Earning Woman Granted Monetary Compensation Under Section 12 and Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act: Tripura High Court

0
Tripura High Court, Immoral Trafficking Case, Kidnapping

Excerpt

The Petitioner filed a revision petition with the Court to stop the monetary compensation to be provided to the wife under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. But the documents provided by both parties were insufficient to conclude.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner and Respondent are legally married. The Petitioner is the husband and the wife being the Respondent. In the following case, the Respondent started treating the Petitioner with cruelty and protested against the Petitioner for him looking after his old ailing mother. The Petitioner filed a matrimonial suit for divorce. After the divorce suit, Respondent filed an application under Section 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for monetary compensation. In the Court, the Petitioner was directed to pay the monetary compensation to the Respondent and her child, as per section 23 of the respective act, from the date of filing of the case. The husband filed a review petition in the High Court challenging the order.

Petitioner’s Argument

The learned counsel representing the Petitioner argued that the suit filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 and Section 23 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act was nothing but a retaliation after receiving the divorce papers. The Counsel stated the fact that Petitioner has her independent income and was the owner of properties and therefore should not be entitled to any monetary compensation. The Petitioner tells the court that due to the depleting health of her mother; He has left the previous job and is now earning a low income which the previous court failed to take under consideration. The income earned is mostly spent on her mother’s treatment. Therefore, is unable to provide monetary compensation.

Respondent’s Argument

The learned counsel representing the Respondent argued that the Petitioner works as a Freelance Marketing Expert and charges a good amount of money for his every visit. Apart from this, the Petitioner also works as a zonal sales manager in G.C. Pharmie Ltd. and earns a decent living from the job. Respondent submits that the petitioner is also a partner of an LLP firm. Therefore, the counsel told the court that the Petitioner is representing false income in the court. Respondent denied having any property in her name. Therefore, argued to allow her the monetary compensation under Section 12 and Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act.

Court’s Judgment

The Court observed that the documents submitted by both the parties do not venture upon the merit of the case. The Court provided that the Court is not in a position to adjudicate whether the previous judgement is suffering from any irregularities. The revisional court cannot even prima facie assess the documents. The Court ordered that it is the bounded duty of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, dismissed the petition without cost. But also said that it is open for the contesting parties to produce evidence in the trial court for proper consideration.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
 Tweet
 Share
 LinkedIn
 Reddit
 Telegram
 WhatsApp
 Copy
 E-mail
Exit mobile version