TAYENJAM ROBINKUMAR SINGH Vs. CHINGTHAM NINGOL TAYENJAM ONGBI SHARMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 14th May, 2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 2012 arising out of Criminal (C) Case No. 46 of 2009.

(2.) THE brief background of the case is that the respondent filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the "Act") praying for relief of protection, monthly maintenance, compensation, medical expenses etc. Her case is that she had eloped with the petitioner on 13th January, 2006 and formal marriage was performed on 22nd November, 2007 according to Manipur Hindu Rituals and Customs in presence of friends, relatives and parents. Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife. After two months of their marriage, she came to know that the petitioner was keeping an extra -marital relationship with another lady. On being questioned, he ridiculed her by saying that he had illicit relationship with many beautiful women who are young and modest. She further alleged that the petitioner used to quarreled on trivial issues and beat her without any reason. However, she conceived for the first time in the month of December, 2007 and disclosed about her pregnancy to her mother -in -law and requested for medical check -up. She was advised by her mother -in -law to abort the pregnancy. Thereafter, she was ill -treated and tortured by her mother -in -law. When she informed about the pregnancy to the petitioner, over phone, she was told that he will not take responsibility of the child and she was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She also alleged that one woman with whom the petitioner had an extra -marital relationship registered a complaint for commission of offence u/s 376/417 of IPC and consequently, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Because of the above incident, she was abused by her in -laws. On these allegations and on some other allegations also, the complaint was filed by her u/s 12 of the Act. The said complaint was registered as Criminal (c) Case No. 46 of 2009. The learned Magistrate after issuing notice to the present petitioner and hearing parties, passed an order on 28th November, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1500/ - per month and compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees twenty thousand) only. Subsequently, a joint application was filed by both the parties and it was agreed that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - (Rupees thirty thousand) only to the respondent towards arrear of maintenance from the month of September, 2009 to April, 2011 and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - (Rupees twenty thousand) as compensation to the respondent. On the basis of the joint application, the Court modified the order.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , initial complaint of the respondent was filed u/s 12 of the Act. Learned Magistrate, by an order dated 20th November, 2010, allowed the application and directed for payment of arrear maintenance and Rs. 20,000/ - as compensation and monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,500/ - per month. By a subsequent order, a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards arrear maintenance and compensation was paid to the respondent. However, for non -payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/ - per month, the present application was filed for execution u/s 20 and Sub -section 6 of the Act which provides that upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub -section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent. Therefore, if any amount of monthly maintenance had not been paid by the petitioner, learned Magistrate could proceed to execute the same under the above provision and direct the employer of the petitioner to deposit with the court or pay to the respondent a portion of the salary drawn by the petitioner.