Randhir Jain, MANU/DE/5678/2012
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an interim maintenance to the wife. In execution proceedings, the magistrate passed an order which disposed of the execution application without attaching the properties indicated in the execution application to satisfy the monetary claim of the wife. Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal in the High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the magistrate should execute the order passed for interim maintenance. It further held that at the remand stage, the magistrate ought not to have made disparaging comments on the wife who was fully justified in seeking attachments of properties which were in India. Use of expressions ‘target’ etc. have to be avoided in judicial decisions when referring to interpersonal relationships, unless there is no other word to express oneself for the reason a person who is pursuing her legitimate right would feel hurt if told that she is targeting somebody. As a matter of fact, the wife was targeting nobody. Her husband had abandoned her and had left for the United States of America soon after the marriage. Her in-laws threw her out of the matrimonial house. This judgement sets a guideline for the lower courts to respect women who have been subjected to violence. Further it lays emphasis on the fact that execution against in-laws ought to be allowed if it is more practicable than that against the husband.