KRISHNA BHATACHARJEE versus SARATHI CHOUDHURY AND ANR.

Citation: [2015] 14 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 20-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2015] 14 S.C.R. 65 
KRISHNA BHATACHARJEE 
v. 
SARATHI CHOUDHURYANDANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1545 of 2015) 
NOVEMBER 20, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, c 
2005 -ss. 2{a), 3(iv) and 12-Application u/s. 12- By the 
wife - Seeking seizure of Stridhan articles in possession of 
her husband - Dismissed on the grounds that the application 
was not maintainable as the wife has ceased to be an 
'aggrieved person' u/s. 2(a) as the parties had been judicially o 
separated and that the application was barred by limitation -
The order was upheld by Sessions Judge as well as the High 
Court-On appeal, held: The Act being a legislation to provide 
for more effective protection of the rights of the women 
guaranteed under the Constitution, a more sensitive E 
approach is expected from the Court - Before dismissing a 
petition under the Act, on the ground of its maintainability, 
there has to be a thorough deliberation on the issues 
raised- In the present case, the applicant-wife has not ceased 
to be an 'aggrieved person' uls. 2(a) because even after F 
decree of judicial separation marital status between the 
parties is not snapped- Retention of Stridhan by the husband 
is a continuing offence -As long as the marital status remains 
and Stridhan remains in the custody of husband, wife can 
always put forth her claim u/s. 12- The application cannot G 
be said to be barred by limitation. 
Matrimonial law- 'Divorce' and 'Judicial Separation' -
Distinction between. 
65 
H 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 14 S.C.R. . 
A 
Words and Phrases: 'Stridhan' - Meaning of, in the 
context of matrimonial law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The 2005 Act has been legislated to 
B provide for more effective protection of the rights of the 
women guaranteed under the Constitution who are 
victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family 
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 
The 2005 Act is a detailed Act. The dictionary clause of 
C the 2005 Act, is in a broader spectrum. The definition of 
"domestic violence" covers a range of violence which 
takes within its sweep "economic abuse" and the words 
"economic abuse", has many a facet; [Para 3] [70-E-G] 
D 
2. Regard being had to the nature of the legislation, 
a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts 
where under the 2005 Act no relief can be granted, it 
should never be conceived of but, before throwing a 
petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, 
E there has to be an apposite discussion and thorough 
deliberation on the issues raised. It is the duty of the 
court to scrutinise the facts from all angles whether a 
plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance 
F of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and 
correct. Before throwing a petition at the threshold, it is 
obligatory to see that the person aggrieved under such 
a legislation is not faced with a situation of non-
adjudication, for the 2005 Act is a beneficial as well as 
G assertively affirmative enactment for the realisation of 
the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that 
they do not become victims of any kind of domestic 
violence. [Para 4] [70-H; 71-A-B, B-C, D-E] 
H 
3. There is a distinction between a decree for 
KRISHNABHATACHARJEE v. SARATHI CHOUDHURY 
67 
divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, A 
there is a severance of status and the parties do not 
remain as husband and wife, whereas in the latter, the 
relationship between husband and wife continues and 
the legal relationship continues as it has not bee.n 
snapped. Thus understood, the finding recorded by the B 
courts below that the parties having been judicial 
separated, the appellant wife has ceased to be an 
"aggrieved person" is wholly unsustainable. [Para 22] 
[84-A·C] 
Hirachand Srinivas Managaonkar v. Sunanda 
(2001) 4 sec 125: 2001 (2) SCR 491 - relied 
on. 
Jeet Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993) 
1 SCC 325: 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 246; Bai Mani 
v. Jayantilal Dahyabhai AIR 1979 Guj 209; 
Soundaram ma! v. Sundara Mahalinga Nadar AIR 
1980 Mad 294 - referred to. 
"Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan" by Sir 
Gooroodas - referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
4. As long as the status of the aggrieved person 
remains and stridhan remains in the custody of the 
husband, the wife can always put forth her claim under F 
Section 12 of the 2005 Act, because the status between 
the parties

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.