The Karnataka High Court ruled that compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act can only be granted if domestic violence is proven.
The High Court reversed the Sessions Court's decision to grant the wife Rs. 4,00,000 in compensation for her inability to support herself.
Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act states that compensation hinges on proving domestic violence. In this case, the wife's conversion to Christianity nullified her rights. The Appellate Court erred in granting Rs. 4,00,000 compensation, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
The bench emphasized that the wife's conversion to a different religion had effectively dissolved the marriage, even without a formal divorce.
Her conversion to Christianity nullified her vested rights. Even without an official divorce, her conversion dissolved the marriage, though there was no court declaration. It's acknowledged that she converted to Christianity.
In response to the wife's Section 12 application, the husband appeared before the trial court, denying the allegations. He claimed that the wife had voluntarily left him, and her negligence led to the death of their second child. He also mentioned her conversion to Christianity and her attempt to convert their female child. Additionally, he stated he was suffering from a paralytic stroke and couldn't support himself, requesting the dismissal of the petition.
The trial court ruled that the petitioner/wife couldn't prove the husband committed domestic violence and, as a result, wasn't entitled to any monetary benefits under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
In the appeal made to the Sessions Court by the wife, the court rejected her claim for maintenance, affirming that no domestic violence had been proven against the respondent. Nevertheless, the court ordered compensation due to the wife's inability to support herself.
The courts have issued a concurrent decision stating that the wife has not been a victim of domestic violence. This means that two or more legal authorities have independently arrived at the same conclusion regarding the absence of domestic violence in the case. Importantly, the wife has not contested or challenged this finding. In the context of the law, this finding holds significance, as it suggests that there is no legally recognized instance of domestic violence against the wife. The implications of this determination may affect various legal matters, including restraining orders, custody arrangements, or any related legal proceedings that the wife may have initiated. The specific consequences of this finding would be subject to the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdiction. For further guidance or a deeper understanding of the situation, it is advisable to consult with a legal professional who can provide tailored advice based on the particulars of the case and the applicable legal framework.
As a result, the court granted the petition and annulled the decision made by the sessions court, reinstating the original order issued by the trial court. This means that the higher court, in this case, has reviewed the matter and found in favor of the petitioner, thereby overturning the decision of the sessions court and reverting to the judgment initially rendered by the trial court. The practical effect of this action is that the order or judgment from the trial court is once again in force and takes precedence over the contrary decision made by the sessions court. Legal proceedings and outcomes often involve a hierarchy of courts, and in this instance, the higher court has exercised its authority to rectify what it perceived as an error in the lower court's decision.
TAGS: accordingly allowed petition set aside order sessions court restored trial court.
