Sathi Khurana v. Rajendra Singh Khurana

Madhumati Mitra, J. - This is an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner Smt. Sathi Khurana challenging the judgment and order dated July 31, 2014 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Court, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas in criminal appeal No.97 of 2013.

2. By the impugned judgment the Learned Appellate Court modified the judgment and order dated 26.06.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore in Case No. C-1011 of 2010.

3. The facts which are essential for disposal of this revisional application may be summarized as under:-

4. The marriage of the present petitioner with the opposite party was solemnized in the year 2007. After solemnization of the social ceremony in the year 2008, the petitioner started to reside with the opposite party at her matrimonial home as mentioned in the cause title of this revisional application. It has been alleged by the petitioner in her application under Section 397 read with section 401 and 482 of the code of criminal procedure that since her marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband/opposite party. All her stridhan including her jewellery which she had received as gifts at the time of her marriage were snatched away by her husband. The opposite party used to return at late night in a drunken condition along with his friends and used to humiliate the petitioner in presence of his friends. Petitioner tried her level best to adjust with the opposite party but failed. The opposite party was trying to drive the petitioner out from her matrimonial home. It was the specific allegation of the petitioner that her husband demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) from her as additional dowry. The petitioner was mercilessly assaulted by her husband as she failed to meet his demand. Her husband tried to murder her by opening the gas cylinder knob, but somehow she managed to escape. Ultimately on and from 31st December, 2009 the opposite party left the petitioner and shifted to another place. The petitioner has claimed that she has no independent source of income. She has apprehension that the opposite party will try to throw her out from her matrimonial home.

5. The petitioner has also stated that her husband earns Rs.80.000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month from his business and he is also the owner of two flats at Calcutta and landed property.

6. Petitioner filed an application under Section 23 and Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. The said application was transferred to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore for disposal. That application was registered as Case No. C-1011 of 2010.

7. The petitioner on 04.08.2010 got an order of interim maintenance and her husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month. By the said order dated August 4, 2010, the opposite party/husband was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner wife from the flat where she resides. Petitioner/wife challenged the said order dated 4th August, 2010 by filing an appeal before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore being Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011. Ultimately that criminal appeal was disposed of on 23rd March, 2012 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 3rd Court, Alipore and Learned Judge enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month. Again the petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Court passed in criminal appeal no.23 of 2011 by preferring a revisional application being CRR no.1961 of 2012 before the High Court. The same order was also challenged by the present opposite party by filing another revisional application being CRR No.2924 of 2012. On September 28, 2012 both the revisional applications filed by the petitioner and opposite parties were disposed of by the High Court by passing a common order and the quantum interim maintenance was enhanced from Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) to Rs.5,500/-(Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred).

8. Ultimately the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was disposed of by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 10th Court, Alipore on June 26, 2013 and directed the opposite party husband to pay sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as maintenance to the petitioner and also directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner as compensation and damages. At the time of passing the order dated 26th June, 2013 the Learned Magistrate restrained the opposite party from entering into the shared household where the petitioner resides and dispossessing the petitioner from the said shared households.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the final order passed by the Learned Magistrate on 26th June, 2013 in case No.C-1011 of 2010 preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2013 for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance and also for payment of compulsory maintenance at the rate of Rs.2200/- (Rupees Two Thousand Two Hundred only) in addition to the cost of the maintenance of the apartment in which she has been residing. The opposite party/husband also challenged the said order dated 26th March, 2013 passed by the Learned Magistrate by preferring another criminal appeal being No.106 of 2013.

10. On July 31, 2014 the Learned Additional Sessions Judge 6th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas disposed of both the Criminal Appeal no. 97 of 2013 and criminal appeal no.106 of 2013, preferred by the petitioner and the opposite party respectively by a common judgment. The Learned Appellant Court has reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs.30,000 (Rupees Thirty Thousand). At the same time the opposite party husband has been directed by the Appellate Court to pay at the rate of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month as maintenance to the petitioner. The husband/opposite party was also directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount for the flat no.1A, 1st Floor, 2770 NSC Bose Road directly to the Habitat Enclave Residents Welfare Association by the 10th of each month.

11. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Learned Appellate Court on 31.07.2014.

12. The impugned judgment and order have been assailed by the Learned Counsel of the petitioner on the ground that the Learned Appellate Court has committed an error in reducing the amount of compensation from Rs,3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand). In support of his contention, Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Learned Magistrate and submitted that the Learned Magistrate rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner considering all aspects and there was no valid ground to interfere with the order of awarding compensation to the petitioner. According to his contention, the reduction of the amount of compensation by the Appellate Court is not sustainable in law as Learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the materials placed on record. He has further contented that the Learned Appellate Court at the time of reducing amount of compensation has failed to make any specific observations in support of his conclusion and the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Appellate Court regarding reduction of compensation amount is not at all justified.

13. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/husband has forcefully submitted that Learned Magistrate while awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees Three Lakh) to the petitioner failed to assign any reason and it is not clear from the said order on what basis the amount was determined as compensation. In support of his contention the Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Learned Magistrate and contented that the order of awarding compensation to the petitioner suffers from vagueness and is not sustainable in law. He has also contended that the present revisional application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

14. Section 22 of the Pgrotection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, lays down provision for awarding compensation.

15. Section 22 of the said act runs as under:-

"Compensation orders.- In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an applications being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent."

16. In the instant case the petitioner/wife was awarded compensation by the Learned Magistrate to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh). The said amount of compensation has been reduced by the Learned Appellate Court in appeal to Rs.30.000/- (rupees Thirty Thousand only).

17. We all know that generally compensation can be awarded to a person for the loss or injury suffered by him due to the act of the opposite party. The right to get compensation has been recognized by Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Section 22 speaks about not only compensation but also damages for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents.

18. The Learned Magistrate directed the opposite party/husband to pay compensation of Rs.3,00.000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) to the wife. The order passed by the Learned Magistrate was completely silent with regards to the reasons which were taken into consideration to award the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh). Learned Magistrate did not mention anything in his order as to why Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh) was awarded as compensation.

19. Having regard to the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties the only question arises in the application as to whether the Learned Appellate Court was justified in reducing the amount of compensation granted to the petitioner by the Learned Magistrate.

20. The determination of compensation must be rational, to be calculated by a judicious approach and it should not be an outcome of guesses or arbitrariness. While calculating the amount of compensation it should be considered that in absence of any evidence or material on record grant of compensation cannot be justified.

21. Compensation for mental or physical shock, pain suffering, frustration, mental stress etc. can be given if there is sufficient evidence on record in this regard.

22. In her deposition before the Learned Magistrate in connection with her application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the petitioner wife stated that she was physically assaulted by her husband. No medical paper was produced by the petitioner before the Learned Magistrate regarding the injuries sustained by her or the expenses incurred by her for treatment. From the materials placed on record it appears that the petitioner is residing at Habitat Enclave, Flat no.1A, 1st floor, 2770 NSC Bose Road, Goria which belongs to the opposite party separately from her husband.

23. Both the Learned Magistrate and the Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that the opposite party/husband is guilty of domestic violence. I do not find any reason to interfere with concurrent findings of both the Learned Courts below in this regard. From the observations made by the Learned Courts below as well as from the materials placed on record it cannot be denied that the wife suffered pain and mental agony due to the behaviour and conduct on the part of her husband. In the above situation I think that a reasonable amount can be awarded as just and proper compensation for the mental pain and agony of the wife. It is very difficult to assess the actual compensation for the mental pain and agony. The Learned Appellate Court reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh) to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand).

24. In his Judgment the Learned Appellate Court has observed that the amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees Three Lakh) was excessive and Learned Appellate Court has reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) keeping in view of the monthly income of the respondent. I do not find any reason to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Learned Appellate Court.

25. The another contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month but she was awarded maintenance Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand) per month. Both the Learned Courts below determined the amount of maintenance Rs.8000/- per month after taking into consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Learned Courts below in this regard.

26. I also do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by Learned Appellate Court. The present Revisional Application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

27. Urgent photostate certified copy of this order if applied, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.