# Naimullah Sheik & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-10
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3046 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naimullah-sheik-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51637
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(f),
2(q), 2(s), 12 & 20 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 227 - Maintenance for
Major Unmarried Daughters - - Petitioners
(father and stepmother) challenged trial court's
order
(30.05.2022)
granting
interim
maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each
of three major daughters (aged 25, 22, 20)
under Section 12 of DV Act, and appellate
court's affirmation (08.12.2022). Daughters
alleged domestic violence (physical assault,
denial of education) by father and stepmother
after their mother's death. Petitioners contended
daughters, being major, were not entitled to
maintenance, were earning independently, and
application was instigated by maternal uncle.
Court held that DV Act provides a broader,
quicker remedy for women subjected to
domestic violence, including monetary relief
under
Section
20,
which
encompasses
maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) in addition
to or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or other laws.
Supreme Court and High Court precedents
(Noor Saba Khatoon Vs Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6
SCC 233; Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata,
(2002) 5 SCC 422; Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @
Sharuti,
2019
Supreme
(SC)
612;
Menti
Trinadha Venkata Ramana Vs Menti Lakshmi,
2021 SCC Online AP 2860; Mustakim Vs St. of
U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 693) confirm that major
unmarried daughters, Hindu or Muslim, can
claim maintenance under personal law or DV Act
if subjected to domestic violence in a domestic
relationship. Section 20(1) also recognizes
independent monetary relief for expenses/losses
due to domestic violence, irrespective of age or
dependency. No illegality found in impugned
orders; petition dismissed under Article 227.
(Paras
4-15)
3 All. Naimullah Sheik & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
Petition Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment, failing which, the Registrar
General shall send a copy of this order
alongwith letter to the District Magistrate,
Shamli (respondent No.2) to issue a
recovery citation against the petitioner for
recovering the said sum as arrears of land
revenue within one month from the date of
receipt of copy of the instant order from the
Registrar General.

34. On receipt of aforesaid amount,
Registrar General of this Court shall credit
the same to the account of Tara Sansthan,
SBI Account No. 31840870750, IFSC Code
SBIN0011406, after due verification of the
particulars
of
the
said
account
in
consultation with the Head/ Incharge of the
said Sansthan. The amount, so remitted,
shall be used exclusively for the welfare of
the old-age people staying in Rabindra
Nath Gaur Anand Old Age Home, located
at 25/39, LIC Colony Tagore Town,
Prayagraj (U.P.). A copy of this order shall
also be served upon the Head/Incharge of
the said old age home for necessary
compliance of this order.

35. The Head/Incharge of said
Sansthan shall submit statement(s) of
account before Registrar General of this
Court disclosing the manner of utilization
of cost till the amount is spent for the above
welfare
purpose,
failing
which,
the
Head/Incharge of the said old age home
shall be answerable.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 348
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABABAD 10.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3046 of 2023

Naimullah Sheik & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Khursheed Alam

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Mohd. Warish Khan

Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(a), 2(f),
2(q), 2(s), 12 & 20 - Constitution of
India,1950 - Article 227 - Maintenance for
Major Unmarried Daughters - - Petitioners
(father and stepmother) challenged trial court's
order
(30.05.2022)
granting
interim
maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to each
of three major daughters (aged 25, 22, 20)
under Section 12 of DV Act, and appellate
court's affirmation (08.12.2022). Daughters
alleged domestic violence (physical assault,
denial of education) by father and stepmother
after their mother's death. Petitioners contended
daughters, being major, were not entitled to
maintenance, were earning independently, and
application was instigated by maternal uncle.
Court held that DV Act provides a broader,
quicker remedy for women subjected to
domestic violence, including monetary relief
under
Section
20,
which
encompasses
maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) in addition
to or under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or other laws.
Supreme Court and High Court precedents
(Noor Saba Khatoon Vs Mohd. Quasim, (1997) 6
SCC 233; Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata,
(2002) 5 SCC 422; Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @
Sharuti,
2019
Supreme
(SC)
612;
Menti
Trinadha Venkata Ramana Vs Menti Lakshmi,
2021 SCC Online AP 2860; Mustakim Vs St. of
U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 693) confirm that major
unmarried daughters, Hindu or Muslim, can
claim maintenance under personal law or DV Act
if subjected to domestic violence in a domestic
relationship. Section 20(1) also recognizes
independent monetary relief for expenses/losses
due to domestic violence, irrespective of age or
dependency. No illegality found in impugned
orders; petition dismissed under Article 227.
(Paras
4-15)
3 All. Naimullah Sheik & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
Petition Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:

