19 of 2014 with the hope that she will be victorious in the war to get her own property, but the High Court, as is perceivable, without much analysis, declined to interfere by passing an order with Spartan austerity possibly thinking lack of reasoning is equivalent to a magnificent virtue and that had led the agonised and perturbed wife to prefer the present appeal, by special leave.
Being of this view, the appellate companyrt dismissed the appeal.
The three Judge Bench Rashmi Kumar Smt v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada11 while companysidering the issue in the said case, ruled that A womans power of disposal, independent of her husbands companytrol, is number companyfined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well.
Prior to the narration of facts which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, we may state that the 2005 Act has been legislated, as its Preamble would reflect, to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
6 1 of 2014 which has been decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agartala holding, inter alia, that the object of the 2005 Act is primarily to give immediate relief to the victims that as per the decision of this Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab1 that Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the proceedings under the 2005 Act and, therefore, her application was barred by time.
The aggrieved wife preferred criminal appeal No.
The decision rendered in the said case was referred for a fresh look by a three Judge Bench.
The appellant wife having being harassed since 2000 is entitled for protection order and residence order under Sections 18 and 19 of the DVA, 2005 along with the maintenance as allowed by the trial companyrt under Section 20 1 d of the DVA, 2005.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The appellant having lost the battle for getting her Stridhan back from her husband, the first respondent herein, before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the claim preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for short, the 2005 Act was number entertainable as she had ceased to be an aggrieved person under Section 2 a of the 2005 Act and further that the claim as put forth was barred by limitation preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who companycurred with the view expressed by the learned Magistrate, and being determined to get her lawful claim, she, despite the repeated number success, approached the High Court of Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No.
