"economic abuse" is relevant and is required to be seen and considered.
According to sub-clause (a) of clause (iv) to explanation-I appended to
Section 3 of the Act, deprivation of all or any economic or financial
resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or
custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which
the aggrieved person requires out of necessity and also maintenance.
The question in the present case is whether refusal by the
respondent to incur living expenses of his daughter can be said to be
commision of economic abuse. No law or custom has been shown by the
petitioner under which a well educated daughter of the age of more than
30 years can claim her living expenses to the tune of 700 pound per
month for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University.
According to this provision deprivation of economic or financial resources
which the the aggrieved person requires out of necessity also amount to
economic abuse. For the applicability of this part of the provision,
requirement of the aggrieved person must be out of necessity. In my
opinion each and every expenses incurred or to be incurred by the
aggrieved person for her study cannot be termed to be a requirement out
of necessity. Expenses incurred or to be incurred by daughter of a person
for her reasonable studies can be said to be a requirement out of necessity
but living expenses incurred or to be incurred by a daughter for pursuing
her further higher studies from a foreign University and more particularly
in view of the fact that she has already obtained a post graduate degree
from a reputed University in India and has already taken further studies
from a foreign University and who is capable of earning her own income
by joining a job and who has joined her further studies without the
consent of his father rather against his wishes cannot be said to be a
requirement out of necessity and even if father has refused to bear such
expenses, it cannot be said that the daughter has been subjected to
economic abuse within the meaning of the Act. Although, the Act has been
enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but
that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary
relief from the respondent. Unless the act of the respondent comes within
the purview of the domestic violence as specified under Section 3 of the
Act and unless the petitioner is an aggrieved person, no relief can be
granted to her. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be
said that Miss. Geetanjali has been subjected to economic abuse within the
meaning of the Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
BENCH JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.670/2016
Geeta Singh
V
State of Rajasthan
Shri Omprakash Meena
Date of Order: 17.11.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
The petitioner-complainant has filed this Criminal Revision
Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order
dated 2.5.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur
Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.70/2015 whereby learned
appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner affirmed
and upheld the order dated 7.11.2015 passed by the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Case
No.270/2015 whereby learned trial Court refused to grant interim
monetary relief to the petitioner's daughter Miss.Geetanjali.
Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that
petitioner-complainant wife of respondent-Shri Omprakash Meena filed a2
complaint/application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act")
claiming various reliefs provided under the Act. It was averred in the
complaint that she and daughter of the parties Miss.Geetanjali are
aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act. One of the reliefs sought
is that respondent may be directed to pay 700 pounds per month as living
expenditure under Section 20 of the Act for the period from September
2014 to April 2015 as arrear accrued for that period and thereafter from
May 2015 onwards to Miss. Geetanjali as presently she is pursuing her
higher studies at Cardiff University, England. It was further averred that
petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. 16 lacs from a bank for the further
education of their daughter in England. It was also averred that
respondent is an Officer of Indian Civil Services and is presently getting
Rs.1,96,000/- per month as salary but he refused to incur the living
expenses of Miss. Geetanjali. Petitioner sought interim relief as per Section
23 of the Act during the pendency of the complaint. In his reply to the
complaint, it was averred by the respondent that presently age of their
daughter is 31 years and all her school and college education expenses
were incurred by him and even educational and all other expenses for her
higher studies at Nottingham, England in the year 2009 were incurred by
the respondent. It was further averred that Miss.Geetanjali was sent for
further studies/education to England by the complainant without the
consent of respondent rather against his wishes. It was also averred that
Miss.Geetanjali is a mature girl of 31 years capable of earning her own
income and complainant, an officer of the Rajasthan Administrative
Services, is presently getting Rs.1,40,000/- as salary and she is capable to3
incur all expenses which are being sought from the respondent. It was
further averred that as Miss.Geetanjali is pursuing her higher studies
abroad without the consent of her father rather against his wishes, she is
not entitled to claim any amount from him as living or other expenses.
Learned trial Court vide order dated 7.11.2015 declined to
grant interim monetary relief claimed as living expenses for pursuing
higher studies at a University in England observing that complainant
herself is an Administrative Officer in Government of Rajasthan and Miss.
