Quashed

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal v. Parshuram Sadashiv Vharkal and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2022REVN/59/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held, the High Court of Bombay held that strict pleading rules and Section 8 of the Evidence Act do not apply to maintenance proceedings under the DV Act. The appellate court erred in disbelieving oral evidence. The appeal was quashed and restored to the Sessions Judge for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15th November 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015 is quashed; appeal restored to Sessions Judge to decide afresh after hearing.

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal Vs Parshuram Sadashiv… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

18-revn59-2022.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2022

¶5

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal…Applicant
V/s.
Parshuram Sadashiv Vharkal & Anr.…Respondents

¶6

Ms. Rui Danawala i/by Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for
the applicant

¶7

Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise, for the respondent.

¶8

Ms. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM: AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.The challenge in this revision application is to the order
passed by the appellate Court rejecting application seeking
maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Woman
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the DV Act”, for short). The
learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 7th September
2015 granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the
applicant recording a finding of domestic violence. Aggrieved
thereby, the husband filed Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015 before
the Sessions Court. By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions
Court allowed the appeal rejecting application for maintenance.

¶12

2.Perusal of the judgment shows that the revisional Court has
applied strict rules of pleadings to the proceedings under the DV

¶13

¶14

18-revn59-2022.doc

¶15

Act. It is well settled that the purpose of pleading is to give fair
idea to the opponent the nature of case he is required to meet. The
Court, while considering application for maintenance under the
provisions under the provisions of the DV Act, cannot adopt hyper-
technical view in relation to pleadings. It is expected of a Court,
while considering the proceedings under the provisions of the DV
Act, to take a holistic approach while considering the pleadings
and evidence. In paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment, it appears
that the appellate Court disbelieved the evidence of the
complainant and her bother and recorded a finding that she has
failed to prove domestic violence by considering subsequent
conduct of the petitioner. It needs to be noted that section 8 of the
Evidence Act strictly does not apply to the maintenance
proceedings under the DV Act. Oral evidence of the complainant
has to be scrutinized on the basis of natural human conduct by
taking into consideration the purpose and object of the DV Act.

¶16

3.The judgment of the appellate Court proceeds on the
inferences drawn without evidence on record. It appears that the
appellate Court has taken judicial notice of certain facts which he
was not entitled to in law.

¶17

4.In that view of the matter, it is necessary in the interest of
justice that the appellate Court should reconsider the appeal of the
husband afresh on the basis of material placed on record before
the Magistrate. I, therefore, pass the following order :-

¶18

(i)The impugned order dated 15th November 2021 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal

¶19

¶20

18-revn59-2022.doc

¶21

No. 222 of 2015 is quashed and set aside;

¶22

ii)Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2015 is restored to the file
of the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli;

¶23

iii)The learned Sessions Judge, Sangli shall decide
Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015 after giving opportunity of
hearing to the parties. The parties shall appear before the
learned Sessions Judge on 17th October 2022.

¶24

iv)In the facts and circumstances of the case, and
particularly considering the fact that the appeal was filed in
the year 2015, the learned Sessions Judge is requested to
dispose of the appeal within six (6) months from the date of
appearance of the parties.

¶25

5.The revision application stands disposed of accordingly. No
costs.

¶26

6.It is made clear that the observations made in this order are
only for the purpose of decision of present revision application and
the learned Sessions Judge shall decide the appeal on its own
merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

¶27

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2022.10.06 10:55:13 +0530

¶28

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶29

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal v. Parshuram Sadashiv Vharkal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulakshana Parshuram Vharkal v. Parshuram Sadashiv Vharkal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jayantilal Shah vs Divisional Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Mr. Jay Kumar N. Shah vs Divisional Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Mr. Jay Kumar N. Shah vs Divisional Assistant Registrar and Ors.

Raju Radhyesham Dadhich @ Sharma Vs Kamal Radhyesham Dadhich and Anr.

K. Vrushali Vs Vasant Sonu Mhatre and Anr.

Vijay Pukhraj Jain Vs Kishor Keshav Manjarekar and Anr.