1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30-4-2013 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Cr.A. No. 268/2012 by which order dated 30-7-2012 passed by J.M.F.C., Bhind, in M.Cr.C. No. 10/2012 has been set-aside and the application filed by respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has been allowed.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present application in short are that an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent against the applicants and her father-inlaw. Her case was that She is married to the applicant no. 2 and at the time of marriage, her father had given dowry as per his financial capacity. However, immediately after marriage, her-in-laws started harassing and treating her with cruelty for want of dowry. They started demanding Rs. 3000 per month to meet the expenses, as the husband of the respondent was not earning. For some time, her father gave Rs. 2000 per month but the demand of her-in-laws increased day by day and her mother-in-law and the husband used to beat her by fists and blows after locking her in a room. They started demanding Rs. 200000 for procuring service for applicant no.2 and when the respondent clarified that her father is not in a position to fulfill his demand, then he started saying that he would leave the respondent only when her younger sister is married to him. On 20-5-2010, the applicant no.2 under the influence of liquor badly assaulted the respondent and She was turned out of her matrimonial house. Therefore, an application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ''The Act, 2005'') was filed and apart from other reliefs, maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6000 per month was prayed.
3. The Magistrate, by order dated 30-7-2012 dismissed the application filed by the respondent.
4. Being aggrieved by order dated 30-7-2012, the respondent filed a Criminal Appeal. The Appellate Court by order dated 30-4-2013 set aside the order of the Magistrate and allowed the application filed under Section 12 of The Act, 2005. Apart from other reliefs, the Appellate Court directed for grant of Rs. 2,000 per month for the respondent and Rs. 1,000 per month each to both of her sons by way of monetary relief under Section 20 of The Act, 2005. A further lump sum of Rs. 15,000 was also granted. Hence, this application :
5. The Counsel for the applicants has confined his arguments only with regard to the monetary relief which has been granted in favor of the respondent. It is submitted by the applicants that initially, the application under Section 12 of The Act, 2005 was filed against the applicants and Shri Nathu Singh (Father-in-law). However, Nathu Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and his name was not deleted therefore, the impugned order is bad as it has been passed against a dead person. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 is the Elder Brother-in-Law (tsB) of the respondent therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to her. It is the duty of the husband of the respondent to pay maintenance and therefore, the order of monthly maintenance is liable to be set aside against the applicant no.1.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that as Elder Brother-in-Law (tsB) is also included in the definition of Respondent, therefore, he is also liable to pay monetary relief.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the applicants, it would be apposite to refer to the definition of "Respondent" as provided under The Act, 2005 which reads as under :
"2(q) "respondent" means any adult male
person who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person and
again whom the aggrieved person has
sought any relief under this Act."
9. It is not out of place to mention here that the
Supreme Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora v.
Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC
165 has held as under :
"24. When we come to Section 20, it is clear
that a Magistrate may direct the respondent
to pay monetary relief to the aggrieved
person, of various kinds, mentioned in the
Section. If the respondent is only to be an
"adult male person", and the money payable
has to be as a result of domestic violence,
compensation due from a daughter-in-law
to a mother-in-law for domestic violence
inflicted would not be available, whereas in
a converse case, the daughter-in-law, being
a wife, would be covered by the proviso to
Section 2(q) and would consequently be
entitled to monetary relief against her
husband and his female relatives, which
includes the mother-in-law.
* * * * * * *
45. Interestingly the Protection from
Domestic Violence Bill, 2002 was first
introduced in the Lok Sabha in 2002. This
Bill contained the definition of "aggrieved
person", "relative", and "respondent" as
follows:
"2. Definitions.?In this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires?
(a) "aggrieved person" means any
woman who is or has been a relative of the
respondent and who alleges to have been
subjected to act of domestic violence by the
respondent;
* * * * * *
(i) "relative" includes any person related
by blood, marriage or adoption and living
with the respondent;
(j) "respondent" means any person who is
or has been a relative of the aggrieved
person and against whom the aggrieved
person has sought monetary relief or has
made an application for protection order to
the Magistrate or to the Protection Officer,
as the case may be; and"
46. We were given to understand that the
aforesaid Bill lapsed, after which the present
Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 22-
8-2005, and was then passed by both
Houses. It is interesting to note that the
earlier 2002 Bill defined "respondent" as
meaning "any person who is?." without the
addition of the words "adult male", being in
consonance with the object sought to be
achieved by the Bill, which was pari materia
with the object sought to be achieved by
the present Act. We also find that, in
another Act which seeks to protect women
in another sphere, namely, the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013, "respondent" is defined in Section
2(m) thereof as meaning a person against
whom the aggrieved woman has made a
complaint under Section 9. Here again it will
be noticed that the prefix "adult male" is
conspicuous by its absence. The 2002 Bill
and the 2013 Act are in tune with the object
sought to be achieved by statutes which are
meant to protect women in various spheres
of life. We have adverted to the aforesaid
legislation only to show that Parliament
itself has thought it reasonable to widen the
scope of the expression "respondent" in the
2013 Act so as to be in tune with the object
sought to be achieved by such legislations.
