Ms. Kanaka Kedar Sapre & Ors Vs Mr. Kedar Narhar Sapre & ors Bombay Hc on 4 Jan 2022
Herein, the petitioners do not claim themselves to be “aggrieved person” but would assert
their right to present an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on behalf of the deceased, who according to them, was an “aggrieved person”. Therefore, in essence, petitioners were seeking enforcement of personal rights of deceased, Suchita, which she had not sought in her lifetime. In the backdrop of facts aforestated, the rights sought to be enforced by the petitioner, by presenting an
application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, was clearly not maintainable for the following reasons :
(i)the right to claim monetary reliefs, protection order and compensation under the D.V. Act, are personal-statutory and inalienable rights of the “aggrieved person”. These rights extinguish on the death of “aggrieved person”. For that reason, such rights were not enforceable by legal representatives of
“aggrieved person”.
(ii) expression “aggrieved person” has to be understood and given restrictive meaning, in view of the Statement and Object and Reasons of the Act. Defined expression “aggrieved person” is not inclusive and thus by process of interpretative explanation, its scope cannot be expanded like suggested by the petitioners, as it would counter the Scheme and Object of the Act and would defeat the intention of
legislation.
(iii) although “any other person” can present an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, on behalf of “aggrieved person”, nevertheless, such “other person” cannot maintain an application independently of an “aggrieved person”. Infact, Section 12 of the D.V. Act, simply enables, the “aggrieved person” to
present an application under the Act through “any other person”. That being the Scheme of the Act, “aggrieved person” must be living (alive), while presenting the application. Therefore, petitioners attempt to claim rights through deceased, Suchita, not being acknowledged by the provisions of the D.V. Act, application has been rightly rejected by the trial Court and Appellate Court.