1. Noor Saba Khatoon Vs Mohd. Quasim, (1997)
6 SCC 233 (Paras 11, 12, 14)

2. Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata, (2002) 5
SCC 422 (Paras 11, 12, 14)

3. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti, 2019 Supreme
(SC) 612 (Para 11)

4. Menti Trinadha Venkata Ramana Vs Menti
Lakshmi, 2021 SCC Online AP 2860 (Para 11)

5. Mustakim Vs St. of U.P., 2015 (3) ADJ 693
(Para 11)

6. Amod Kumar Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., 2008
(62) ACC 591 (Para 11)

7. Abhilasha Vs Parkash, (not fully cited in
judgment) (Para 11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Khurshed Alam, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd.
Warish Khan, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and learned
AGA for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India has been filed
by parents of three daughters who are
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4, challenging the
order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, F.T.C., Court No. 2,
Deoria in Case no. 4782 of 2020 (Hina and
Others vs. Naimullah and Another) filed
under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the DV Act') and further to
challenge the order dated 08.12.2022
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2022,
by which the order of the trial court was
affirmed.

3. The facts relevant for the purpose
of this petition are as below:-

(i) Km. Hina, Km. Tabassum and
Km. Tarannum filed a case under section
12 of the DV Act, claiming maintenance
with the submissions in brief that their real
mother Naseema Khatun died in February
2015 and that their father married another
woman during the life time of their
deceased mother and that now their father
and step-mother have been mistreating,
physically assaulting them and have also
stopped
them
from
pursuing
their
education;

(ii) The applicants filed an
application
for
grant
of
interim
maintenance. The opposite side gave
written objection, in which in essence, it
was submitted that the O.Ps has been
facing financial difficulties and that his
daughters are healthy and have been
earning independently and that they have
been staying with him also and he has been
bearing all their expenses;

(iii) The learned trial court heard
both the sides and directed the O.Ps to pay
Rs. 3,000/- per head, every month as
interim maintenance allowance;

(iv) Aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, O.Ps preferred an appeal in which,
besides other averments, it was submitted
that his daughters are major, aged about 25
years, 22 years and 20 years respectively
and this fact was completely ignored by the
trial
court,
while
granting
interim
maintenance;

(v) The appellate court passed a
detailed order, dismissing the appeal.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that the learned court below
failed to consider the fact that their father is
an old and infirm person, having no source
of income and that he has already been
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
maintaining the respondents and that the
application for grant of maintenance under
the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, was filed at the behest of
their maternal uncle. Since the death of his
wife, his daughters were staying with him
and the expenses were being borne by him
only and that they are educated and have
been earning by taking tuitions. The most
important contention from the petitioners is
that his daughters are major and therefore
they cannot claim any maintenance.

5. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been
enacted with an object to provide for 'more
effective protection to women', guaranteed
under the Constitution, who are the victims
of violence of any kind occurring within
the family and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. The use of
the
word
'more'
before
the
phrase
'effective protection of rights of woman' is
not an insignificant addition. The matter
shall be further elaborated at appropriate
places in the judgment.

6. Under the aforesaid Act of 2005,
any aggrieved person may apply to the
Magistrate for seeking one or more relief
under the Act. Broadly the reliefs available
under the Act are titled as "Right to reside
in a shared household under section 17,
Protection
orders
under
section
18,
Residence
orders
under
section
19,
Monetary reliefs under section 20, Custody
orders under section 21 and Compensation
orders under section 22."

Section
20
under
which
monetary relief may be granted to an
aggrieved person has been worded as
below:-

(1) While
disposing
of
an
application under sub-section (1) of
section 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 is not limited to-

(a)the loss of earnings;

(b) the medical expenses;

(c)the loss caused due to the
destruction, damage or removal of any
property from the control of the aggrieved
person; and

(d) 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.

