IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF SINDUSTAN

MRS. VIMLADEVI…………………………..…………………APPLICANT

VERSUS

MR. HARI LAL……………………………………………..RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF SINDUSTAN

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MR. HARI LAL

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….………….......1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………….…….........5

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………..………….....…6

ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………..…….................7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………...…..…......8

PLEADINGS

ISSUE A……………………………………………………………….........................10
ISSUE A.1………………………………………………………………..........10
ISSUE A.2………………………………………………………………..........10
ISSUE A.3………………………………………………………………..........11
ISSUE A.4………………………………………………………………..........12

ISSUE B.………………………………………………………...……….…................13
ISSUE C……………………………………………….................................................15
ISSUE C.1……………………………………………………...………….......15
ISSUE C.2……………………………………………......................................16
ISSUE D……………………………………………….................................................19
ISSUE D.1…………………………………………………………………......19

ISSUE D.2……………………………………………………………………..21
ISSUE D.3……………………………………………………………………..22
ISSUE D.4……………………………………………………………………..24
ISSUE D.5……………………………………………………………………..25
ISSUE D.6……………………………………………………………………..26
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………....................27

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED
S. Case Citation
NO
1. A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti AIR 2005 SC 4292.
Venkateswarulu
2. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. AIR 1994 SC 2151
M/s. GAR Re- Rolling Mills & Anr.
3. Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe vs State Of II (1998) DMC 569
Maharashtra And Ors.
4. Bammadevara v. Bammadevara (1928) 55 M.L.J. 242
5. Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. & Anr. v. AIR 2012 SC 3285.
Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel & Anr.
6. Bhupender Singh Mehra vs State Nct Of Delhi 2011(2)RCR(Criminal)360
& Anr.
7. Central London Property Trust Ltd. Vs. High [1947] 1 KB 130
Trees House Ltd
8. Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605
9. Combe v. Combe [1951]2 KB 215
10. D Wadhwa Rohtash Singh vs Smt. Ramendri AIR2000SC952
& Ors
11. Deb Narayn Halder v. Anushree Halder 2004 SCC Criminal 164.
12. Dennison Paulraj & Ors. vs. Mrs. Mayawinola II(2009)DMC252
13. Devendra Kumar v. State OF Uttaranchal & 2013 STPL(Web) 608 SC.
Ors.
14. District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram (1990) 3 SCC 655
Social Welfare Residential School Society v.
M. Tripura Sundari Devi
15. Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641
16. Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Ltd [1877] 2 App Cas 439
17. Jagannath Narayan Nikam v. State of 1995 CR LJ 1432 (Bom).
Maharashtra
18. Kalyan v. State of U.P. (2001) 9 SCC 632
19. Kamal Vaswani & Anr. vs. Smt. Jaidevi MANU/MP/1158/2013
Vaswani
20. Kanik Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar 2003 Cr LJ 375 (Pat)
21. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan AIR 2003 SC 1709
Yadav
22. Laing Co. v. Lafone 1887: 19, Q.B.D.68
23. Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay 1956 All E.R. 349.

24. Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1650

[Type here]
 25. M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1888.
26. Madhusudan Bhardivaj v. Mamta Bhardwaj 2009 Cr LJ 3095.
27. Mammad Kunhi vs. Rukhiya 1978 CriLJ 1645
28. Mutyala v. Mutyala 1958 A.P. 582
29. ONGC Ltd. v. M/s. Modern Construction and 2013X AD (S.C.) 517
Co.
30. P.T. Ramankutty Achan vs Kalyanikutty AIR 1971 Ker 22.
31. P.V. SubbaRao and others Vrs. V. A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 591
JagadanandaRao
32. Pickard v. Sears 1837: 6Ad. & El. 469
33. R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police AIR 2008 SC 578
& Ors.
34. Rakesh Sachdeva and Ors v. State of 2014(1)AJR208
Jhanrkhand and Anr
35. Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4096.
36. Ram Ratan v.State of U.P. 2002 Cr LJ 2688 (All).
37. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. AIR 1994 SC 853;
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
38. Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors. the State and Anr, (2011)ILR 1Delhi58
39. Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal Chunder Laha 1898 L.R. 19 I.A.203
40. Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. & Ors., v. (2005) 2 SCC 746.
B. Chinnam Naidu
41. Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan AIR2010SC305
42. Shiba @ PurnaSahoo and @ Purna Chandra 2011(Supp. I)OLR981
SahooVs. Smt. NishamaniSahoo and two
others,
43. Sidlingappa . Sidava, (1872) 2 Bom. 634
44. Smt Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhad ( 1997 ) 2 SCC 397
45. Smt. Archana Gupta & Anr v. Sri Rajeev Gupta Criminal Revision No. 201 Of
& Another 2006
46. Smt. MamtaAwasthy&Ors.Vs. Ajay Kumar AIR2011MP166
Shrivastava
47. Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Bros., AIR 1992 SC 1555
48. State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2008 SC 1083
49. State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481.

50. Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686

51. Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1340
52. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. AIR 2000 SC 1165
Rajendra Singh & Ors.
53. Utpal Das v. State of W.B. AIR 2010 SC 1894.

54. Venkata Swamy Naidu vs. Sornammal ILR(1970) 1 Mad 336

[Type here]
 55. Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2004) 6 SCC 325
& Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav
56. Vijay Verma vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. ( 2011 )ILR 1 Delhi 36
57. Vishal Damodar Patil vs. Vishakha Damoda 2009CriLJ107
Patil

BOOKS REFERRED

S.NO. Name
1. Mulla, D.F, Mulla Hindu Law, 15th ed.
2. Hindu Law of Marriage and Stridhan, Banerjee
3. Hindu Law, Sastri, G.S.
4. MULLA, Principles of Hindu Law, Vol. I, 18th Ed. 2001
5. The Modern Hindu Law, Paras Diwan
6. Shorter Constitution of India, D.D. Basu, Vol. 2 (14th ed. 2010)
7. Interpretation of Statute, N.S. Bindra, 10th edition
8. Black’s Law Dictionary, Bryan A. Garner, 8th edition
9. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition
10. Sarkar’s Commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure, Sarkar, 2nd edition.

