IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

MRS.VIMLADEVI APPLICANT

VERSUS

MR. HEMLAL RESPONDENT

ON SUBMISSION TO THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

1 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

 COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF MRS. VIMLA DEVI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl.no Title Page no.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4-5

3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7-8

5
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED 9

6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10-11

7
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12-19

8
PRAYER 20

2 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A​BBREVIAT D​EFINITION
ION

@ Alias

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

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

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

3 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

 The IE Act The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The IPC The Indian Penal Code, 1860

The PWD The Protection of Women from Domestic

Act Violence Act, 2005

u/s Under Section

UK The United Kingdom of Great Britain

UOI The Union of India

V. Versus

Vol. Volume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Arora Vibha., Marriage and Divorce Laws, First Edition, Universal Law
Publishing.

2. Rashid MA & Thomas KT., The Indian Penal Code, 35​th​ Edition, Lexi Nexis.

3. Hindu Law (Bare act), Universal Law Publishing

4. Krishnamurthi Aiyar S., Law of Marriage, Maintenance, Separation and

Divorce, Fifth Edition, Universal Law Publishing.
STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

2. The Constitution of India, 1949

4 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

 3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
6. The Limitation Act, 1963

LEGAL DATABASE AND WEBSITE

1. Manupatra [www.manupatra.com]
2. Indian Kanoon [www.indiankanoon.com]
3. LexisNexis [www.lexisnexis.com]
4. Law Octopus [www.lawoctopus.com]
5. West Law [www.westlaw.com]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

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

The section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads
as follows:

Jurisdiction.—

(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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

5 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

Also section 11 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
empowers the Hon’ble Court to hear the case and grant reliefs under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

● Hem Lal and Vimla Devi tied knot of marriage in the year 1983. Later on the
couple moved into their matrimonial house which was situated in Bhimpur
village and was the home of the husband’s father. Soon, Hemlal started to
ignore Vimla Devi and began to demand dowry.
● Their marriage began falling apart and it became a daily routine for Hemlal to
physically abuse and torture Vimla Devi.While she was pregnant with
Hemlal’s child, she was asked to her parents house where she had delivered a
girl child who was named as “dolly” on 22 March 1986. When the child had
turned two month Vimla’s father and brother took her to Hemlal’s house.
● Although her father-in-law accepted her stay in his house, she was
continuously ill treated through verbal and physical and emotional abuse by
Hemlal. Shortly, she was chased away by her husband asserting that he was
not the father of “Dolly”.
● In 1994, Hari went forward to the court under the Guardianship and Wards
Act, pleading the court to hand over the custody of Dolly to him. His request
was opposed by Vimla, who claimed that she was capable to look after Dolly
and was able to provide her basic needs.
● In 1997, Vimla filed and application before the Gram Panchayat of Bhimpur
in the hope to receive maintenance from Harilal for herself and her daughter
since at that time she had no proper source of income to provide education to
her daughter.
● Hari was ordered by the Gram Panchayat to pay amount of Rs. 500/- per
month as a maintenance to Vimla. However, despite the order, Vimla Devi
had not received even a single penny from Harilal. Vimla and her daughter

6 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

 was removed from the local registers(family registers, ration cards,etc) as
well.
● Hari, who was a government employee and was earning a salary of about Rs.
30,000, parted from his joint family and had constructed a new house in
Bhimpur.
● In 2010, when Dolly had graduated from college, Vimla brought up an action
against Hari under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, praying that was the ‘aggrieved person’ within the definition of this
expression under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She had prayed for an
order to be given to respondent to allow Vimla and her daughter to move into
with him in his current place of residence, while also stating that she should
not commit any act of domestic violence against any of them.
● She also prayed that Stridhana, that she had left before, at her father-in-law’s
place in 1985, be restored to her and that her daughter be given a share of
property.She also prayed for monetary relief and compensation. The
respondent was able to support this stand that he had ordered removal of name
of Vimla from the list of people Below Poverty Line, of the subjected area.

QUESTIONS OF LAW

ISSUE A: WHETHER THE APPELLANT CAN FILE A CASE IN

THIS PRESENT CASE?
The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that Protection of Women Domestic act, 2005 had been established with the main aim
to provide extra protection to the right of the women which is guaranteed under the
Constitution who are victims of any kind of kind taking place within the family and
for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto and the act of domestic violence
is seen all over the place but however many incidents of such act has been concealed
behind the doors of the house. In this present case, the wife has been victimized in the
act of cruelty by the husband and his relatives which is legitimately an offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

7 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that appellant can file case in this present matter under ​Section 498A of the IPC
which states that:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever,

being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be pun​ished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section,
“cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant is being
victimized in the act of Physical Violence by Hemlal(respondent) which had actually
become part of his everyday routine. Even while she was pregnant, she was made to
go to her parents' place and when she returned to her father in law’s house, she was ill
treated and verbally, physically and emotionally abused by Hemlal. Thus, it is being
pleaded to bring into force a law taking into consideration the rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution inorder to provide a remedy under the civil
law which aims to safeguard the women from falling into the act of domestic violence
as victims and also to further avoid the prevalence of domestic violence in the
community.

