S. NAGARATHNA AND ORS. Vs. MANUSHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent being aggrieved by the correctness and legality of the judgment and orders of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and also the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners during the course of the arguments submitted that firstly, the petition against the petitioners herein was not maintainable as per the definition of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') and this legal aspect has been completely overlooked by the Trial Court and it has wrongly proceeded to allow the petition filed by the respondent herein. The learned Counsel submitted that the revision petitioners were residing separately and not living with the respondent herein. With regard to the grant of reliefs by the Trial Court, it had not referred to the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case and without ascertaining the financial capacity of the revision petitioners herein, has awarded the amount which is not legal and not sustainable in law. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have given evidence before the Trial Court on oath that they have not given any sort of ill-treatment or harassment and there was no cause of action for the respondent herein to file such petition before the Trial Court under the provisions of the Act. She has further submitted that the judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are not sustainable in law. Hence, the revision petition may be allowed and the judgment and orders under revision may be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent during the course of the arguments submitted that the first objection raised by the other side that no such orders can be passed against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 2(q) of the Act, he submitted that looking to the proviso provided to the said definition, it is very clear that petition can be filed even against the relatives of the deceased husband and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with this aspect in the decision in case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Others, 2011 3 SCC 650, wherein it is held that the petitions can be filed even against the female members and in the proviso, there is no such restriction that the petition cannot be filed against the female members of the husband. With regard to the share of the domestic household with the revision petitioners, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Trial Court and submitted that the revision petitioners herein themselves admitted before the Trial Court that they are residing together in the said house. In view of the admission of the petitioners herein, the contention of the learned Counsel that they are residing separately cannot be accepted and the Trial Court has rightly recorded the finding in that regard. The learned Counsel further submitted that regarding the financial capacity of the petitioners, revision petitioner 1 is an employee of the Bank earning salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month and getting Rs. 30,000/- per month from the other sources, which was recorded before the Trial Court. Hence, it is submitted that even the financial capacity of the revision petitioners herein was also taken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing the said order. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the Courts below in coming to such conclusion nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken in this revision petition and there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the orders of the Courts below.