47. Having struck down a portion of Section
2(q) on the ground that it is violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, we do
not think it is necessary to go into the case
law cited by both sides on literal versus
purposive construction, construction of
penal statutes, and the correct construction
of a proviso to a section. None of this
becomes necessary in view of our finding
above.
* * * * * * *
50. We, therefore, set aside the impugned
judgment of the Bombay High Court and
declare that the words "adult male" in
Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand
deleted since these words do not square
with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q),
being rendered otiose, also stands deleted."
10. Thus, it is clear that now the definition of
"respondent" is to be read in accordance with law
laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Hiral P.
Harsora (Supra).
11. As the applicant no.1 is the Elder brother-inlaw of the respondent therefore, undisputedly he is covered by the word "respondent" as defined under Section 2(q) of The Act, 2005.
12. By referring to Section 20 of The Act, 2005, it was submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the direction for payment of monetary relief cannot be issued against any other "respondent" except the husband. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that since, the duty to maintain wife is the personal obligation of the husband, therefore, any other person cannot be held liable. In support of his contention, he relied upon the provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
13. In order to appreciate the submission made by the Counsel for the applicants, it would be necessary to refer Section 20 of The Act, 2005 which reads as under :
"20. Monetary reliefs.?(1) While
disposing of an application under subsection
(1) of Section 12, the Magistrate
may direct the respondent 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 the domestic violence and such relief may
include, but not limited to,?
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction,
damage or removal of any property from
the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved
person as well as her children, if any,
including an order under or in addition to an
order of maintenance under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in
force.
(2) The monetary relief granted under this
section shall be adequate, fair and
reasonable and consistent with the standard
of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to
order an appropriate lump sum payment or
monthly payments of maintenance, as the
nature and circumstances of the case may
require.
(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the
order for monetary relief made under sub
section (1) to the parties to the application
and to the in charge of the police station
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the respondent resides.
(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary
relief granted to the aggrieved person
within the period specified in the order
under sub-section (1).
(6) Upon the failure on the part of the
respondent to make payment in terms of
the order under sub-section (1), the
Magistrate may direct the employer or a
debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to
the aggrieved person or to deposit with the
court a portion of the wages or salaries or
debt due to or accrued to the credit of the
respondent, which amount may be adjusted
towards the monetary relief payable by the
respondent."
14. By referring to Section 20(1)(d) of The Act,
2005, the Counsel for the applicants submitted that
as the monetary relief is not limited to the
maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her
children, if any, including an order under or in
addition to an order of maintenance under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in
force, therefore, Section 20(1)(d) of The Act, 2005
should be construed to mean that only the husband
is liable to pay maintenance in the form of monetary
relief and none else. It is further submitted that as
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., or under Section 24 of
Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 18 of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, only the husband is
under obligation to pay maintenance to his wife,
therefore, except husband, no other person should
be held liable to pay monetary relief in the form of
maintenance. Thus, in other words, it is the
contention of the Counsel for the applicants that for
the purposes of monetary relief on monthly basis,
the definition of word "respondent" should be
made confined to "Husband" only and not to any
other relative.
15. All though the submission made by the Counsel for the applicants appeared to be attractive but on deeper scrutiny of the provisions of law, the same is found to be misconceived and hence, rejected.
16. To find out that whether the duty of maintain wife is the personal obligation of the husband or not, it would be necessary to consider the various provisions of Law. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
"125. Order for maintenance of wives,
children and parents.? (1) If any person
having sufficient means neglects or refuses
to maintain?