(2) The monetary relief granted
under this section shall be adequate, fair
and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved
person is accustomed

(3) The Magistrate shall have
the power to order an appropriate lump
sum payment or monthly payments of
maintenance,
as
the
nature
and
circumstances of the case may require.

(4) The Magistrate shall send a
copy of the order for monetary relief made
under sub-section (1) to the parties to the
application and to the in-charge of the
police station within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

(5) The respondent shall pay the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved
person within the period specified in the
order under sub-section (1).

(6) 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
3 All. Naimullah Sheik & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351
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."

7. Perusal of the above provision
demonstrates that any aggrieved person
including any child of the aggrieved
person, who has been subjected to domestic
violence, may claim monetary relief to
meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered as a result of domestic violence
and also monetary relief for such incidental
matters like monetary relief for loss of
earnings, medical expenses, loss of any
property and also for maintenance. This
provision of law further provides that such
reliefs of monetary nature can also be
claimed which do not fall under the
categories
enumerated
above
as
the
provisions clearly lay down that reliefs
need not be limited to reliefs as described
under section 20(1), 20(1)(a), 20(1)(b),
20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d). Section 20(1)(d) of
the DV Act further expands the scope of
monetary relief for maintenance. For better
understanding I am reproducing section
20(1)(d) again as below:-

"(d) 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."

This part of the provision of law
says that not only the aggrieved persons but
also her children, if any, may claim
maintenance 'under' and 'in addition' to
order of maintenance under section 125
Cr.P.C. And further that the maintenance
can be claimed under or in addition to any
other law for the time being in force. The
way provision has been worded, gives a
clear indication that section 12 of the DV
Act is essentially a procedural law, which
can be resorted to by any aggrieved person,
who
draws
a
substantive
right
for
maintenance from any other law, whether
under section 125 Cr.P.C. or personal law
applicable to the parties or any other law
for the time being in force. Thus law is
quite clear to the extent that maintenance
can be claimed under any law which
provides for the same. Further that even if
maintenance has already been granted
under one law, the aggrieved person can
ask for monetary relief for maintenance
under any other law in addition, under the
provisions of the DV Act. Thus this law
seeks to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Now a question may arise that when rights
have been provided for elsewhere, why
such enactment was needed at all? In my
opinion the legislature has, keeping up with
the objective of this enactment, has cut
down the procedural formalities and
facilitated grant of quicker reliefs.

Section 20(2) of the DV Act says
that the monetary relief granted under this
section shall be adequate, fair, reasonable
and consistent with the standard of living to
which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
The scope for grant of particular kind of
monetary relief that is "maintenance" is
further widened in section 20(3) of the DV
Act which says that an appropriate lumpsum may be ordered to be paid as
maintenance in the nature of circumstances
of a particular case. In my opinion, if the
provisions of section 20(1)(d) of the DV
Act are interpreted in harmony with
rights given to an aggrieved person
under any other law, it appears that the
substantive right to receive maintenance
may emanate from other laws, however
quick and shorter procedure to obtain
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same, has been provided in the the
DV Act, 2005. The rights which the parties
may have under other laws whether civil or
criminal, have been given a cutting edge by
the Act. In my view, this explains the use of
words
"more
effective
protection
to
women" in the foreword which described
the reasons behind this enactment.

8. Having said that, now I come to
some other provisions in the DV Act which
strengthen and fortify the above view
regarding giving more effective protection
to women. Section 2(a) of the DV Act
defines "aggrieved person" as any woman
who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who
alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent. The
woman
who
has
been
in
domestic
relationship with the respondent and who
has been subjected to any domestic
violence, is entitled for relief under the Act,
irrespective of her minority or majority.
The rights of an aggrieved person flow
from the fact that she has been subjected to
violence which may be of physical, mental,
sexual, verbal and emotional nature and
may even in the nature of the economic
abuse. The other essential requirement is
that the aggrieved person has been living in
a shared household or had, at any point of
time lived together in a shared household
with the respondent, who is related to her
by marriage, adoption, consanguinity or
living together, in a joint family as a family
member.

9. Now an important question is
whether an independent substantive right
for monetary relief flows from section 20
of the DV Act or whether section 20 read
with section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 merely
provides for procedure and no more?

