PRAKASH NAGARDAS DUBAL SHAHA versus SOU. MEENA PRAKASH DUBAL SHAH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 22-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 969 
PRAKASH NAGARDAS DUBAL SHAHA 
v. 
SOU. MEENA PRAKASH DUBAL SHAH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 320of2016) 
APRIL 22, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KiRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: ss.12. 
18 to 22 - Application for maintenance filed by respondent-wife 
against the appellant-husband - Sessions Judge held that since the 
A 
B 
parties had initiated divorce proceedings at an earlier point of time, 
C 
the Act which came into force only later in 2005 was wrongly invoked 
by the wife and her application was not maintainable - Held: In the 
instant case, the divorce proceedings had not resulted in divorce -
The unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the 
maintainability of application filed by the contesting respondents 
D 
under the Act - High Court was right in holding that the· wife was 
entitled to seek maintenance. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Sessions judge had held that since the 
husband and wife had initiated divorce proceedings at an .earlier 
point of time, the Protection of women from Domestic Violence 
Act, 2005 which came into force only later in 2005 was wrongly 
invoked by the wife and her application was not maintainable. 
The reasoning of Sessions conrt was not accepted by the High 
Court which has noted the fact that the divorce proceedings did 
not result in the divorce and hence the marital relationship 
continued and in view of second marriage by the husband, cruelty 
on the wife stood established and that such act would constitute 
mental domestic violence and hence wife was entitled to seek 
maintenance. The unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot 
adversely affect the maintainability of application filed by the 
contesting respondents under the Act. Even on merits of other 
issues the views taken by the Magistrate are cogent and 
supported by relevant materials. Hence the High Court rightly 
interfered with the order of the Sessions Court and confirmed 
that of the Magistrate. (Paras 5, 6] (972-B-C, E) 
969 
E 
F 
G 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
320 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Revision Petition No. 79 of20 I 2. 
Abdulrahiman T., Rahul, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Sanjay Kumar Yisen, Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. By the impugned judgment and 
order dated 24.1.2013 the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay has allowed Criminal Revision Petition No. 79 of 20 I 2 
preferred by the respondents by reversing order of learned Sessions 
Court and restoring that oflearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Miraj 
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 147/2011. 
2. The facts relevant for adjudication of relevant issue arising in 
this appeal lie within a narrow compass. Respondent no. I is wife of 
appellant, respondent no. 2 is unmarried daughter and respondent no. 3 
is minor son born out of marriage between the appellant and respondent 
no. I. The aforesaid three contesting respondents initiated the present 
proceedings before the learned Magistrate by preferring an application 
under Sections I 2, I 8, I 9, 20, 2 I and 22 of Protection of Women from 
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 
Learned Magistrate noticed the case ofrival I?arties including undisputed 
facts such as solemnization of the marriage on 27.3.1986 as per Hindu 
rites. It is the case of contesting respondents/applicants that the appellant 
has qualification of D. Pharmacy and has a shop named Vijay Medical 
situated at a favourable location. Since the wife is handicapped by right 
leg, not only the husband made uncharitable remarks and meted out ill 
treatment but also neglected her by regularly coming to home late. He 
also made demands for money which the parents of the wife met from 
time to time. He defaulted in payment of instalments of a flat situated at 
Grimar Complex, in the year 200 I and when the concerned bank wanted 
to seize that property wife's relation came to their help and paid the loan 
on transfer of the property in the name of the wife. The wife has alleged 
PRAKASH NAGARDAS DUBAL SHAHA v. SOU. MEENA 
971 
PRAKASH DUBAL SHAH [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.) 
that the appella

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