V.D. BHANOT versus SAVITA BHANOT

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 07-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 867 
V.D. BHANOT 
v. 
SAVITA BHANOT 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2010) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTICE 
VIOLENCE ACT, 2005: 
ss. 3, 12, 18, 19,20,31 and 33 - Domestic violence -
Complaint by wife - Held: Looking into a complaint uls 12, the 
conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of 
A 
B 
c 
the Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an 
order ulss 18, 19 and 20 thereof - High Court has also rightly 
0 
held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the 
past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, 
would still be entitled to the protection of the Act, - On facts, 
the couple has no children - The wife is residing with her old 
parents - After more than 31 years of marriage, the wife 
E 
having no children, is faced with the prospect of living alone 
at the advanced age of 63 years, without any proper shelter 
or protection and without any means of sustenance except for 
the sum which the husband was directed by the Magistrate 
to give to her each month - The situation comes squarely 
within the ambit of s. 3 of the Act, which defines "domestic 
F 
violence" in wide terms, and, accordingly, no interference is 
called for with the order of High Court - However, considering 
the fact that the couple is childless and the wife has herself 
expressed apprehension of her safety if she were to live alone 
in a rented accommodation, and keeping in mind the object G 
of the Act to provide effective protection of the rights of women 
guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence 
of any kind occurring within the family, the order of the High 
867 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A Court modified and it is directed that the wife be provided with 
a right of residence where the husband is residing, by way of 
relief u/s 19 of the Act - Protection orders uls 18 are also 
passed - It is further directed that in addition to providing the 
residential accommodation to the wife, the husband shall also 
B pay a total sum of Rs.10,0001- per month to her towards her 
maintenance and day-to-day expenses. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) 
No. 3916 of 2010. 
C 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.3.2010 of the High 
D 
E 
Court of Delhi in CRMC No. 3959 of 2009. 
Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Anjali Bhargva, Sandeep Singh 
for the Petitioner. 
Anil Kumar Bakshi, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Rakesh Kumar, 
Rajeshwar Tyagi, Ashok Kumar Shukle for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Special Leave Petition is 
directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 
2010, passed by the Delhi High Court in Cr.M.C.No.3959 of 
2009 filed by the Respondent wife, Mrs. Savita Bhanot, 
F questioning the order passed by the learned J1dditional 
Sessions Judge on 18th September, 2009, dismissing the 
appeal filed by her against the order of the Metropolitan 
Magistrate dated 11th May, 2009. 
G 
2. There is no dispute that marriage between the parties 
was solemnized on 23rd August, 1980 and till 4th July, 2005, 
they lived together. Thereafter, for whatever reason, there were 
misunderstandings between the parties, as a result whereof, 
on 29th November, 2006, the Respondent filed a petition 
H before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of 
V.D. BHANOT v. SAVITA BHANOT 
869 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, hereinafter referred 
A 
to as the "PWD Act", seeking various reliefs. By his order dated 
8th December, 2006, the learned Magistrate granted interim 
relief to the Respondent and directed the Petitioner to pay her 
a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. By a subsequent order dated 
17th February, 2007, the Magistrate passed a protection/ 
B 
residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the above Act, 
protecting the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her 
matrimonial home in Mathura. The said order was challenged 
before the Delhi High Court, but such challenge was rejected. 
3. In the meantime, the Petitioner, who was a member of C 
the Armed Forces, retired from service on 6th December, 2007, 
and on 26th February, 2008, he filed an application for the 
Respondent's eviction from the Government accommodation 
in Mathura Cantonment. The learned Magistrate directed the 
Petitioner herein to find an alternative accommodation for the 
D 
Respondent who had in the meantime

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