DV Act maintenance and compensation awards upheld based on evidence and the husband’s income.

Respondent No. 1, the wife of applicant No. 1, filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), alleging physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws, including an incident in which her husband allegedly poured kerosene on her.

The applicants denied the allegations.

The Trial Court dismissed her application. On appeal, the I Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed it, awarding her maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month, subject to adjustment for maintenance already awarded to her and her daughter under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 jointly and severally against the applicants.

The applicants challenged that appellate judgment in revision under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

1. Whether the appellate court’s award of Rs. 25,000 per month as maintenance to the wife, with adjustment for the amount already awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., was justified.

2. Whether the appellate court’s award of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation was justified despite its observation that the evidence supporting the wife’s DV Act application was insufficient.

The revision was brought under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, and the underlying application was under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The Court treated the maintenance and compensation awarded in the DV Act proceedings as relief of a civil, rather than criminal, nature.

It relied on the circumstances identified by the appellate court, including the husband’s failure to make efforts to take his wife back, her complaints to police and superior authorities, his salary of approximately Rs. 78,000 per month, and the adjustment of the existing Rs. 16,000 monthly award for the wife and daughter.

Although the appellate court had noted insufficient evidence to allow the wife’s application, it also recorded that the husband had not tried to take her back and that she had made complaints against him to the police and superior authorities. The High Court considered these circumstances sufficient to support additional maintenance.

It further found that the compensation award was justified in light of the husband’s salary and the circumstances recorded by the appellate court. Because the existing Rs. 16,000 monthly maintenance award was to be adjusted, the Court found no basis to interfere with the relief granted.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.