“Aggrieved” Unmarried Daughter Has Right To Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act, Irrespective Of Her Religion & Age: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried daughter has the right to obtain maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, irrespective of her religion and age if she falls within the definition of aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act.

The Court held that a person seeking only maintenance has recourse under other laws. However, if a person is “aggrieved” as per the Act, then independent right is available to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“In my view the legislature, while enacting this Act had this realization in mind that though existing provision of law provide for rights of maintenance to eligible persons, however the procedural delays defeat the very purpose,” observed Justice Jyotsna Sharma.

The Court held that the DV Act was brought in force with a view to provide speedy and effective justice to those who had been subjected to any form of physical, mental, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic abuse in a domestic relationship, be it with a partner or family members.

“The enactment seeks to grant a quicker relief where the aggrieved woman has been subjected to domestic violence and was in a domestic relationship with the respondent. This explains the use of words “more effective protection to women”, hence it is being held that where a sufferer has a right to obtain maintenance as provided in criminal law or in civil law or personal law and that she has been subjected to domestic violence from a person who stood in domestic relationship, she may resort to quicker method of obtaining reliefs under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”

Factual Background

Daughters of the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance along with an application for grant of interim maintenance. The claimed that after the death of their real mother in February 2015, their father and stepmother had physically assaulted them and stopped them from pursuing education.

In objections before the Magistrate, the petitioner pleaded that his daughters were healthy and had independent source of income. It was further stated that he was facing financial difficulties. Since the daughters were staying with him, he was bearing all their expenses.

The Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Deoria granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per daughter, every month which was challenged by the petitioner on grounds that the Court below had failed to consider that the daughters had attainted majority. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that Courts below had completely overlooked the fact that petitioner is an old, infirm, and unemployed person who is already maintaining his daughters. The application for grant of maintenance was filed at the behest of their maternal uncle. It was argued that the daughters had attained proper education and were earning by taking tuition classes. Therefore, the daughters cannot claim maintenance.

High Court Verdict

Observing the scheme of the DV Act and Section 20 of the Act, the Court held that Section 20 (1)(d) of the DV Act provides to any aggrieved person the right to claim maintenance under any statute from which it draws a substantive right to claim maintenance.

Referring to Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act, the Court observed

“The way provision has been worded, gives a clear indication that section 12 of the DV Act is essentially a procedural law, which can be resorted to by any aggrieved person, who draws a substantive right for maintenance from any other law, whether under section 125 Cr.P.C. or personal law applicable to the parties or any other law for the time being in force. Thus law is quite clear to the extent that maintenance can be claimed under any law which provides for the same.”

The Court held that DV Act helps in reducing multiplicity of proceedings by cutting down procedural formalities and facilitates grant of quicker reliefs. Thus, the words “more effective protection to women” are mentioned in the foreword of the DV Act to explain the purpose of bringing the enactment.

Further, the Court held that the essential requirements for being an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the DV Act includes being physical, mental, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic abuse. The aggrieved person must also be residing in a shared household or had, at any point of time lived together in a shared household with the respondent, who is related to her by marriage, adoption, consanguinity or living together, in a joint family as a family member.

Thereafter, the question before the Court was “whether an independent substantive right for monetary relief flows from section 20 of the DV Act or whether section 20 read with section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 merely provides for procedure and no more?”

The Court relied on Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim wherein the Supreme Court had held that similar to Hindu family structures, children of Muslim parents have an independent right to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The right to claim maintenance cannot be taken away except through clear provisions of a statute.

Further reliance was placed on Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju Lata and Others wherein the Apex Court held that under Section 20(3) in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a minor girl was entitled to maintenance even after attaining majority till her marriage.

Lastly, the Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar vs. Lata @ Sharuti & Others to hold that the scope of the DV Act is very wide. The Court held that the DV Act was enacted to provide speedy relief to those who had been subjected to domestic violence in any domestic relationship irrespective of their religion and age.

Accordingly, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

Case Title: Naimullah Sheikh And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3046 of 2023]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 17

Click Here To Read/Download Order