Delhi HC restores appeal claiming maintenance as ASJ failed to consider petitioner’s submission that she herself was a complainant and also an ‘aggrieved person’ in terms of sec. 2(a)&(f) of DV Act
Justice Navin Chawla [02-05-2024]

Read Order: MS. PRACHI JAIN v. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN [DEL HC- CRL.M.C. 3475/2024] 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June 14, 2024: The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the ASJ whereby the petitioner was held entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the petition only to the date of her attaining majority. The High Court noted that the ASJ only considered whether the petitioner would be entitled to seek maintenance after attaining majority in view of definition of ‘child’ u/s 2(b) and failed to consider submission that she too was an aggrieved person in terms of Sec. 2(a)&(f).

The petitioner along with her mother had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) claiming maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs 50,000 each to the petitioner and her mother. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Court but the same was dismissed. 

The said order was challenged before the High Court in the form of a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and during the pendency of the said petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking modification of the order contending that the petitioner had been gainfully employed since July, 2018. The said application was disposed of by the Metropolitan Magistrate holding that the petitioner was no longer entitled to the interim maintenance from the date of her gainful employment, while directing the respondent to clear the arrears of maintenance from the date of the petition till the date the petitioner was gainfully employed, being July 2018.

On 21.02.2024, the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the ASJ. However, the ASJ made a modification to the Magistrate's order holding that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the petition only to the date of her attaining majority. The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the said order.

The Bench noted that the ASJ had passed the Impugned Order, only having considered whether the petitioner would be entitled to seek maintenance after attaining majority in view of the definition of the ‘child’ in terms of the Section 2(b) of the DV Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herself was a complainant before the Metropolitan Magistrate and was also an ‘Aggrieved person’ in terms of Section 2(a) read with Section 2(f) of the DV Act. However, the ASJ had not considered the above submission of the petitioner. The Bench was of the view that the submission made by the petitioner would have to be considered by the ASJ on the facts of the case as presented before it.

Thus, setting aside the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2024, the Bench restored the appeal back to its original number. The Bench ordered that the ASJ shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. Requesting the ASJ to expedite the hearing of the appeal, the Bench said, “The issue whether the petitioner can claim maintenance, once she gains employment, shall also be considered by the learned ASJ.”