Court’s Decision:
The Kerala High Court ruled that the Sessions Court, while exercising its appellate powers under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, has the authority to grant interim orders, even though this power is not expressly provided in the DV Act. The court emphasized that such authority is implied and necessary to regulate the appeal proceedings and ensure justice during the pendency of the appeal.
Facts:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Sessions Court, which reduced the maintenance awarded by the trial court from ₹40,000 to ₹10,000 per month during the pendency of an appeal filed under Section 29 of the DV Act. The interim order was granted by the Magistrate Court, awarding maintenance to the petitioners (a mother and her child), based on the first respondent’s alleged salary and other sources of income.
Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether the appellate court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 29 of the DV Act, has the authority to pass interim orders when such power is not explicitly provided under the Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the Sessions Court did not have the power to reduce the interim maintenance ordered by the Magistrate Court, as the DV Act does not explicitly confer the power to pass interim orders on appellate courts. They relied on precedents that emphasized the limited scope of powers granted to the appellate court under the DV Act.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents contended that the Sessions Court had the authority to regulate the proceedings during the pendency of the appeal and to pass appropriate interim orders, including modifying the amount of maintenance. They also cited judicial precedents where courts have exercised ancillary powers not expressly provided by the statute but implied for the effective execution of their duties.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, which left the question of whether the Sessions Court has the power to grant interim orders in such appeals open. The Kerala High Court noted that even though the DV Act does not expressly provide for interim orders during appeals, courts have ancillary powers to regulate proceedings to ensure justice between the parties.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to multiple judgments, including State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, which established that courts possess inherent powers to make their orders effective, even if such powers are not explicitly mentioned in the statute.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the appellate court must have the power to grant interim orders to regulate the appeal process and prevent injustice. If appellate courts were denied this power, the rights of the parties involved could be severely prejudiced. The court emphasized that the Sessions Court’s decision to reduce the maintenance amount was within its implied powers under Section 29 of the DV Act.
Conclusion:
The Kerala High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s authority to grant interim orders while hearing appeals under Section 29 of the DV Act. However, it modified the interim maintenance to ₹25,000 per month, payable by the respondent until the final disposal of the appeal.
Implications:
This ruling clarifies that appellate courts handling domestic violence cases have the power to pass interim orders, even when such authority is not explicitly granted by the DV Act. This decision ensures that appellate courts can effectively regulate proceedings and provide justice during the pendency of appeals.
Pingback: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case: Sets Aside Conviction Due to Gaps in Evidence and Incomplete Chain of Circumstantial Events - Raw Law
Pingback: Supreme Court of India Overturns Conviction in Murder Case, Citing Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony and Lack of Conclusive Evidence - Raw Law