10. I examined the provisions as
given under section 20 of the DV Act.
Section 20(1) of the DV Act (first part)
speaks of expenses incurred and losses
suffered
consequent
upon
domestic
violence. From reading this part, this
impression gains ground that irrespective of
other factors like dependency, age or
marital status etc (which may be relevant in
or under any other law) the aggrieved
person has an independent right to obtain
monetary relief for expenses incurred and
losses
suffered
because
of
domestic
violence. In my view principles of law of
torts have found a statutory recognition
here. All monetary reliefs under section 20
of the DV Act are in the nature of expenses
or losses suffered as a result of domestic
violence.
However,
the
grant
of
maintenance forms altogether a different
branch of law though domestic violence
remains the triggering factor here as well.
The law as regard grant of maintenance
even, if it is to be granted under the DV Act
has to be seen in a different perspective.

11. With the above perspective in
mind, lets go through some of the
judgments of the Supreme Court and the
High Court as below:-

In Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd.
Quasim; (1997) 6 SCC 233, before the
Supreme Court, a Muslim woman claimed
maintenance from her husband for herself
and her three minor children under section
125 Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the
application and directed the OP (her
husband) to pay maintenance to his wife as
well as his children till attaining the age of
majority. The respondent divorced her wife
and thereafter filed an application seeking
modification of the order dated 19.01.1993
in view of the provisions of the Muslim
Women (protection of Rights on Divorce)
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act of 1986'). The trial court modified the
3 All. Naimullah Sheik & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
order on the ground that after divorce, she
was entitled for maintenance for 3 months
only i.e. period of 'iddat', as per the
provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1986,
while maintaining the maintenance order
for children. The respondent thereupon
filed a petition before the High Court and
the High Court, accepting his plea held that
the Muslim woman was entitled to claim
maintenance from her previous husband,
for her minor children only up to the period
of 2 years. However the Supreme Court
held that the children of Muslim parents
have an independent right to claim
maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and
that the right cannot be allowed to be
defeated except through clear provisions of
a statutes. The Muslim father's obligation,
like a Hindu father to maintain his minor
children, as contained in section 125
Cr.P.C. is absolute and is not at all affected
by section 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1986.

In para no. 10, it was held as
below:-

"10. Thus, both under the
personal law and the statutory law (Sec.
125 Cr. P. C.) the obligation of a muslim
father,
having
sufficient
means,
to
maintain his minor children, unable to
maintain themselves, till they attain
majority and in case of females till they
get married, is absolute, notwithstanding
the fact that the minor children are living
with the divorced wife."

In Jagdish Jugtawat vs. Manju
Lata and Others; (2002) 5 SCC 422, the
Supreme Court applied the law laid down
in Noor Saba Khatoon vs. Mohd. Quasim
(supra) and drawing force from the
aforesaid judgments held that the right of a
minor girl to obtain maintenance from the
appellants even after attaining majority till
her marriage, is recognized in Section 20(3)
in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956 and therefore the order for
granting maintenance was right.

The relevant portion is as below:-

"3. In view of the finding
recorded and the observations made by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court,
the
only
question
that
arises
for
consideration is whether the order calls
for interference. A similar question came
up for consideration by this Court in the
case of Noor Saba Khatoon v. Mohd.
Quasim , AIR 1997 SC 3280 : 1997 (6)
SCC 233 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 924 relating to
the claim of a Muslim divorced woman for
maintenance from her husband for herself
and her minor children. This Court while
accepting the position that Section 125,
CrPC does not fix liability of parents to
maintain children beyond attainment of
majority, read the said provision and
Section 3(l)(b) of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act
together and held that under the latter
statutory provision liability of providing
maintenance extends beyond attainment
of majority of a dependent girl.