Geetanjali has attained the age of 31 years and previously she was in job
in Delhi. The matter was unsuccessfully carried by the petitioner in appeal
which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned order by
recording the same reasons as recorded by the trial Court. It was also
observed by the appellate Court that no reliable documentary evidence
has been produced on record about higher education of Miss.Geetanjali in
England and the expenses incurred by her for her education as well as
living expenses.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the
relevant legal provisions.
The question involved in this petition for determination by this
Court is whether unmarried daughter of respondent, who is of the age of
more than 30 years and who has already completed her Post Graduation
from a reputed University in India like Delhi University and who also
pursued her further studies at Nottingham, England in the year 2009, is an
aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act and if yes, whether she
can claim interim monetary relief as her living expenses for pursuing her4
further studies without the consent of her father (respondent) rather
against his witneses from a University abroad merely by the reason that
presently she does not have her own independent source of income and
her other educational expenses are being incurred by her mother
(petitioner) after taking loan from a bank.
Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act is as follows:-
While disposing of an application under sub-section (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 is 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.
Thus, according to this provision all expenses incurred by an
aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence can be awarded to
the aggrieved person from the respondent but such expenses must be
incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence
committed by the respondent. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the
Act, the monetary relief must be adequate, fair and reasonable and
consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 provides that in any proceeding
under the Act, Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just
and proper. Thus, according to this provision monetary relief as interim5
measure can also be awarded during the pendency of a proceeding under
Section 12 of the Act.
As per clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, 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.
Thus, to be an aggrieved person for the purpose of the Act,
following conditions are required to be fulfilled:
(i) the woman must have a domestic relationship with the respondent;
(ii) she must be subjected to some kind of domestic violence by the
respondent.
As per clause (f) of Section 2, 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.
In the present case, it cannot be denied that being daughter,
Miss.Geetanjali has domestic relationship with the respondent her father
but only by that reason she cannot claim to be an aggrieved person unless
it is further found that she was subjected to some kind of domestic
violence by the respondent. Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act provides
that "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section
3. What is domestic violence has been provided in Section 3 which is as
follow:-
Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of
this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the
respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—6
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or
well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or
tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse,
verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a
view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person
related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to
the aggrieved person. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this
section,-
(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a
nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or
health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person
and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that
abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of
woman;
(iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes—
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or
ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male
child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in
whom the aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) “economic abuse” includes—
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to
which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom
whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or
which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including,
but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved
person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or
separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental
related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets
whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities,
bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved
person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the
domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by
the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any
other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved
person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or
facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy
by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the
shared household. Explanation II.—For the purpose of
determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct
of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this
section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be
taken into consideration.
For the purpose of present controversy between the parties
"economic abuse" is relevant and is required to be seen and considered.
According to sub-clause (a) of clause (iv) to explanation-I appended to
Section 3 of the Act, deprivation of all or any economic or financial
resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or
custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which
the aggrieved person requires out of necessity and also maintenance.
The question in the present case is whether refusal by the
respondent to incur living expenses of his daughter can be said to be
commision of economic abuse. No law or custom has been shown by the
petitioner under which a well educated daughter of the age of more than
30 years can claim her living expenses to the tune of 700 pound per
month for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University.
According to this provision deprivation of economic or financial resources
which the the aggrieved person requires out of necessity also amount to
economic abuse. For the applicability of this part of the provision,
requirement of the aggrieved person must be out of necessity. In my
opinion each and every expenses incurred or to be incurred by the
aggrieved person for her study cannot be termed to be a requirement out
of necessity. Expenses incurred or to be incurred by daughter of a person
for her reasonable studies can be said to be a requirement out of necessity
but living expenses incurred or to be incurred by a daughter for pursuing
her further higher studies from a foreign University and more particularly
in view of the fact that she has already obtained a post graduate degree
from a reputed University in India and has already taken further studies
from a foreign University and who is capable of earning her own income
by joining a job and who has joined her further studies without the
consent of his father rather against his wishes cannot be said to be a
requirement out of necessity and even if father has refused to bear such
expenses, it cannot be said that the daughter has been subjected to
economic abuse within the meaning of the Act. Although, the Act has been
enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but
that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary
relief from the respondent. Unless the act of the respondent comes within
the purview of the domestic violence as specified under Section 3 of the
Act and unless the petitioner is an aggrieved person, no relief can be
granted to her. In the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be
said that Miss. Geetanjali has been subjected to economic abuse within the
meaning of the Act.
Consequently, the revision petition being meritless is, hereby,
dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J
No comments:
Post a Comment