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble court
that the appellant can file this case as the appellant has stated of being an “aggrieved
person” and she also has the legal right being the wife and the mother of the child
over the property of the respondent.

8 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

Additionally, the stridhana that the appellant had brought when she moved into with
Hemlal in 1985 was not given back to her who was the rightful owner when she was
chased out of the house. So the counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly
submits before the Hon’ble Court that the appellant can file the present case under
Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which
states that

Jurisdiction.—

(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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

Even she can file the case according to ​Section 11 of the ​Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005​ which states that:

Duties of Government.—The Central Government and every State Government, shall

take all measures to ensure that—

(a) the provisions of this Act are given wide publicity through public media including
television, radio and the print media at regular intervals;

(b) the Central Government and State Government officers including the police
officers and the members of the judicial services are given periodic sensitization and
awareness training on the issues addressed by this Act;

(c)​ effective co‑ordination between the services provided by concerned Ministries and

9 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

Departments dealing with law, home affairs including law and order, health and
human resources to address issues of domestic violence is established and periodical
review of the same is conducted;

(d) Protocols for the various Ministries concerned with the delivery of services to
women under this Act including the courts are prepared and put in place.

Thus, it is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that even the fact of the
case that has been mentioned earlier shows that in the year 2010, wheen Dolly has
graduated from college, Vimla brought up action against Harilal under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act praying that she was “aggrieved person” and
she claimed for maintenance for she was waiting for the right time for her daughter to
be able to take her own decision.

Thus, it is submitted that there is no restriction or limitation in filing a case under

PWD act, 2005. Applicant also seeks for protection from the respondent and that the
court may pass order if there is further violation of law that protects women.

ISSUE B: WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL CANNOT BE

APPLIED IN THIS CASE?

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the appellant is an 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 respondent as stated under Section 2(a) of the PWD Act, 2005 which
states that ​"aggrieved person" means 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; ​in this present case the appellant has
experienced abuse more than expected while being in domestic relationship and even
she has mentioned that she was ill treated and abused by her husband. She has given
birth while she was at her parents' place and despite the order to pay maintenance of
Rs. 500/- monthly to Vimla Devi, he failed to do so. So the Appellant is liable to
claim relief under PWD act and the Doctrine of Estoppel cannot overrule the law as it
states that parties to proceedings are restricted from proving certain facts under 115 of
the IEA howsoever, here the appellant is praying for relief being an “aggrieved

10 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

person”and the Doctrine of Estoppel does not apply of status or else the person may
not represent true law but realize on the finding of the position of the law as even the
legal maxim states that ignorance of the law is no excuse, so, a person cannot plead
taking support of false facts to favour himself since everyone who comes to court
comes to seek justice and relief.

ISSUE C​: ​WHETHER THE RELIEFS THAT PLEDGE BY APPELLANT CAN

BE MAINTAINABLE?

The PWD Acts, 2005’s main objective is protection of women from violence inflicted
by a man. Amongst several legislations which have been established by the
Parliament for safeguarding women, the Provisions of the PWD Act is a progressive,
whose main aim is to protect women irrespective of the relationship she shares with
the accused. However, just as every piece of legislation has its advantages, the Act
applies retrospectively as the PWA Act entitles the aggrieved person to file an
Application under the Domestic Violence Act even for acts which have been
committed, prior to the commencement of the Domestic Violence Act.

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the Appellant should accept from plead for granting of a protection order under
Section 18 of the PWD ACT, 2005​ as the act states:

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 like to take place, pass a protection order in favor 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;

11 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

(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

Even the fact of the case already shows the incidences that Appellant faced domestic
violence from her husband in the form the incidents of ill treatment, verbal, physical
and emotional abuse and it would be likely that he would commit domestic violence
near future so it clearly shows that Appellant should be granted a protection order
from the Hon’ble court.

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that there should be residence order to be passed in favour of the Appellant as the
PWD Act main objective is to bring domestic relationship to stay as one under the
same roof that is in matrimonial house and even under section 17 of the PWD ACT
she has right to reside in a shared household as the right of a woman in a domestic
relationship is to reside in the shared household. Not only this the ‘ right to reside’ by
a spouse in a shared household is valuable right as Hindu wife is entitled to remain
under the same roof and protect her husband and is entitled to separate residence if
situation come across. Even a matrimonial home lies at the center of marriage and if
husband is good earner then he is to decide and maintain matrimonial home and wife
should not be excluded from the shared household if done then wife have right to seek
this relief of residence order.