STATUTES REFERRED
S. NO. NAME
1. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
2. The Constitution of India, 1949
3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
6. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
7. The Limitation Act, 1963

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
@ Alias
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Anothers
Art. Article
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
against Women
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
Ed. Edition
HC The High Court
Hon’ble Honourable

[Type here]
 i.e. that is
ILR Indian Law Reporter
Ltd. Limited
No. Number
Ors. Others
P. Page
Pb. Publication
S. Section
SC The Supreme Court of India
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
ss. Sections
The CrPC The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The IE Act The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The IPC The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The PWD Act The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
u/s Under Section
UK The United Kingdom of Great Britain
UOI The Union of India
V. Versus
Vol. Volume

[Type here]
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Court Judicial Magistrate of Sindustan is empowered to hear this case by the virtue
of Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Section reads as:

(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the
case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is
employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection
order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.
Also, Section- 11 empowers this Hon’ble Court to hear the case and grant relief under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

[Type here]
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

HariLal married Vimla Devi in 1983. After marriage Vimla Devi went to her matrimonial house
in Bhimpur village which was HariLal’s father’s house. Gradually, HariLal began to neglect
Vimla Devi and began to demand dowry. There was no warmth in the marriage and physical
violence against Vimla Devi at hands of HariLal became a routine. During her pregnancy, she
was sent to her parent’s house and gave birth to a girl child “Dolly” on 22nd March 1986.When
the child was two months old, father and brother of Vimla, brought her to the house of HariLal.
The father-­­in-­­law of Vimla, Ramesh Chand allowed her to stay in his house, however, the
incidents of ill-­­treatment, verbal, physical and emotional abuse at the hands of HariLal
aggravated. Soon, she was driven out by HariLal alleging that Dolly was not his child.In 1994
Hari moved the Court under the Guardianship and Wards Act, seeking that the custody of Dolly
be handed over to him. The action was contested by Vimla, who was able to substantiate that
she was in a better position to take care of Dolly and fulfilling her basic requirements. She
admitted in the court that she did not have enough source of income to support the education
of her daughter on her own. In the year 1997 Vimla moved an application before the concerned
Gram Panchayat of Bhimpur for provision of maintenance for herself and her daughter. The
concerned Gram Panchayat, ordered Hari to pay a maintenance of Rs. 500/-­­ per month to the
Applicant/Vimla. Not even a single payment was made by him as per this order. Vimla and her
daughter had been struck off from the local registers (family registers, ration cards, etc). Hari,
who was working as a government servant and earning a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000,
had moved out of the joint family house and constructed a new house in Bhimpur. In the year
2010 when Dolly had already completed her education at the college level, Vimla initiated an
action against Hari under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying
that she was ‘aggrieved person’ within the definition of this expression under the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. She has prayed that the respondent be directed to allow Vimla and her
daughter to live with him in his present residence, while ordering him not to commit any further
acts of domestic violence against either of them. She has also prayed that the stridhana, that
she had left in her matrimonial home in 1985, be restored to her and her daughter should be
provided share in property. Monetary relief and compensation has also been prayed for. The
respondent was able to prove to the ordered deletion of the name of Vimla from the list of
people Below Poverty Line, of the concerned area.

[Type here]
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE A: WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION?

1. THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE REQUIRE CAREFUL PERUSAL.

2. THAT THE APPLICANT’S CONDUCT MANIFESTS AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE.
3. THAT THE BURDEN TO EXPLAIN INORDINATE DELAY RESTS ON THE APPLICANT.
4. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY .

ISSUE B: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BOUND BY THE RULE OF

ESTOPPEL?

ISSUE C: WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE

RESPONDENT?

1. THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT HIM BEING
VICTIMIZED IN THE INSTANT CASE.

2. THAT THE APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HER OWN WRONG.

ISSUE D: WHETHER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR ARE MAINTAINABLE?

1. THAT A PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

2. THAT A RESIDENCE ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE .
3. THAT THE PLEA FOR MONETARY RELIEF IS NOT TENABLE.
4. THAT THE PLEA FOR COMPENSATION IS NOT TENABLE.
5. THAT THE PLEA FOR RETURN OF STRIDHANA IS NOT TENABLE.
6. THAT THE PLEA FOR SHARE IN PROPERTY IS NOT TENABLE.

[Type here]
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE A: WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION?

It is a settled canon of law that as far as the limitation is concerned, no doubt provisions of
Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings, yet if there is an abnormal delay and
inordinate delay in bringing the matter before this Hon’ble Court, in this case over 20 years,
the Applicant should not be allowed to file this case and should be barred by limitation. Also,
in the instant case, the Applicant failed to describe the “Sufficient Cause” as held by the Apex
Court in its galaxy of precedents. Therefore, the Applicant should be barred by limitation from
invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

ISSUE B: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BOUND BY THE RULE OF

ESTOPPEL?