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
whether married or not, unable to maintain
itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not
being a married daughter) who has attained
majority, where such child is, by reason of
any physical or mental abnormality or injury
unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain
himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon
proof of such neglect or refusal, order such
person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father
or mother, at such monthly rate 1[* * *], as
such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may
from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the
father of a minor female child referred to in
clause (b) to make such allowance, until she
attains her majority, if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the husband of such minor
female child, if married, is not possessed of
sufficient means:
2[Provided further that the Magistrate may,
during the pendency of the proceeding
regarding monthly allowance for the
maintenance under this sub-section, order
such person to make a monthly allowance
for the interim maintenance of his wife or
such child, father or mother, and the
expenses of such proceeding which the
Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay
the same to such person as the Magistrate
may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the
montly allowance for the interim
maintenance and expenses for proceeding
under the second proviso shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days
from the date of the service of notice of the
application such person.]
Explanation.?For the purposes of this
Chapter,?
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the
provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875
(9 of 1875), is deemed not to have attained
his majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been
divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from,
her husband and has not remarried.
3[(2) Any such allowance for the
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses for proceeding shall be payable
from the date of the order, or, of so ordered,
from the date of the application for
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may
be.]
(3) If any person so ordered fails without
sufficient cause to comply with the order,
any such Magistrate may, for every breach
of the order, issue a warrant for levying the
amount due in the manner provided for
levying fines, and may sentence such
person, for the whole or any part of each
month?s allowance 4[for the maintenance or
the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be,] remaining
unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one month or until payment if sooner
made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for
the recovery of any amount due under this
section unless application be made to the
Court to levy such amount within a period
of one year from the date on which it
became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to
maintain his wife on condition of her living
with him, and she refuses to live with him,
such Magistrate may consider any grounds
of refusal stated by her, and may make an
order under this section notwithstanding
such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just
ground for so doing.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour
an order has been made under this section
is living in adultery, or that without
sufficient reason she refuses to live with her
husband, or that they are living separately
by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall
cancel the order."
Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act reads as
under :
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and
expenses of proceedings.? Where in any
proceedings under this Act it appears to the
court that either the wife or the husband, as
the case may be, has no independent
income sufficient for her or his support and
the necessary expenses of the proceeding,
it may, on the application of the wife or the
husband, order the respondent to pay to the
petitioner the expenses of the proceeding,
and monthly during the proceeding such
sum as, having regard to the petitioner?s
own income and the income of the
respondent, it may seem to the court to be
reasonable:
Provided that the application for the
payment of the expenses of the proceeding
and such monthly sum during the
proceeding shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the wife or the
husband, as the case may be."
Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act reads as under :
"18. Maintenance of wife.?(1) Subject to
the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife,
whether married before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be entitled
to be maintained by her husband during her
lifetime.
(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live
separately from her husband without
forfeiting her claim to maintenance,?
(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say,
of abandoning her without reasonable cause
and without her consent or against her
wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;
(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty
as to cause a reasonable apprehension in
her mind that it will be harmful or injurious
to live with her husband;
(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of
leprosy;
(d) if he has any other wife living;
(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same
house in which his wife is living or habitually
resides with a concubine elsewhere;
(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by
conversion to another religion;
(g) if there is any other cause justifying her
living separately.
(3) A Hindu wife shall not be entitled to
separate residence and maintenance from
her husband if she is unchaste or ceases to
be a Hindu by conversion to another
religion."
17. Thus, it is clear that in all the above mentioned
Statutes, only the "Husband" has been made liable
to maintain his wife. Thus, it can be said that the
duty to maintain wife is the personal obligation of
"Husband". However, it is also clear that the word
"Husband" has not been used in The Act, 2005 and
in fact the word "respondent" has been used.
Therefore, in absence of use of word "Husband" it
would not be possible to restrict the meaning of
"respondent" as "Husband" for the purposes of
making payment of maintenance.
18. It is a well established principle of law that an expression used in a Statute must have the same meaning as is assigned to it. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 348 has held as under :
"A particular expression is often defined by
the Legislature by using the word ?means? or
the word ?includes?. Sometimes the words
?means and includes? are used. The use of
the word ?means? indicates that "definition is
a hard-and-fast definition, and no other
meaning can be assigned to the expression
than is put down in definition". (See :
Gough v. Gough; Punjab Land Development
and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court.) The word ?includes?
when used, enlarges the meaning of the
expression defined so as to comprehend not
only such things as they signify according to
their natural import but also those things
which the clause declares that they shall
include. The words "means and includes",
on the other hand, indicate "an exhaustive
explanation of the meaning which, for the
purposes of the Act, must invariably be
attached to these words or expressions".
(See : Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps
(Lord Watson); Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v.
State of A.P."
