HANIF KHAN & ORS Vs. SHANNO BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated 27.8.2010 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in criminal appeal no. 247/2010 filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 (herein after referred to in this order as "the Act"). By judgment dated 27.8.2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge had affirmed the order dated 9.4.2009 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in M.J.C. (Criminal) No.47/2008 allowing the application under Sections 12, 18 and 22 of the Act and directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 60,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent wife for physical, emotional, and economic harm caused to her.

(2.) The impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the alleged domestic violence inflicted upon the respondent wife, dates back to the period between 17.5.2003 and 13.7.2005 as the respondent wife had married the petitioner no.1 husband on 17.5.2003 and petitioner no.1 husband had divorced her on 13.7.2005. The act came into force w.e.f. 26.10.2006; therefore, placing reliance upon the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Lal Vs. Kanta Bai, 2010 1 MPWN 15, it has been argued that the Act is not retrospective in operation and it would not be applicable to the acts of domestic violence committed prior to coming into force of the Act on 26.10.2006.

(3.) The same point was raised before the appellate Court and was dealt with in paragraph numbers 8 to 14 of the impugned judgment extensively. The appellate Court held that even if it is assumed that the operation of the Act is not retrospective, inspite of order dated 31.10.2008 having been passed by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Revision no. 293/2008, the petitioner no.1 husband has not paid Rs. 27,786/- by way of mehar and Rs. 33,000/- as value of the articles received in dowry, to the respondent wife. Learned appellate Court further observed the aforesaid Act of the petitioners would fall under the category of economic abuse as defined under Section 3 Explanation I (iv)(a) of the Act and would tantamount to domestic violence. Since this domestic violence was committed after coming into force of the Act, it can be said that the petitioners committed domestic violence against the respondent wife after coming into force of the Act.