No Ground for Setting Aside Orders: High Court Affirms Rent and Maintenance in Domestic Violence Case

High Court reaffirms lower courts' orders, emphasizing proper financial assessment, and directs immediate provision of rented accommodation.

In a recent judgment, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Kiran Yadav and her daughter, Shreya Yadav, seeking an enhancement of rent allowance and provision of rented accommodation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan on May 8, 2024, upheld the decisions of the trial court and appellate court, emphasizing the sufficiency of the monthly allowance and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.

Kiran Yadav, the petitioner, initially approached the Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad (Ayodhya), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs including a monthly allowance and provision for rented accommodation. The trial court ordered a monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500 for Kiran Yadav and Rs. 1,000 for her daughter, along with a one-time compensation of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. Additionally, the respondent, Manoj Kumar Yadav, was directed to provide a rented room for Kiran Yadav. Dissatisfied with the allowance, Kiran Yadav sought enhancement of the amount, which was subsequently dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad (Ayodhya).

The High Court reiterated the importance of a thorough financial assessment in awarding maintenance and compensation. "The trial court has considered the financial position of the respondent and all other facts and circumstances of the case," noted Justice Khan, emphasizing that the petitioners failed to provide adequate reasons for the inadequacy of the compensation.

Justice Khan underscored the supervisory role of the High Court under Article 227, affirming the lower courts' findings. "I do not find any good ground to set aside the impugned orders," he stated, referencing the sufficiency of the compensation and maintenance provided based on the financial positions and circumstances.

The judgment emphasized the procedural propriety and the absence of any illegality in the trial and appellate court orders. "Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders with regard to the payment of one-time compensation or the quantum of maintenance provided," Justice Khan remarked. The Court highlighted the consistent consideration of financial evidence and dismissed the petitioners' claims for enhancement as baseless.

Justice Khan, in addressing the petitioners' appeal for enhanced rent, noted, "Perusal of the record would evidently reveal that vide order dated 20.09.2021 only a direction was given by the Magistrate to the respondent to provide a rented room to the petitioner and no quantum of money was directed to be paid."

The High Court's dismissal of the petition highlights the judiciary's commitment to fair and thorough financial assessment in cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. By directing the executing court to ensure the provision of rented accommodation without delay, the judgment underscores the need for timely enforcement of orders while maintaining the adequacy of financial awards. This decision reaffirms the legal framework supporting the financial and residential rights of victims of domestic violence, setting a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: May 8, 2024

Kiran Yadav and Another vs. Additional Sessions Judge