2024,Smt. Sarita Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr- 8 Ashish Naithani J.