Alpana Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 87 of 2021

Alpana Singh Versus	.... ....	Petitioner
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Triloki Singh
3. Kumkum Singh	… ….	Opposite Parties

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Advocate : Mr. Subhneet Jha, Advocate

¶5

------

¶6

Order No. 08 / Dated : 20.06.2024.

¶7

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed against the order order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 arising out of C.P. Case No. 772 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act) .

¶8

Petitioner is the widow of late Amit Kumar Singh and O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 are her father and mother-in-law. The petitioner filed C.P. Case No. 772 of 2013 under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 for the following reliefs

¶9

i) Passed protection orders under Section 18 and/or

¶10

ii) Passed residence orders under Section 19(d), and/or

¶11

iii) Direct the respondent to pay monetary relief under Section 20 and/or

¶12

iv) Pass orders under Section 21 of the Act and/or

¶13

v) Direct the respondents to grant compensation or damages under Section 22.

¶14

vi) Pass such interim orders as the court deems just and proper

¶15

vii) Pass any orders as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶16

As per the case of the complainant, she was married on 22.11.2010 and from the wedlock she was blessed with a son who is plaintiff No. 2. Her husband died on 12.10.2011. After the death of her husband, plaintiff is residing under the guardianship of Vivek Kumar Singh brother of plaintiff No. 1.

¶17

Learned trial Court allowed the application and granted the following reliefs:-

¶18

The learned Appellate Court passed the following order in favour of the

¶19

1

¶20

complainant. The respondents were prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence. The order of the Court below was affirmed in favour of the appellant under Section 18(a) and 19(d) of the Act and following reliefs were granted.

¶21

i) Rs. 2 laksh (one lakh to each respondent) as compensation under Section 22 of the Act in favour of the appellant/complainant within two months from the date of order.

¶22

ii) Under Section 19 of the Act, respondents were directed to provide sufficient accommodation in the house Banaras and Mau in UP and Bokaro in the share household building with separate kitchen and bathroom

¶23

iii) Restraining the respondent from dispossession or any other manner.

¶24

The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred by the complainant mainly for monetary benefits under Section 20 of the D. V. Act, 2005.

¶25

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the monetary/financial benefits under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act has been denied only on the ground that they were beneficiaries of the insurance policy and the minor son of the petitioner was getting a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month from the employer of the deceased-husband and the complainant was a working lady.

¶26

It is submitted in this regard that this cannot be a ground for denying the monetary benefit as provided under Section 20 of the D. V. Act, 2005.

¶27

It is argued that the provisions of monetary benefit under Section 20 is different from that of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The object is to grant monetary relief with respect to loss of earning and medical expenses and any other loss due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person.

¶28

10.It is further argued that there was one property at Mauza- Akbarpur, Mau, U.P. which was in the name of O.P. Nos.2 and 3 as well as in the name of husband of the petitioner. This property was disposed of by the sale-deed executed on 29.12.2017 (Ext.5) for a sum of Rs.26 Lakhs. The complainant/petitioner has not received her share in the said property and in order to deprive her, sale-deed was executed. Although this document was exhibited, but no finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Court.

¶29

11.Learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s) submits that Opp. Party No.2 is a senior

¶30

2

¶31

citizen, aged about 71 years and O.P. No.3 being his wife is also a senior citizen who are leading retiral life. Both of them were school teachers. Opp. Party no.2 was a teacher in the school of Bokaro Steel Limited and O.P. No.3 was a teacher in private school.

¶32

12.It is submitted that O.P. No.2 retired in the year 2013 and is getting meagre pension of Rs.1800 whereas O.P. No.3 is not getting any pension after her retirement. Although the death of their son (who was husband of the complainant) took place in the year 2011, but the instant complaint has been filed only with a view to extract monetary benefits from the parents.

¶33

13.It is submitted by learned counsel that the object of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to provide succor to the women arising out emergent situation because of the domestic violence. The complainant was married in the year 2010 and till the filing of the application for domestic violence, no complaint or no case under any provision of law was lodged by the complainant against her husband (since deceased) or against the in-laws. The ground for passing protection orders is based on existence of domestic violence, and if that is absent, the order becomes non est in the eyes of law.

¶34

14.The complainant has already been granted the benefits of Insurance policy for a sum of Rs.12,69,536/-. Further more than Rs.1,86,226/- which was in the account of her husband had also been paid to her. The son is receiving a sum of Rs.6,000/per month form the employer of the husband of the complainant and the complainant is working and has also solemnized marriage after the death of her husband in the year, 2021. The house situated in Varanasi has been jointly mutated in the name of the complainant and the petitioner. Furthermore, compensation has already been awarded by the learned courts below to the complainant and her son.

¶35

15.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of materials on record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as specific reasons have been assigned for passing order which needs no interference.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant Cr. Revision stands rejected.

¶37

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶38

Sandeep/Pawan /- Uploaded

¶39

3

Alpana Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alpana Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranay Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Saifullah Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner

Shibu Ravidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sher Singh And Ors. Vs Nageshwar Bhagat And Ors.

Wasim Raja Alias Wasim Raza Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mitlal Kisku Vs the State Ofjharkhand