Rejection Of Wife's Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC Doesn't Bar Her From Seeking Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently laid down in unequivocal terms that the findings of a family court made in a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC would have no binding effect on a court considering a case under the Prevention of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Additionally, the single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also reiterated that the...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently laid down in unequivocal terms that the findings of a family court made in a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC would have no binding effect on a court considering a case under the Prevention of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Additionally, the single-judge bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh also reiterated that the maintenance application decided under one statute would not foreclose the claim for maintenance under a different statute.
“…if, in proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the application of wife seeking maintenance is rejected by the Family Court, such wife would not be precluded from claiming maintenance or other monetary remedy under the 12 provisions of the D.V. Act. The reasons assigned by the learned Family Court in rejecting the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. have no relevancy to the cases pending before the Courts dealing with the D.V. Act”, the bench sitting at Indore noted while dismissing the revision petition filed by the husband and his family against the interim maintenance of Rs 5,000/- awarded under a Section 23 application made under Domestic Violence Act.
In the case at hand, the court opined that the findings rendered by the family court about the non-existence of sufficient cause for living separately from the husband will have no bearing on applications filed in a case under the Domestic Violence Act. While holding that a decision taken under S.125 CrPC, which is a summary procedure, will not foreclose a remedy available in the Domestic Violence Act, the court also placed its reliance on Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SC 452. Later, the court also distinguished the case of Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1972 AIR (SC) 1502 as given below:
“Virtually, it (Bhagat Ram) was a criminal case which pertained to a criminal trial, wherein it is held that if an accused was acquitted or convicted in an earlier trial, he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence. However, since the proceeding of instant case related to maintenance in D.V. Act, it cannot be influenced by the findings of any other Court, which has been given in a finding applying summary procedure...”
The High Court also distinguished the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in Gyan Chand v. Smt. Rekha (2010) which was heavily relied upon by the revision petitioners. In Gyan Singh, the findings given in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act were held to be of relevance subsequently in the proceedings before the Family Court. Justice Prem Narayan Singh pointed out that the position in the current case is a reversal of the case in Gyan Singh since the petitioner has now urged the court to apply the findings of the family court to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. The court further underscored that the same cannot be done since the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are of summary nature.
Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha & Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324, the court also inferred that even if a court were to pass a maintenance award under one of the statutes that by itself would not preclude the claimant from raising another claim application under a different statute claiming maintenance.
Background
Earlier, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Indore had allowed an application filed by the wife under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act and directed the husband to pay Rs 5000/- as interim maintenance. The same direction was confirmed by the appellate court as well which was challenged by this revision petition. While assailing the said orders, the revision petitioners contended that the erstwhile application filed by the wife under Section 125 CrPC was dismissed by the family court. While dismissing the said application for maintenance, the family court had allegedly rendered a finding that the petitioners never prevented the wife from returning back to her marital house and she was living separately from the husband based on her own discretion. According to the petitioners, the maintenance application was dismissed on the ground that it was the respondent wife who did not wish to live with the petitioner husband. As per the petitioners, this finding of the family court could not have been re-adjudicated by the court exercising powers under the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. v. Ranjeeta Rajawat
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 527 of 2022