Domestic Violence Act meant for immediate relief, not windfall for women: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) is meant to provide immediate relief to aggrieved women and it does not envisage providing any windfall gains to the aggrieved, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently said..The Court further held that an aggrieved woman is not entitled to compensation or maintenance under the DV Act unless some evidence is brought on record to rule in favour of the woman. ."There is no doubt that the (DV) Act has been framed with a reason to provide immediate relief and succor to the aggrieved party and is entitled to interim relief which the court may consider in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it does not mean that the petitioner (an aggrieved woman) is entitled to windfall in the proceedings and to be paid the maintenance or compensation without exercising judicial discretion," the judgment pronounced by the Court on December 1 said..Justice Puneet Gupta made the observation while setting aside a trial court order that had directed a man (husband of the aggrieved woman) and his brother (brother-in-law of the woman) to collectively pay a lump sum amount of ₹5 lakh as interim maintenance to a woman who claimed to have suffered domestic violence. .The trial court had also directed the husband to pay 25 percent of his salary per month as interim maintenance..The husband and his brother (respondents before the High Court) filed an appeal challenging the trial court verdict, which was partly allowed by the first appellate court. The appellate court set aside the interim compensation granted by the trial court and held that the same could be granted only after the trial. The appellate court held that there was no proof to grant compensation to the aggrieved woman at the present stage..This appellate court ruling was challenged by the aggrieved woman (petitioner) before the High Court. The High Court opined that just because the respondents were the husband and in-laws of the petitioner, it would not entitle her to receive compensation from them unless there is some evidence on record that may persuade the Court to grant the same in her favour."The beneficial legislation does not envisage providing of windfall to the aggrieved," the Court said..In this case, the High Court found that the trial court's directions for the payment of interim maintenance were passed before even ascertaining how much salary is earned by the husband. It, therefore, upheld the appellate court's modification of the trial court order in this respect."The Court cannot pass in air the direction that the wife shall be entitled to 25% of the grass salary without knowing the actual salary of the husband. The trial Court is required to have the income of the husband of the applicant-wife and then pass the order of maintenance as deem fit in the light of the salary or other income of the husband," the High Court added..The High Court, however, directed the respondent-husband to provide for the accommodation of the petitioner at a secured and safe place, after also noting that the husband himself had agreed to provide for the same. .On these terms, the petition was disposed of by the Court. "The petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance from the respondent husband. However, the trial Court is required to have the requisite information regarding the salary of the respondent No.1 before passing the reasonable amount of interim maintenance in favour of the petitioner-applicant," the Court held. .Advocate Asif Ahmad Bhat appeared for the petitioner. Advocate MA. Beigh appeared on behalf of the respondents..[Read Judgment]