19. In case of K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu
Ammal, (1997) 2 SCC 53, the Supreme Court has
held as under :
"10. Apparently, it appears that the
definition is conclusive as the word "means"
has been used to specify the members,
namely, spouse, son, daughter, grandchild
or dependant parent, who would constitute
the family. Section 2 of the Act in which
various terms have been defined, opens
with the words "in this Act, unless the
context otherwise requires" which indicates
that the definitions, as for example, that of
"family", which are indicated to be
conclusive may not be treated to be
conclusive if it was otherwise required by
the context. This implies that a definition,
like any other word in a statute, has to be
read in the light of the context and scheme
of the Act as also the object for which the
Act was made by the legislature.
11. While interpreting a definition, it has to
be borne in mind that the interpretation
placed on it should not only be not
repugnant to the context, it should also be
such as would aid the achievement of the
purpose which is sought to be served by the
Act. A construction which would defeat or
was likely to defeat the purpose of the Act
has to be ignored and not accepted.
12. Where the definition or expression, as in
the instant case, is preceded by the words
"unless the context otherwise requires", the
said definition set out in the section is to be
applied and given effect to but this rule,
which is the normal rule may be departed
from if there be something in the context to
show that the definition could not be
applied.
13. This Court in K. Balakrishna Rao v. Haji
Abdulla Sait2 while considering the
definition clause of this Act which is under
our consideration, held: (SCC p. 337, para
24)
"A definition clause does not necessarily in
any statute apply in all possible contexts in
which the word which is defined may be
found therein. The opening clause of
Section 2 of the principal Act itself suggests
that any expression defined in that section
should be given the meaning assigned to it
therein unless the context otherwise
requires."
20. Section 2 of The Act, 2005 starts with the
words "In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires", therefore, it means that the expression
defined in Section 2(q) should be given the meaning
assigned to it therein unless the context otherwise
requires.
21. Now if the provision of Section 20(1)(d) of The Act, 2005 is read, then it would mean, that the intention of the Legislature was not to make the provision of Monetary Relief, limited to the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force.
22. Therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The statement of Objects and Reasons read as under :
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
"1. Domestic violence is undoubtedly a
human rights issue and serious deterrent to
development. The Vienna Accord of 1994
and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform
for Action (1995) have acknowledged this.
The United Nations Committee on
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in
its General Recommendation No. XII (1989)
has recommended that State parties should
act to protect women against violence of
any kind especially that occurring within the
family.
2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is
widely prevalent but has remained largely
invisible in the public domain. Presently,
where a woman is subjected to cruelty by
her husband or his relatives, it is an offence
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code. The civil law does not however
address this phenomenon in its entirety.
3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law
keeping in view the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to
provide for a remedy under the civil law
which is intended to protect the women
from being victims of domestic violence and
to prevent the occurrence of domestic
violence in the society.
4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for
the following?
(i) It covers those women who are or have
been in a relationship with the abuser where
both parties have lived together in a shared
household and are related by consanguinity,
marriage or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage or adoption. In addition,
relationships with family members living
together as a joint family are also included.
Even those women who are sisters, widows,
mothers, single women, or living with the
abuser are entitled to legal protection under
the proposed legislation. However, whereas
the Bill enables the wife or the female living
in a relationship in the nature of marriage to
file a complaint under the proposed
enactment against any relative of the
husband or the male partner, it does not
enable any female relative of the husband
or the male partner to file a complaint
against the wife or the female partner.
(ii) It defines the expression "domestic
violence" to include actual abuse or threat
or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal,
emotional or economic. Harassment by way
of unlawful dowry demands to the woman
or her relatives would also be covered under
this definition.
(iii) It provides for the rights of women to
secure housing. It also provides for the right
of a woman to reside in her matrimonial
home or shared household, whether or not
she has any title or rights in such home or
household. This right is secured by a
residence order, which is passed by the
Magistrate.
(iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass
protection orders in favour of the aggrieved
person to prevent the respondent from
aiding or committing an act of domestic
violence or any other specified act, entering
a workplace or any other place frequented
by the aggrieved person, attempting to
communicate with her, isolating any assets
used by both the parties and causing
violence to the aggrieved person, her
relatives or others who provide her
assistance from the domestic violence.
(v) It provides for appointment of Protection
Officers and registration of nongovernmental
organisations as service
providers for providing assistance to the
aggrieved person with respect to her
medical examination, obtaining legal aid,
safe shelter, etc.
5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above
objects. The notes on clauses explain the
various provisions contained in the Bill."
23. Thus, the basic object and reason is to provide
various remedies in favor of women who suffer from
domestic violence.