The Rule of Estoppel in the instant case applies to the Applicant as she, herself, as her conduct
shows, left the house of the Respondent and took away ‘Dolly’ with her. Her conduct clearly
manifests that she is living a normal life as she also, admitted that she is in a better position to
take care of herself and the child and also, no efforts of reconciliation or restitution were made
by her even though the Respondent accepted her back when she came for the marriage function
in 1990. This fact clearly shows that the Respond with a bona fide intention wanted to live with
the Respondent and ‘Dolly’ whereas the Applicant never wanted the same. Now, at such a
belated stage, the Applicant should be Estopped from changing her stand and therefore, filing
the instant case.

ISSUE C: WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT AGAINST THE

RESPONDENT?

The pre-requisite of admitting a case under PWD Act, 2005 is that the Applicant should be an
“Aggrieved Person” as per S. 2(a) of the Act. But, the conduct of the Applicant and Respondent
clearly shows that the Applicant has filed this case with the sole intention of harassing the
Respondent. Also, the Applicant’s standard of living clearly established the fact that she is in
no need of any of the reliefs prayed for. Also, the Applicant deserted the Respondent and now
she should not be allowed to plead such reliefs. She is not an aggrieved person under this Act
and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the Respondent.

[Type here]
ISSUE D: WHETHER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR ARE MAINTAINABLE?

The Respondent humbly submits that the reliefs prayed for are not maintainable. A protection
order is not maintainable in the absence of a prima facie case. A residence order must not be
granted as the Applicant intends to unduly obtain a share in the property through the same. An
order for maintenance and compensation is not tenable as the Applicant is able to maintain
herself and has also not suffered from monetary losses on account of domestic violence.
Further, an order for return of stridhan and share in property is wholly unwarranted.

[Type here]
 PLEADINGS

ISSUE A: WHETHER THE INSTANT CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION?

It is submitted by the Respondent that the instant case is barred by limitation in view of the
following-

1. THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE REQUIRE CAREFUL PERUSAL

Even in the absence of applicability of laws regarding limitation, the court must take into
consideration the facts and circumstances of any inordinate delay in initiation of proceedings.1
Such consideration acts as a necessary safeguard against possible abuse of the process of court.
Access to justice should also not be used as a license to file misconceived and frivolous
petitions.2 The provisions of the PWD Act are open to easy misuses and may be resorted for
self-aggrandizement and for obtaining an unfair advantage over the adversary.3 The facts of the
case must be carefully perused to prevent injustice to the Respondent.

2. THAT THE APPLICANT’S CONDUCT MANIFESTS AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE

In the absence of any period of limitation prescribed in the statute, the court may consider the
conduct of the Applicant for appreciating the involved facts and issues.4 Such a perusal enables
the court to dismiss applications invoked only to abuse the process of the court by obtaining
unfair advantage of lack of limitation. Further, three differing reasons support the existence of
statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice
in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that
persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence. 5 An
unlimited limitation leads to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation
prevents disturbance.6

1
Shri A.P. Jain versus M/s. Faridabad Metal Udyog (2006) BC 262.
2
Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran AIR 1996 SC 2687.
3
Sunitha v. State of Kerala Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 461 of 2010.
4
Chandrakala Bai vs Bhagwan Singh 2003 (2) ALD Cri 10.
5
Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 24, p. 181. See also Basawaraj & Anr. v. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013.
6
Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn. (2005) 7 SCC 510; See. Rajendar Singh & Ors.
v. Santa Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 2537; and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium
Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448.
[Type here]
Further, the “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means “Law assists those
who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights” is a pristine maxim, which applies
to the limitation and in the instant case the Applicant remained dormant over exercise of her
rights and as per a settled canon of law the Applicant should not be allowed to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court at such a belated stage.7

It is submitted that the Applicant is an Anganwari worker capable of fulfilling the needs of
herself and her daughter.8 She has also been able to provide her daughter education up to the
college level. Her conduct in the past over 20 years shows that she was content and has failed
to approach this Hon’ble Court within a reasonable time. The Applicant remained dormant over
exercise of her rights and has only after an unreasonable and unexplained delay invoked the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Despite being in a position to file a case at a much earlier stage, the Applicant has purposely
filed this case with a mala fide intention to harass the Respondent. The demand for share in
property clearly indicates her ulterior motive behind filing of the suit. The Applicant, in the
false garb of a victim, seeks to unduly obtain share in the property of the Respondent. Such a
resort is intended by misusing the liberal provisions of the Act. The Applicant cannot be
allowed to abuse or misuse the said liberal approach of the Courts. 9 Liberal approach of the
Court cannot be stretched to an extent as to make the law redundant and futile.10 Further, The
delays and latches in the instant case are deliberate and the Respondent must not be allowed to
obtain unfair advantage of the liberal approach to limitation.

3. THAT THE BURDEN TO EXPLAIN INORDINATE DELAY RESTS ON THE APPLICANT

To obtain an order of maintenance u/s 125, the CrPC the Applicant is required to satisfactorily
explain the delay in filing of the suit. 11 The initial burden to explain inordinate delays rests on
her. A delay in obtaining legal recourse may prove fatal to the claims of the wife.12 Such a

7
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors; See also M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. v. State Of
U.P. & Anr. on 18 August, 2011.
8
Para 2, Factscript.
9
Jangir Singh v. Prem Motors, 2000(3) Civil Court Cases 491 (P&H).
10
Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 83 (SC) : 1998 (1) Apex Court Journal 211 (SC).
11
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal 2273-2274/2010
12
Chandrakala Bai vs Bhagwan Singh 2003 (2) ALD Cri 10
13
Statement of Objects and Reasons, the PWD Act.
[Type here]
delay casts a reasonable doubt on the veracity of her claims. Further, reliefs envisaged in the
PWD Act are expeditious in nature and aimed at affording speedy remedies.13 The power to
grant such reliefs is discretionary and may be exercised only with judicial caution. The
Magistrate, in exercise of such discretion, may, on failure to cogently explain any inordinate
delay, refuse to grant any instant relief.13 The Applicant must initially discharge the burden to
fully explain the inordinate delay in filing of the suit. The alleged acts of domestic violence
were committed nearly three decades prior to this claim. The onus to fully satisfy the court
regarding her delay in obtaining legal recourse during this period fully rests on her.

4. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY

The instant case lacks any period of limitation prescribed by law, therefore, the Apex Court in
its various judgments has iterated that in such cases, unreasonable and unexplained delay must
only be condoned on production of a ‘sufficient cause’.14 In this context, "sufficient cause"
means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner and there must not be a want
of bona fide on its part.15 . In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on
his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or
remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay.16 ‘Sufficient cause’
can only be decided according to the facts of the case and a straitjacket formula may not be
invented.17

In the instant case, the Applicant remained dormant over exercise of her rights for nearly three
decades only to enforce them with a mala fide intention of harassment to the Respondent. The
Applicant has failed in this entire period to either enforce her rights or to obtain legal recourse
against the Respondent. Her failure to approach the requisite investigative agency further casts
a doubt on her offered narrative regarding acts of domestic violence. Nothing prevented the
Applicant from approaching the correct legal forum. The Applicant cannot take the advantage

13
Kuntibai vs Alakhram I (1999) DMC 660
14
Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993
15
Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhootnath Banerjee & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1336; see also Lala
Matadin v. A. Narayanan, AIR 1970 SC 1953; Parimal v.Veena @ Bharti AIR 2011 SC 1150; and
Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai AIR 2012 SC 1629
16
Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl.Laq Officer 6975 of 2013
17
Madanlal v. Shyamlal, AIR 2002 SC 100; and Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao &
Ors., AIR 2002 SC 1201
[Type here]
of sleeping over his own rights18 and vitiating the process of law and the procedure established
by law.

In view of the aforesaid arguments, the Respondent humbly pleads that the Applicant be barred
from instituting the application.
ISSUE B: WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS BOUND BY THE RULE OF
ESTOPPEL?
It is humbly submitted that, the Applicant is bound by the application of the rule ‘estoppel by
conduct’.

Estoppel is a mechanism for enforcing consistency19. Estoppel is a private law principle which
prevents a person who has led another to believe in a particular state of affairs from going back
on the words or conduct which has led to that belief when it would be unjust or inequitable for
him to do so; the first person is estopped from going back on the statement, promise or
assurance he has made20. In legal terms, an estoppel has been described as an impediment or
bar to a right of action arising from a man’s own act21.The doctrine of estoppel is an established
law22.

The IE Act defines ‘estoppel’ as, “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission,
intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon
such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between
himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing…”23

Estoppel by conduct is, when a person by word or conduct induces another that a certain state
of things exits, and to cause that other to act on that belief in a way he would not have done
had he known the facts 24 .Estoppel by conduct in modern times stands elucidated with the
decisions of the English Courts in Pickard v. Sears 2526 and its gradual elaboration until

18
The State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. M/s. Karamchand Thappar and Bros., AIR 1965 SC 913
19
E Cooke, The Modern Law of Estoppel, Oxford University Press,2000, pp.1-2
20
Halsbury’s Law of England : Estoppel, 951; also see Administrative Law, S.H. Bailey, Fourth Edition
21
Contract Law, Ewan McKendrick, Fifth Edition, pg.213
22
See, Combe v. Combe, [1951]2 KB 215; Hughes vs. Metropolitan Railway Ltd, [1877] 2 App Cas 439; Central
London Property Trust Ltd. Vs. High Trees House Ltd., [1947] 1 KB 130, Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines
Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641
23
S..115 The IE Act,1872
24
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, “The Law of Evidence,” (23 rd enlarged ed. 2010)
25
1837: 6Ad. & El. 469
26
L.R. 19 I.A.203
[Type here]
placement of its true principles by the Privy Council in the case of Sarat Chunder Dey v. Gopal
Chunder Laha27 whereas earlier Lord Esher in the case of Seton, Laing Co. v. Lafone 27 .
Estoppel by conduct has also been explained in the case of Venkata Swamy Naidu vs.
Sornammal28.
In the present case, the contention brought before the court by the applicant is that Smt.Vimla
is an ‘aggrieved person’. However the Counsel pleads the contrary.

The applicant has secured a job at the Anganwadi and it has been established before the Court
during the suit for custody that, she is able enough to fulfil the needs for herself and her child.
Also, ‘Dolly’ has completed her education at the college level therefore, it is well established
that the Applicant was well able to keep and construct a good life for her daughter and has the
economic resources to provide for herself.

Further, the Applicant has been living separate from the Respondent and in-laws for a
considerable amount of time. She moved an application for maintenance before a Gram
Panchayat however, no action of recovery of claim for the maintenance or any other complaint
were made. The Applicant made no attempt to reconcile with the respondent or procure
financial aid at any point for almost 13yrs thereafter. By the actions of the Applicant, it can be
drawn that, the Respondent presumed that the Applicant did not have any further interest in the
family or reconciliation or even the respondent’s need in her life.

