NEETHU Vs. TRIJO JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the nature of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - civil or criminal? Does the Court/Magistrate dealing with the complaint filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have the power to strike off the defence for non-compliance with the order to pay pendente lite maintenance? These are the important questions that arise for consideration in the above original petition.

(2.) The petitioner in OP (Crl) No. 226/2022 is the wife of the respondent therein. She filed MC No.34/2018 at the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal (for short 'trial court') u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the DV Act) seeking various reliefs including maintenance. She has also moved an application for interim maintenance u/s 23(2) as CMP No.1087/2018. It was allowed ex parte and interim maintenance of Rs.15,000.00 was awarded to the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the respondent at the Sessions Court-II, North Paravur (for short 'appellate court') in Crl.Appeal No.97/2019. The respondent sought a stay of the interim order passed by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the stay petition as per Ext.P1 order with an observation that the Magistrate shall consider the contentions of the respondent and pass final order in the application for interim maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent was given an opportunity to file an objection to CMP No.1087/2018. After considering the objection, the trial court confirmed the ad interim order and directed the respondent to pay all the arrears of maintenance within two weeks as per Ext.P3 order. The said order was challenged by the respondent before this Court in OP (Crl) No.286/2019. This court after hearing both sides disposed of the original petition setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the trial court and directing the respondent to pay Rs.2,00,000.00 towards arrears of maintenance within a period of one month. The trial court was directed to dispose of MC No.34/2018 itself within a period of three months. Ext.P4 is the said order. Since the respondent failed to comply with the direction in Ext.P4 that he shall pay Rs.2,00,000.00 within a period of one month, the petitioner filed an application at the trial Court to strike off the defence of the respondent in MC No.34/2018. Ext.P5 is the said application. After hearing both sides, the trial court dismissed the application as per Ext.P6 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner preferred OP (Crl) No. 226/2022.

(3.) The respondent in OP(Crl) No.226/2022 has filed Crl.M.A.No.1/2022 in OP(Crl) No.286/2019 seeking 6 months' time to comply with the direction in Ext.P4 judgment to deposit Rs.2,00,000.00.