24. Monetary Relief has been defined under Section 2(k) of The Act, 2005 which reads as under :
"12(k) "monetary relief" means the
compensation which the Magistrate may
order the respondent to pay the aggrieved
person, at any stage during the hearing of
an application seeking any relief under this
Act, to meet the expenses incurred and the
losses suffered by the aggrieved person as
a result of the domestic violence."
25. In order to appreciate the submission made by
the Counsel for the applicants, it would be
necessary to find out that whether the monetary
relief on monthly basis can be termed as
maintenance in its strict sense, as provided under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or under Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act or any other law in force or
Monetary relief is other than the maintenance. It is
true that in view of the specific provisions of law as
provided under different statutes, the duty to
maintain wife is on the husband and it is a personal
obligation. However, in The Act, 2005, the words
"Wife", "Husband", have not been used. In the
Act, 2005, the words "Aggrieved Person",
"Domestic relationship", and "respondent"
have been issued.
Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person"
which reads as under :
"(a) "aggrieved person" means any
woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent."
Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship"
which reads as under :
"(f) "domestic relationship" means a
relationship between two persons who live
or have, at any point of time, lived together
in a shared household, when they are
related by consanguinity, marriage or
through a relationship in the nature of
marriage, adoption or are family members
living together as a joint family;"
Section 2(q) defines "respondent".
26. Thus, it is clear that The Act, 2005 nowhere
deals with the relationship of Husband and Wife but
it deals with "Aggrieved person", "Domestic
Relationship" and "respondent". Section 20(1)(d) of
The Act, 2005 provides that the monetary relief
would be other than the maintenance as awarded
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or under any other law
for the time being in force. Thus, in fact the
provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or provisions of
any other law for the time being in force have been
excluded expressly. Since, the word "Husband" has
not been used, and the word "respondent" has been
used, therefore, all the persons who are covered by
the definition of "respondent"would be liable to
maintain monetary relief, including the
maintenance.
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atilf Iqbal Mansoori (2014) 10 SCC 736, has held as under :
"The monetary relief as stipulated under
Section 20 is different from maintenance,
which can be in addition to an order of
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or any
other law. Such monetary relief can be
granted to meet the expenses incurred and
losses suffered by the aggrieved person and
child of the aggrieved person as a result of
the domestic violence, which is not
dependent on the question whether the
aggrieved person, on the date of filing of
the application under Section 12 is in a
domestic relationship with the respondent."
28. Thus, it is clear that monetary relief is different
from maintenance, therefore, it cannot be said that
in view of Section 20(1)(d) of The Act, 2005 merely
because it has been mentioned that the monetary
relief would not be limited to maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time
being in force, therefore, the monetary relief on
monthly basis should be treated as personal
obligation of husband. In fact monetary relief is
awarded to an aggrieved person to meet expenses
incurred and losses suffered by her as a result of
the domestic violence. Therefore, the use of word
"respondent" in Section 20 cannot be given
restricted meaning for the purposes of grant of
monetary relief on monthly basis. The submission
made by the Counsel for the applicants cannot be
accepted that as the context otherwise provides,
therefore, a restricted meaning should be given to
the word "respondent" and the word "respondent"
should be restricted to "Husband" only. As the word
"respondent" has been used in Section 20 of The
Act, 2005, therefore, it contains the same meaning
which is given in Section 2(q) of The Act, 2005 and
thus, the applicant no.1 is also liable to pay monthly
monetary relief, as granted by the Appellate Court.
29. So far as the next contention of the Counsel for the applicants that since, Nathu Singh had died during the pendency of the appeal and since, his name was not deleted therefore, the entire order is vitiated as the same has also been passed against a dead person, cannot be accepted. It is true that Nathu Singh had expired during the pendency of the appeal, but merely because his name was not deleted would not vitiate the entire order and at the most it can be said that the said order will not be operative against the dead person.
30. It is next contended by the Counsel for the applicants that the Appellate Court has directed for monthly monetary relief as well as by way of Lump sum monetary relief, but in view of Section 20(3) of the Act, 2005, monetary relief can be granted either in lump sum or in monthly payment of maintenance therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
31. It is clear that monetary relief is not restricted to maintenance only. In fact it is the monetary relief to meet the expenses and losses suffered. However, as the monetary relief can be granted towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, for expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person, therefore, it cannot be said that the lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000 so awarded by the Appellate Court was only by way of Maintenance Amount. Thus, the contention of the Counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted that the maintenance amount has been awarded in lump sum as well as in monthly installments also. In fact, it is the maintenance which has been awarded in monthly installments.
32. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Court is affirmed and this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. fails and is hereby dismissed.