It is brought to light from the facts that, had the applicant actually been facing an economic
abuse or deprivation of residence with the respondent due to the domestic violence allegedly
suffered, she would have taken some action in furtherance to such claim. However, the
applicant showed at no instance the urgency or desperation in the need of economic support or
residence in the shared household. Thus she is not an ‘aggrieved person’ and such
representation created by the Applicant, makes her bound by the rule of ‘estoppel by conduct’.29

27
1887: 19, Q.B.D.68
28
ILR(1970) 1 Mad 336
29
Smt. MamtaAwasthy&Ors.Vs. Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, AIR2011MP166; see also Shiba @ PurnaSahoo and
@ Purna Chandra SahooVs. Smt. NishamaniSahoo and two others, 2011(Supp. I)OLR981; P.V. SubbaRao and
others Vrs. V. JagadanandaRao, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 591
[Type here]
ISSUE C: WHETHER A PRIMA FACIE CASE IS MADE OUT AGAISNT THE
RESPONDENT?

It is submitted by the Respondent that no prima facie case is made out as the reliefs asked by
the Applicant are beyond the scope of the PWD Act.

It is a matter of fact that the Applicant and Respondent got married in 1983. ‘Dolly’ was born
out of the wedlock on 22nd March 1986. The Applicant was residing with the Respondent in
the house of the Respondent’s father.

The Respondent accepts that there were marital/adjusting issues in the beginning, which any
newly married couple would have had. The Apex Court in its galaxy of precedents has also
accepted the same. But, the rest of the contention of the Applicant is denied in toto as it’s false
and lacks an ounce of truthfulness. The Respondent wanted the marriage to work and had
always put in efforts for the same. Also, the Respondent never drove out the Applicant as has
been alleged by her, instead it was the Applicant who deserted the Respondent. The Respondent
has always wanted to be with his daughter and the Applicant. This fact can be proved by the
conduct of the Respondent as has been listed below:

1. THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE RESPONDENT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT HIM BEING
VICTIMIZED IN THE INSTANT CASE.

The Respondent submits the following before the Hon’ble Court—

1. The Respondent even though being deserted by the Applicant, filed a case for the
custody of the daughter under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.
2. When the Applicant returned finally to attend the marriage function in 1990 with
Respondent, the Respondent happily let her attend the same with him.30
3. The Respondent is also a government servant, who would never want to indulge in
activities of violence as has been alleged by the Applicant, as the same would affect his
career.

30
Para 2 Factcript.
[Type here]
 4. The Applicant further got herself and ‘Dolly’ registered at her place of residence after
separating. The documents have already been brought on record by the Applicant
herself.31
5. The Respondent never asked the Applicant to leave the house.

The Applicant refused to live with the Respondent without any just cause. The Applicant
deserted the Respondent and took the daughter with her.

It is submitted that the Respondent never refused to take care of the Applicant and is still ready
to accept his family. There was no sufficient reason for the Applicant to desert her
husband/Respondent32.

It is apposite to mention that for a person to invoke the protection of PWD Act, 2005, the
woman has to be an “Aggrieved Person” as per S.2(a) of the Act. As per the said section, the
woman has to be subjected to “Domestic Violence” (defined under S.3 of PWD Act, 2005).

The bare perusal of the aforesaid mentioned section, states that there has to be some harm,
harassment, conduct on the part of the Respondent which causes any kind of abuse to the
woman, whether physical, sexual, verbal or economic. It is pertinent to mention here that the
Applicant in the garb of being an Aggrieved Person who has not been subjected to any of the
above-mentioned harassments has filed this false and frivolous case with the mala fide intention
to harass the Respondent. Also, taking the shelter of the PWD Act, 2005 is highly condemnable
as the Applicant herself deserted the Respondent. 33 The life of the Respondent cannot be
handed over to the whims and fancies of the Applicant.

2. THAT THE APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HER OWN WRONGS34

It is a settled position of law that the Applicants who base their case and facts on fraud 35,
misrepresentation, concealing material facts36 and misguide the Hon’ble Court should not be
given the protection of the procedure established by law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its galaxy

31
Para 4 Factscript.
32
Smt. Archana Gupta & Anr v. Sri Rajeev Gupta & Another Criminal Revision No. 201 Of 2006.
33
Mammad Kunhi vs. Rukhiya 1978 CriLJ 1645.
34
ONGC Ltd. v. M/s. Modern Construction and Co. Civil Appeal Nos. 8957-8958 of 2013.
35
R. Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 578.
36
Secretary, Department of Home, A.P. & Ors., v. B. Chinnam Naidu, (2005) 2 SCC 746.
[Type here]
of judgments37 has again and again emphasized on how fraud vitiates the whole proceedings38
-“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”39,“Equity is, also, known to prevent
the law from the crafty evasions and subtleties invented to evade law” 40,“Fraud and collusion
vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct”41, “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus
nunquam cohabitant)42and “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud”43.

In the instant case, the Applicant is not an ‘Aggrieved person’ and she herself deserted the
Respondent and she should not be allowed to take advantage of her own deliberate wrongs44.
The Apex Court has with it plethora of cases have guided us that such false and frivolous cases
should not be entertained by the Courts.

It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury
ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have
been bad. 45 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases is that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded
or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud
by entertaining petitions on their behalf.46 More so, if the initial action is not in consonance
with law, the subsequent conduct of a party cannot sanctify the same. “Subla Fundamento cedit
opus”- a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done wrong
cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial

37
Devendra Kumar v. State OF Uttaranchal & Ors. 2013 STPL(Web) 608 SC.
38
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar, AIR 2008 SC 1083.
39
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853;See also
Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349.
40
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re- Rolling Mills & Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151; See
also State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481.
41
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Bros., AIR 1992 SC 1555
42
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1165; See also M.P. Mittal v.
State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1888.
43
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4096.
44
D Wadhwa Rohtash Singh vs Smt. Ramendri & Ors. on 2/3/2000.
45
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325).
46
Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran, AIR 1996 SC 686; See also District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655; Chief
Secretary & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Ram Ratan Yadav, AIR
2003 SC 1709; and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu, AIR 2005 SC 4292. 48 Bhartiya
Seva Samaj Trust Tr. Pres. & Anr. v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 3285.
[Type here]
by a competent Court. In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De
Injuria Sua Propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that
their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. Nor can a person claim any
right arising out of his own wrong doing48. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur).47

Since, the pre-requisite of entertaining a case by the Hon’ble Court is that a prima facie case
be made out in favour of the Applicant48 and it is manifestly clear that the Applicant is not an
‘Aggrieved person’ under the PWD Act, 2005. She should therefore not be allowed to take
undue advantage of the Act.

The present case is liable to be dismissed.

ISSUE D: WHETHER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR ARE MAINTAINABLE?

It is most humbly submitted that the reliefs prayed for are not maintainable.

1. THAT A PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

S. 18 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to pass a protection order after perusing the
submissions of the parties to the suit and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence
has taken place or is likely to take place.49 On perusal, two things are required before passing
an order in favour of the aggrieved person; (1) opportunity of hearing to the parties, and (2) on

47
Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, AIR 1996 SC 1340; See also Lily Thomas v. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1650).
48
Kamal Vaswani & Anr. vs. Smt. Jaidevi Vaswani MP HC; Vishal Damodar Patil vs. Vishakha Damoda Patil
Bom HC; Dennison Paulraj & Ors. vs. Mrs. Mayawinola Mad HC.
49
S. 18 reads as follows—“Protection Orders.- “The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the
respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken
place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent
from-(a) committing any act of domestic violence; (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic
violence; (c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its
school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person; (d) attempting to communicate in any form,
whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact; (e)
alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly
by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other
property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate; (f) causing
violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic
violence; (g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order.
[Type here]
being prima facie satisfied with regard to happening of the domestic violence or likely to
happen thereof. For being prima facie satisfied some material is required.50

Protection orders are contemplated on the Magistrate being prima facie satisfied that Domestic
Violence has taken place or is likely to take place against the aggrieved person.51 To this end,
the Magistrate must peruse the evidence supplied by the Applicant alongside the complaint. An
order passed without appreciating the evidence provided for substantiation is liable to be set
aside.52
On careful consideration of the evidence adduced, the following comes to light-

A. Lack of accompaniment of a Domestic Incident Report with the complaint-

S. 2 (e) of the Act defines ‘domestic incident report’ to mean “a report made in the prescribed
form on receipt of a complaint of domestic violence from an aggrieved person”. The Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2005 in Form 1 of Schedule I provide for the form
and manner of a Domestic Incident Report. The form is in detailed analytical form where the
details of each incident of domestic violence are to be entered with date, time and place of
violence and person who caused domestic violence. The purpose is that all allegations made in
application must be specific and the Court should not exercise jurisdiction without considering
the Domestic Incident Report since it is necessary for the Court to know before issuing any
notice to the Respondent as to who caused domestic violence and what was the nature of
violence and when it was committed. The Magistrate is required to consider the domestic
incident report and go through the contents of the application before issuance of summons.53
The legislative intent of providing Domestic Incident Reports is to further clarity as to specific
acts of domestic violence alleged in the complaint and prevent misuse of its laws by ensuring
certainty. Such specificity acts as an indispensable guard against possible injustice by
preventing unwarranted harassment. The intent is further manifest in Form II of Schedule I.
The said form clearly mandates that an application to the Magistrate under S. 12 of the Act
must be filed along with copy of Domestic Incident Report. Accordingly, on receiving an

50
Madhusudan Bhardivaj v. Mamta Bhardwaj, 2009 Cr LJ 3095.
51
Wp(C).No. 15331 Of 2010 (R).
52
Ibid.
53
Bhupender Singh Mehra vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr., para 5.
[Type here]
application under S. 12, the Magistrate is obliged to take into consideration any domestic
incident report received by him.54

B. Absence of FIRs pertaining to alleged acts of domestic violence-

First-information reports, as first version of the incidents, are naturally given their due weight.55
Though not substantive in nature, they may be used to corroborate its maker or for contradicting
him and must be considered with other evidences for deciding whether the case should stand
or fall.58 Great importance is attached to its prompt lodging because the same greatly diminishes
the chances of false implication.56
Prior to the enactment of the Act, remedy in the nature of conviction under S. 498A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was available to complainants alleging domestic violence; provided
the same has resulted in ‘cruelty’ to the wife.57 However, the failure of the Applicant to resort
to the available legal remedy casts a reasonable doubt on the narrative offered by her. Though
the Applicant alleges repeated and continued acts of domestic violence, her failure to approach
the requisite investigating agency in this regard jeopardizes the veracity of her claims. An
educated Anganwari worker proficient to move the Gram Panchayat for maintenance was at
liberty to approach the police. Her failure to do so clearly indicates her ulterior motives to now
falsely implicate the Respondent in the guise of a victim of domestic violence.

C. Vague and indefinite averments in the complaint.

The Applicant broadly alleges acts of verbal, physical and emotional abuse perpetrated by the
Respondent. To this end, specific evidences regarding individual abuses have not been lead. A
mere averment in a complaint regarding acts of domestic violence is not sufficient as it not only
precludes the Respondent from fully preparing his defence but also increases the chances of
concoction and fabrication. Behind failed marriages are not always acts of domestic violence
and demands of dowry. Real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in courts as
increasingly truth and honesty are becoming rare commodities in averments before the courts.58

54
Proviso, S. 12, the PWDV Act
55
Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632; See also Ram Ratan v.State of U.P., 2002 Cr LJ 2688 (All). 58 Kanik
Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2003 Cr LJ 375 (Pat); See also Utpal Das v. State of W.B., AIR 2010 SC 1894.
56
Jagannath Narayan Nikam v. State of Maharashtra, 1995 CR LJ 1432 (Bom).
57
Balkrishna Pandurang Moghe vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. II (1998) DMC 569
58
Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors. the State and Anr, Crl.M.C.No. 491/2009, para 6.
[Type here]
 D. Factum of separate residence.
The Applicant is not entitled to relief under S. 18 in view of her separate residence outside her
matrimonial home.59 Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household
can constitute domestic violence.60

2. THAT A RESIDENCE ORDER IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The Respondent presently resides in Bhimpur along with his brother. The Applicant has prayed
for direction to Respondent to allow the Applicant and her daughter to live with him in his
present residence. In this regard, the Magistrate is empowered by virtue of S.19 to pass a
residence order.61
The use of the word ‘may’ connotes discretion of the Magistrate to be exercised after due
circumspection. The phraseology though intended to further justice empowers the Magistrate
with limited power only to be exercised in situations that warrant so. An order of residence
must only be passed in urgent circumstances of homelessness.65 It is only intended to be passed
to restrain the respondent from dispossessing and disturbing possession of the Applicant. The
Applicant as an Anganwari worker is monetarily secure. By resorting to the PWD Act is
seeking to abuse the process of law to satisfy her ulterior motive of acquiring a share in the
property of the Respondent. It must be kept in mind that resort of Domestic Violence Act cannot
be done to enforce property rights. Resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where
there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided residence when because of
domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance.
Domestic Violence Act is not meant to enforce the legal rights of property.66 Further, the
Respondent is willing to resume his marital life with his wife in his new household. The order
is unwarranted and would unduly interfere with his personal liberty.

59
In Rakesh Sachdeva and Ors v. State of Jhanrkhand and Anr Cr. Rev. No. 1088 of 2012.
60
Vijay Verma vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. Crl. M.C. No.3878/2009.
61
S.19 defines ‘residence orders’ as –“(1) While disposing of an application under sub- (1) of S. 12, the Magistrate
may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order -(a) restraining the
respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the
shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;(b)
directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household;(c) restraining the respondent or any of his
relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides;(d) restraining
the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same;(e) restraining the
respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except
[Type here]
Thus a relief for residence order is not maintainable for the current residence of the Respondent.

3. THAT THE PLEA FOR MONETARY RELIEF IS NOT TENABLE

S. 20(1) of the PWD Act empowers the Magistrate to grant monetary relief to the Applicant.67
A bare reading of S. 20(1) reveals that an order directing payment of monetary relief must only
be made to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the Applicant (or her child) as a
result of domestic violence. Only those expenses may be restored that have been suffered by
the Applicant consequent to acts of domestic violence. As a corollary, no such restoration may
be granted if the losses suffered have no nexus with the alleged acts of domestic violence.

In the instant case, the acts alleged to have been perpetrated have no nexus with the losses
suffered by the Respondent. The Applicant wilfully deserted her matrimonial home. She
willingly gave-up on the comforts of a conjugal life. Her alleged monetary losses and purported
economic abuses are a result of her own negligence in surrendering her matrimonial home and
are not related to the alleged acts of domestic violence.
S. 20(1) further stipulates various factors that determine the quantum of monetary relief liable
to be made. Though the reliefs are not exhaustive, by stipulating specific reliefs, the Legislature
has empowered the Magistrate to only grant reliefs that are similar to the ones specified.
In view of the same, the Applicant humbly submits-
A. That the Applicant has incurred no losses in earnings.
During her matrimonial stay, the Applicant undertook to perform household chores and was
not employed elsewhere. Pursuant to her wilful abandonment, she resided separately only to
get employed as an Anganwari worker soon after. The Applicant has thus suffered no losses as
a result of alleged acts of domestic violence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with the leave of the Magistrate; or(f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation
for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances
so require. Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman.
65
Adil & Ors. v. State & Anr. CRL.M.C. 4159/2009.
66
Ibid.
67
S. 20(1) of the DV Act reads as follow—“While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of S. 12, the
Magistrate may direct the Respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered
by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such
relief may include, but not limited to,-the loss of earnings; the medical expenses; the loss caused due to the
destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and the maintenance
for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of
maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force.”
[Type here]
 B. That the Applicant has incurred no medical expenses.
The medical expenses incurred broadly relate to the expenditure made during the pregnancy of
Applicant. However, the same not being made as a consequent of domestic violence is not
liable to be compensated. No other medical expenditure was sustained by the Applicant during
and after her stay in her matrimonial home.
C. That the Applicant has suffered from no losses to property.
The Applicant has, at no point of time, been compelled to relinquish whole or part of any of
her property whether movable or immovable.
D. That the Applicant is not entitled to maintenance under the PWD Act.
Under personal laws, it is considered an imperative duty of the wife to live with her husband,
corresponding to which, it is the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife.62 The husband’s
obligation to maintain her comes to an end when she leaves him without any good cause or
without his consent.63 The acts of the Applicant have unjustifiably resulted in deprivation of
the matrimonial benefits to the Respondent. The Applicant is not liable to any maintenance on
account of her wilful desertion of her matrimonial home.
E. That the Applicant is not entitled to maintenance under S.125, CrPC.
The relevant extract of S. 125, CrPC reads as follows—
“S.125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents—(1) If any person having
sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself.” The
object and scope of S.125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who are under an
obligation to support those who are unable to support themselves. 64 Thus in order to
successfully avail an order, the wife must prove her inability to maintain herself. The use of the
word ‘may’ in the section makes it clear that the power to grant maintenance is purely
discretionary and must be used to meet the social purpose for which it was intended.65
The instant case involves the Applicant earning an income as an Anganwari worker. Her ability
to maintain herself is manifest from the fact that she has successfully been able to provide
education to her daughter till the college level.

62
Diwan, Paras, “Modern Hindu Law”, p. 447.
63
Bammadevara v. Bammadevara, (1928) 55 M.L.J. 242; See also Sidlingappa . Sidava, (1872) 2 Bom. 634;
Mutyala v. Mutyala, 1958 A.P. 582.
64
Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan S.L.P.(Crl.) No.717 of 2009.
65
P.T. Ramankutty Achan vs Kalyanikutty AIR 1971 Ker 22.
[Type here]
If the wife has a private income of her own which is sufficient to keep her from starvation, an
order granting her maintenance is bad. 66 Further, the Applicant is residing separately for nearly
27 years. Her residence in segregation away from her matrimonial home without any
reasonable ground debars her from claiming maintenance.67
The Respondent most humbly pleads that an order for monetary relief may not be passed.

4. THAT THE PLEA FOR COMPENSATION IS NOT TENABLE

S. 22 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to “direct the Respondent to pay compensation and
damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of
domestic violence.”
The facts of the case reveal that the various acts of domestic violence were allegedly perpetrated
by the Respondent soon after their marriage in 1983. Assuming such violence to have caused
mental torture and emotional distress to the Applicant when they were allegedly committed, by
no stretch of imagination can it be surmised that such torture and distress continues at the time
of filing of application. On the basis of the facts and circumstances, the Applicant is shown, at
the time of application, to be hale and hearty.

5. THAT THE PLEA FOR RETURN OF STRIDHANA IS NOT TENABLE

The Respondent most humbly pleads that the plea for return of stridhana is not maintainable.
The Applicant demands return of her stridhana that she allegedly had entrusted to the
Respondent in 1985. It requires to be established by the complainant or the prosecution,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, as to how and in what manner the
entrustment of the 'stridhana' property or dominion over her 'stridhana' came to be made to the
husband or any other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be. 68
However, either in the complaint or during the course of evidence no proof regarding such
entrustment was brought to the notice of the court. A mere statement, of the complainant that
the 'stridhana' articles were lying in the house, would neither prima facie amount to entrustment
of 'stridhana' articles to the accused nor the misappropriation of the 'stridhana' articles

66
AIR 1952 Hyd 76.
67
Deb Narayn Halder v. Anushree Halder 2004 SCC Criminal 164.
68
Smt Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada on S. 306 of the IPC.
[Type here]
belonging to the Complainant by the Respondent.69 The burden to prove current possession of
the articles of Stridhan with the Respondent rests on the Applicant.70

In the instant case, jewellery, garments and necessary articles of consumption were exchanged
as a mark of adoration between the two families. As a traditional Sikh wedding, prevalent in
the state of Punjab, the union took place according to the various practiced customs. As is the
custom, multifarious gifts were exchanged before the marriage in the Chunni Ceremony, Nanki
Shak and during the marriage while performing the Shaggan ceremony. A list was
consequently prepared of the gifts received. 71 As her exclusive property, the Applicant
possessed absolute dominion over the stridhan received. The same was consequently carried
by the Applicant when she deserted her conjugal home. The stridhan that is demanded, thus, is
currently in possession with the Applicant who by not producing the list of gifts is seeking to
suppress its actual possession.

6. THAT THE PLEA FOR SHARE IN PROPERTY IS NOT TENABLE

Pursuant to filling of an application under S. 12 of the Act, only reliefs contemplated in Chapter
IV: ‘Procedure for Obtaining Orders or Reliefs’ can be claimed. The Magistrate is not
empowered to pass an order for which he is not specifically empowered by the Act. A claim
for share in property is not tenable by reason of its absence as a relief in the Act. It must be
kept in mind that resort of the PWD Act cannot be done to enforce property rights. Resort to
the PWD Act can be done only where there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and
provided residence when because of domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and
she had lost source of maintenance. Domestic Violence Act is not meant to enforce the legal
rights of property.72
The Applicant pleads for a share in the property of the Respondent for her daughter. Such share
is not tenable inasmuch as the property in possession of the Respondent is wholly selfacquired.

69
Satinder Kaur v. S.D. Singh 2005CriLJ3903.
70
S. 103, the IE Act.
71
In this regard, reference may be made to provisions of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents
to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985. Rule 2(1) makes it mandatory for the bride to maintain the list of
presents which are given to her at the time of the marriage. Rule 2(d) further makes signing on the list obligatory
for both the bride and the bridegroom.
72
Adil & Ors. v. State & Anr. CRL.M.C. 4159/2009.
[Type here]
His right over disposal of such property is purely discretionary. The Applicant, by resorting to
the PWD Act is seeking to abuse the process of law to satisfy her ulterior motive of acquiring
a share in the property of the Respondent.
The Respondent most humbly pleads that an order for share in property may not be passed.

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and cases cited it is most humbly prayed
before this Hon’ble Court—

A. That the Applicant is barred by limitation.

B. That the Applicant is Estopped from filing an application.
C. That a prima face case has not been made out against the Respondent.
D. That an Order for Protection u/s 18, an Order for Residence u/s 19, an order for
Monetary relief u/s 20 and an Order for compensation u/s 22 may not be granted to the
Applicant.
E. That an Order for return of stridhan and an order for share in property is not tenable.

Or grant such other relief as the court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE RESPONDENT SHALL DUTY BOUND EVER PRAY

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

[Type here]