Rejection Of Maintenance U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. Does Not Preclude Claim Under Domestic Violence Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reiterates
|The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the findings given in the order of the Family Court regarding the non-existence of sufficient cause for the wife to live separately from her husband under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are not relevant to the proceedings related to the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
The Court emphasized that judgments and decisions made in cases related to the DV Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. do not have a binding effect on each other.
In this criminal revision case, the petitioners (husband and his parents) had filed a petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. The order in question upheld the decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, which allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 23 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, directing the petitioner No. 1 husband to pay Rs.5,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent wife.
A Bench of Justice Prem Narayan Singh held, “it is clear that the findings, given in the order of the Family Court regarding non-existence of sufficient cause for living separately from husband, is not relevant to the cases related to the D.V. Act. Therefore, the finding adjudicated by the learned Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has no relevancy nor binding effect on the case pertains to D.V. Act between both parties”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another, 2021 (2) SCC 324, and held, “it is crystal clear that Hon'ble the Apex Court has in very categorical terms, ordered that maintenance application decided under one statute would not foreclose the claim for maintenance under a different statute. Hon'ble Apex Court has also gone to the extent that even in a case if maintenance is awarded under one of the statutes that by itself would not preclude the claimant from raising another claim application under a different statute claiming maintenance.”
Advocate Vinay Puranik appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Devendra Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The Court observed that the judgments and decisions made in cases related to the DV Act and Section 125 of Cr.P.C. do not have a binding effect on each other. The Court referred to Section 43 of the Evidence Act, stating that judgments, orders, or decrees, other than those mentioned in specific sections, are irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or relevant under some other provision of the Act. The Court emphasized that findings in a maintenance application under one statute do not preclude a claim for maintenance under another statute.
Based on these legal principles, the Court held that the findings of the Family Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. were not relevant to the case under the DV Act. The Court added, “In light of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that 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 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. When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of the legal position stated above, it emerges that the petition of revision seeking dismissal of the impugned order under the D.V. Act passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is devoid of merits.”
Therefore, the Court concluded that the revision petition filed by the petitioner lacked merit, and accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Bhupendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. v. Ranjeeta Rajawat
Click here to read/download Judgment