Supreme Court has held that passing of an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 does not prohibit the wife from pursuing effective reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Abuse Act 2005.
A bench of Justice Chandrachud and Justice Banerjee has passed the order in the case titled as NIKHIL DANANI vs TANYA BANON DANANI on 22.07.2019.
Having heard Ms Geeta Luthra, a learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Ms Vibha Datta Makhija, a learned senior counsel for the respondent, the Supreme Court notes that the High Court of Delhi was justified in concluding that the mere passing of an order under Section 125 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure did not prevent the respondent from pursuing effective action.
The Supreme Court then upheld the judgement under appeal as “We therefore refuse to consider the special leave petition pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the special leave petition is refused.
However, it clarified that “we just clarify that any findings made by the High Court on the merits of the respondent ‘s argument under Section 23 shall not give rise to a view taken by the competent court on the merits of the matter.
As of June 2014, the parties were married in one of the cases handled by the Delhi High Court. The respondent had fled her husband’s house because she had been tortured physically and psychologically. There was no reconciliation between them thereafter, and they lived separately.
A petition under Section 125 CrPC was lodged by the wife, which granted her interim maintenance from the date of the petition. She then filed another petition under the Domestic Violence Act, which was denied on the ground that, under section 125 CrPC, maintenance of Rs 1,20,000/- per month had already been granted to her. By the court of the family.
On the issue that maintenance has already been given to the wife and may not be doubled by filing a petition in the petition for a Domestic Abuse Act, the High Court noted:
The scope of Section 20 of the DV Act is far narrower than the scope of Section 125 Cr. P.C Although 125 of Section Cr. P.C. Section 20 of the DV Act provides for the provision of monetary relief to cover costs incurred and damages sustained as a result of domestic abuse, including, but not limited to, loss of wages, medical expenses , losses caused by destruction, harm or removal of any property from the possession of the aggrieved person.
Pursuant to section 125 Cr. P.C., the petitioner’s appeal. It is guided to be listed on 08.03.2018 before the Trial Court for directions concerned. Furthermore, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the application.
The High Court also noted the following with respect to the application of both statutes:
Furthermore, it can be seen that prosecutions are separate from each other under the DV Act and under section 125 Cr. P.C and have different scope, although there is an overlap.
In so far as the overlap is concerned, the eventuality has been resolved by law and provided that maintenance fixed in accordance with section 125 Cr. P.C shall be taken into account at the time of consideration of an application for the grant of maintenance under the DV Act.
Reported By: Sanchita Singh