The Appellant is the victim in this case in her marriage life. Though her parents
support her, society mandates her to leave for matrimonial home and even the
Appellant faced hard time to provide her daughter with good education as she had no
source of income and even the Respondent failed to keep up with the order of the
Gram Panchayat. So the counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits

12 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

before the Hon’ble Court that Appellant seeks for residence order under section 19 of
the PWD Act as it empowers the Magistrate to pass a residence order on his
satisfaction of the occurrence of domestic violence as a residence order provides a
right to reside in a secure house and protects her rights in such home. Even the section
19 of PWD Act empower magistrate to direct the Respondent to secure the 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 and even
empowers the Magistrate with various powers to ensure proper implementation of the
order.

Therefore the counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the
Hon’ble Court that there should be residence order passed by in favour to Appellant
as it would make Respondent to enforce the Appellant’s right to reside in the
matrimonial house with right and as well as daughter would get proper shelter in the
house of Respondent and would fulfil in disturbing his property and shared household
that possess by daughter which is mentioned under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that the Respondent is liable to pay monetary relief under section 20(1) sub clause a, b
and c of the PWD Act, 2005 as this section provides that Respondent must pay
monetary relief to meet the expenses and losses suffered by the aggrieved person of
the marriage and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence for
loss of earning, medical expenses, the loss caused due to destruction, damage or
removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person.

In the present case, the appellant have faced the same situation as u/s 20 states. The
Appellant suffered and faced the domestic violence in the hands of Respondent and
even during her pregnancy she was sent to her parent’s home which was much cruel
during that time by the husband and his family. Moreover she faces losses and faced
expenses that actually Respondent should take. In fact she was driven out from the
matrimonial home in 1986, despite not having good economy or enough source of
income to support her daughter, she manages to support her daughter to graduate from

13 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

college and bear all expenses during her birth till college.

It is humbly request to the Hon’ble court that the context of ‘loss and earning’ is not
be viewed in isolation but need to overlook the circumstances of the fact. Even
according to section 18 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and section 125
of the Crpc states that the responsibility and duty of the husband to maintain his wife
and child with food, clothing, residence, education and medical treatment and
attendance which the Respondent is not seen to be instead he made his routine of ill
treatment,verbal, physical and emotional abuse to the Appellant. Thus the Respondent
is bound under section 20(1) a, b, c and d of the PWD Act, 2005 and u/s 125 of CrPC
to be liable to pay monetary relief to the Appellant and secure a share in the property
for her daughter as a residence order or as monetary relief.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Appellant is entitle to
be paid compensation and is liability of Respondent under section 22 of the PWD Act,
2005 which states that upon the Magistrate, the power to award for the damages for
injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of
domestic violence committed by that respondent.
The fact of the case clearly shows that Appellant was mentally torture and emotional
distress as the domestic violence done by Respondent to her in his daily routine. Even
we can say that she was indirectly torture from the beginning of the marriage as
Respondent began to neglect Appellant and began to demand dowry. There was no
warmth in the marriage and physical violence against Vimla Devi at hands of
Respondent became a routine. Even the fact shows that neither there was interest in
Respondent and his family with Appellant’s pregnancy instead she was sent to her
parents’ home nor reaching back to matrimonial home after her giving birth to Dolly.
It is thus seen that Respondent being a husband and father of a child, he could not
keep both of them happy instead he has built himself a house in village while
working as a government servant and earning a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000.

Therefore she is entitled for compensation and damage for the injuries including
mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of the domestic violence
committed by Respondent.

14 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT

The counsel on behalf of the appellant most humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court
that Stridhana be returned to the Appellant. Section 14 of The Hindu Succession Act,
1956 states that this property is her absolute property and there is no right or interest
of husband in this Stridhana. So as demanded by the Appellant, it is bound to return
all the items that Appellant brought during or after marriage to matrimonial home by
Respondent as from the ill treatment by husband and his family may conclude that her
living in their home was miserable and just for the purpose of money, he married with
her as he demanded for dowry eventually.

Therefore it is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that above plead to
be looked into and return the Stridhana to Appellant.

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 not barred by limitation.

B. That the Applicant is not estopped from filing an application.

C. That a prima facie case has been made out against theRespondent.

D. That an order for protection u/s 18, an order for residence u/s 19
and relevant orders ensuring its proper enforcement, an order for
monetary relief u/s 20 and an order for compensation u/s 22 providing
a fair and reasonable amount be granted.
E. That an order for return of stridhan and an order for share in
property of the Respondent are further granted.

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 appellant shall duty bound
ever pray.
​Council for Appellant)

15 ​W​RITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF ​A​PPLICANT