On Wednesday, Supreme Court division bench compressing of Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta ,have in the judgment of the case – Ajay Kumar v. Lata alias Sharuti , delivered the judgment. Section 12(1) provides that an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. Under the provisions of section 20(1), the magistrate while deali8ng with an application under sub-section (1) of section 12 is empowered to direct the respondent(s) to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. accordance with the proviso to the section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, indicates that both, an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner, as the case may be.
The first respondent was married to Vijay Kumar Jindal on December 12, 2010. They have two children. The first respondent filed a petition under section 12 of the Act for the purpose of seeking an award of maintenance. The complaint contains a recital of the fact that after her marriage, the complainant and her spouse resided at a house which constitutes ancestral Hindu Joint Family Property.She and her husband resided on the ground floor of the residential accommodation. The appellant and the deceased spouse of the first respondent jointly carried on a business of a Kirana Store at Panipat from which , it has been alleged, each had an income of about Rs 30,000/- per month. It has been alleged in the complaint that at the time of Vijay Kumar’s death, the first respondent was pregnant and that she gave birth to a child on January 31, 2013. The problems of the first respondent allegedly commenced after the death of her spouse and she was not permitted to reside in her matrimonial home.
What are the Evidences Needed in Prosecuting Domestic Violence Cases
On July 3, 2015, the Trial Judge by an order granted monthly maintenance of Rs 4,000 to the first respondent and Rs 2,000 to the second respondent-child. The award of maintenance was directed against the appellant, who was carrying on the business together with the deceased spouse of the first respondent. This order of the JMFC, Panipat was confirmed by the Addl Sessions Judge, Panipat on August 14, 2018.The HC , in a petition filed by the appellant, affirmed the view. This order brought all the parties before the Supreme Court.
The Court has noted that “at this stage” there was material for the purpose of an interim order for maintenance, which justifies the issuance of a direction in regard to the payment of maintenance. However, the Court clarified that the present order, as well as orders which have been passed by the courts below, shall not come in the way of final adjudication on the merits of complaint in accordance with the law.
