Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1935 (ALL)

Uma Shankar v. State of U. P.

2018-09-06

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Naqvi, J. 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Srivastava / Sri Siddhartha Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned G.A. 2. The issue involved in the present application is as to whether an application for maintenance under Section 3 / 7/ 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable by a grand daughter against her grand-father. 3. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is an Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The provisions of the Act are far pervasive than Section 125 Cr.P.C., which has limited application to certain classes of relatives only i.e. wife, children, father and mother. 4. To attract the applicability of the Act, it would be apposite to refer to certain definitional clauses under Section 2. Section 2 (a), (f), (g), (q) and (s) of the Act are extracted hereunder:- Section 2 (a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent; (f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; (g) “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3; (q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. (s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 5. The essential ingredients to attract the applicability of the provisions of the Act are as under:- (i) Claimant must be a person aggrieved i.e. a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship; (ii) Domestic relationship should be between individuals who live or have lived in a shared household, related by blood, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; (iii) The individuals should be living in a shared household where the person aggrieved lives or has at any stage lived; (iv) The aggrieved person should have been subjected to domestic violence in either of its forms as defined under Section 3. 6. The O.P. No. 2 (first set) is the grand-daughter of the applicant. She along with O.P. No. 3 to 5 claims to have lived and is living in the shared accommodation with the applicant. She alleges that after her father's death the applicant and the O.Ps. (second set) neither provided any financial support, on the contrary inflicted physical / mental torture. 7. Going by the above definitional clauses it cannot be gainsaid that considering the relationship of O.P. No. 2 (first set) to the applicant, the provisions of the Act would be squarely applicable. 8. The order impugned grants an injunction restraining the applicant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the O.P. No. 2 (second set) in respect of specified part of accommodation along with maintenance of @ Rs. 3,000/-per month, which is based on relevant and admissible evidence, to which no perversity could be demonstrated. 9. The application is devoid of merit and is dismissed.