Himachal Pradesh High Court slams husband for using ‘settlement’ claim to dodge maintenance after evicting wife

The order added that since the parties have been litigating for the last 15 years or more, the executing court is directed to take the present proceedings to their logical end expeditiously.

Background

The dispute originated in 2010 when the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, alleging harassment by the husband and his family members for giving birth to a daughter, with the taunt that she belongs to a poor family, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted.

She alleged that she was compelled to leave the shared household, and, therefore, she sought protection under the Act prohibiting the petitioner-husband and his family members from interfering in any manner in her life and also sought a custody order of her minor child.

In 2011, the judicial magistrate first class granted substantial relief, including protection orders, a residence order for rent and utilities, and monthly maintenance totalling Rs 10,000 for the wife and child. Additionally, the wife was awarded Rs 50,000 in compensation for mental torture and emotional distress.

While a criminal revision was pending in 2014, the parties entered into an amicable settlement, agreeing to live together and withdraw all pending litigation, including a criminal First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the execution petition for maintenance. Consequently, the FIR against the husband was quashed.

‘Repeated torture’ after settlement

• The respondent-wife alleged that the husband and his family members did not honour the compromise which took place between the parties.
• She alleged that merely months after the compromise, she and her child were again turned out of the house.
• She further claimed that no damages and maintenance were paid, nor rental accommodation was provided to her and her minor child, nor any rent, water, and electricity charges were paid, and she was left dependent on her siblings.
• This prompted her to file for the execution of the original 2011 order in 2014.
• The trial court eventually ruled in her favour, following which the petitioner-husband challenged the execution, arguing that the original 2011 order had “merged” into the compromise order of 2014 and was no longer maintainable.

Court’s findings

• The DV Act clearly reveals that it is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to women who suffer from domestic violence and to prevent acts of domestic violence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court stated.
• Admittedly, the wife initially approached a judicial magistrate, under Section 12 of the Act, for the grant of appropriate relief.
• It is the case of the husband that once the compromise has been effected between the parties, the wife was barred from filing an execution petition in view of the court’s orders passed in 2013 and 2014.
• Since the husband and his family members failed to honour the terms and conditions of the compromise, arrived at inter se the parties, and the present respondent and her child were turned out of the house, the respondent had no other option, except to file an application for execution of the order of 2011 to sustain herself and her minor child.
• The wife and her minor child were turned out of the house by the petitioner, along with his family members, in 2014, only after a few months of the said compromise, the Himachal Pradesh High Court pointed out.
• Neither was any maintenance or rental accommodation provided to them. Even water and electricity charges were not paid.
• It has been averred in the said application that the wife and minor child have been neglected and deserted by the petitioner and his family members.

Petition dismissed

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the husband’s petition “being devoid of any merit” deserves to be dismissed. It directed the executing court to take the proceedings to its logical end in an expeditious manner, while disposing of pending applications, if any.

The court added that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, it cannot act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.

“Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. This is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court,” the Himachal Pradesh High Court added.