4. Applying the principle to the
facts and circumstances of the case in
hand, it is manifest that the right of a
minor girl for maintenance from parents
after attaining majority till her marriage is
recognized in Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act.
Therefore, no exception can be taken to
the judgment/order passed by the learned
Single Judge for maintaining the order
passed by the Family Court which is based
on a combined reading of Section 125
CrPC and Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act. For the
reasons aforesated we are of the view that
on facts and in the circumstances of the
case no interference with the impugned
judgment/order of the High Court is
called for."
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Menti Trinadha Venkata
Ramana vs. Menti Lakshmi and Others;
2021 SCC Online AP 2860, observed in
para nos. 4 and 5 as below:-

"4. While dealing with a similar
issue in Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata
and others1, a three Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court held though a girl, on
attaining majority, may not be entitled to
maintenance from her parents under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., such right can be
traced to Section 20(3) of the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for
short, 'the Act of 1956') and on a
combined reading of the two provisions,
the Family Court is entitled to grant
maintenance to an un-married daughter
even after attaining majority, provided she
is unable to maintain herself. However,
the aforesaid observations in Jagdish
Jugtawat (supra) were recently clarified
by another three Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhilasha v.
Parkash and others2, wherein the Bench
inter alia observed though a Family Court
is entitled to grant maintenance to a major
un-married
girl
by
combining
the
liabilities under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and
Section 20(3) of the Act of 1956, a
Magistrate
exercising
powers
under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is not authorized to
do so.

5. However, it may be apposite to
note that the Magistrate is entitled to
entertain
an
application
under
the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the DV
Act') and grant monetary relief i.e., to
meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by an aggrieved person under
Section 20 of the DV Act, in the event of
domestic violence by way of economic
abuse is established. A conjoint reading of
Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the DV Act would
show that a daughter, who is or was living
with her father in a domestic relationship
by way of consanguinity, is entitled to seek
reliefs including monetary relief on her
own right as an aggrieved person under
Section 2(a) of the DV Act irrespective of
the fact whether she is a minor or major.
In the present case, the relationship
between the parties as father and daughter
is admitted and they had stayed together in
a shared household. In view of the fact
that the petitioner neglected to maintain
the
1st
respondent-wife
and
2nd
respondent-daughter, proceedings under
section 125 Cr.P.C. came to be instituted
and
maintenance
was
awarded
to
respondents
including
to
the
2nd
respondent. As the award was not paid,
the
learned
Magistrate
issued
the
impugned
order,
dated
14.03.2012,
directing recovery of maintenance to the
tune of Rs. 22,000/- for a period of 11
months from 17.12.2009 to 16.11.2010. In
the aforesaid facts, the order of learned
Magistrate may be traced to his powers to
grant monetary relief under the DV Act
and by a combined reading of the
provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and
Section 20 of the DV Act, the said order
cannot be said to be illegal on the mere
ground that the 2nd respondent had
become a major. I am further fortified to
arrive at such finding as the relief under
the DV Act can be granted in addition to
other reliefs available to the aggrieved
person as envisaged under Section 26(2)
of the DV Act."

The Allahabad High Court in
Mustakim vs. State of U.P. and Another;
2015 (3) ADJ 693, has observed in para
nos. 10, 11 and 12 as below:-

"10. Now a look at the judgment
of this Court in the case of Amod Kumar
Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others,
2008 (62) ACC 591. This judgment takes a
3 All. Naimullah Sheik & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
view that upon attaining majority an
illegitimate/legitimate child including an
unmarried daughter, is not entitled to
claim maintenance, but it does not take
into consideration the judgments of the
Apex Court in the cases of Noor Saba
Khatoon and Jagdish Jugtawat (both
supra), wherein it has been held that
notwithstanding the ineligibility of a
major unmarried daughter to claim
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C,
yet an order granting maintenance to such
a daughter is not liable to be interfered
with a view to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings provided she has a right to
claim maintenance from her father under
the personal law.

11. The Apex Court in the case
of Noor Saba Khatoon (supra), after
examining the personal law of muslims,
has already held that a muslim father is
liable to maintain his major daughter till
such time she is not married. It is not
disputed that O.P. No.2 is major and that
she is not yet married.

12.
It
is
held
that
notwithstanding the ineligibility of a
muslim major unmarried daughter to
claim maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C, yet an order granting maintenance
to her is not liable to be interfered, with a
view
to
avoid
the
multiplicity
of
proceedings, as such a daughter, who is
unable to maintain herself can claim
maintenance from her father under the
personal law."

The Supreme Court in Ajay
Kumar vs. Lata @ Sharuti & Others; 2019
0 Supreme (SC) 612, in the light of the
provisions of section 12 and section 20(1)
of the DV Act held that the monetary relief
may include but is not limited to an order
of maintenance of the aggrieved persons as
well as his children, if any, including an
order under or in addition to order of
maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. or
any other law for the time being in force.
The Supreme Court thereafter alluded to
the definition of 'respondent' as given in
section 2(q) of the DV Act, definition of
'domestic relationship' as given in section
2(f) of the DV Act and definition of 'shared
household' as given in section 2(s) of the
DV Act and went on to observe in para no.
15 as below:-

"15.
All
these
definitions
indicate the width and amplitude of the
intent of Parliament in creating both an
obligation and a remedy in the terms of
the enactment."

12. In my opinion, in the above
words, the Supreme Court has recognized
that the scope of DV Act, 2005 is quite
wide. The statement of object and reasons
which finds place at the top of any
particular enactment may be of utility while
interpreting the provisions of law. The
objective of enacting this Act has been
worded as below:-

"An Act to provide for more
effective protection of the rights of women
guaranteed under the Constitution who
are victims of violence of any kind
occurring within the family and for matter
connected
therewith
or
incidental
thereto."

13. In my view the legislature, while
enacting this Act had this realisation in
mind that though existing provision of law
provide for rights of maintenance to
eligible persons, however the procedural
delays defeat the very purpose. The
enactment seeks to grant a quicker relief
where the aggrieved woman has been
subjected to domestic violence and was in a
domestic relationship with the respondent.
This explains the use of words "more
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effective protection to women", hence it is
being held that where a sufferer has a right
to obtain maintenance as provided in
criminal law or in civil law or personal law
and that she has been subjected to domestic
violence from a person who stood in
domestic relationship, she may resort to
quicker method of obtaining reliefs under
section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

14. From perusal of the judgments as
have been referred to earlier, there remains
no doubt that unmarried daughter, whether
Hindu or Muslim has a right to obtain
maintenance, irrespective of her age. This
is made clear again that the courts have to
look for other laws applicable when the
question pertains to right to be maintained.
However, where issue does not pertain to
mere maintenance, the independent rights
are available to an aggrieved under section
20 of the DV Act itself.

15. Hence, I do not find any
good ground to interfere in the impugned
orders in exercise of powers under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, therefore,
this revision is dismissed.

16. Let a copy of the order be
immediately transmitted to the court
concerned.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 356
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABABAD 09.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 5914 of 2023
(Criminal)

Diwakar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Utkarsh Birla, Aarushi Birla

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
243
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 -
Defence Witnesses - - Petitioner challenged
the
order
dated
18.01.2023
by
Judicial
Magistrate,
Varanasi,
rejecting
applications
(dated 19.07.2021 and 02.08.2021) to summon
retired police officers (Bua Singh, Atul, Vijay
Kumar Agrawal) as defence witnesses in a trial
under Sections 392, 218, 467, 468, 120-B IPC.
Petitioner, a former Sub-Inspector, was charged
for fabricating a false loot incident after lodging
an FIR (Case Crime No. 444/2000). Applications
sought to summon documents, case property,
recall prosecution witnesses, and call retired
officers to verify departmental enquiry records.
Revisional court partly allowed earlier revision
(26.04.2022), directing reconsideration only for
summoning defence witnesses. Trial court's
subsequent
order
(20.09.2022)
allowing
summoning was set aside by revisional court
(22.12.2022) for lack of reasoning. Fresh order
(18.01.2023) rejected applications, finding no
material relevance of witnesses, deeming the
request
vexatious
and
dilatory.
Court
upheld the order, noting Section 243(2)
Cr.P.C. allows refusal if summoning is for
vexation or delay, and the proviso restricts
recalling witnesses unless essential for
justice. Petitioner failed to demonstrate
witnesses'
relevance
to
disprove
prosecution
or
prove
innocence.
No
miscarriage of justice or violation of law
found. Petition dismissed under Article 227.
(Paras 8-15)

Petition Dismissed.

Case Law Cited:
1. Mrs. Kalyani Baskar Vs M.S. Sampoornam,
Criminal Appeal No. 1293/2006, decided on
11.12.2006 (Para 4)

2. In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding
Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials