Shri..K.Govind Rao v. The State And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/5/2026 Shri K. Govind Rao Vs The State and Another Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Adarsh Ilango ... for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 February 06, 2026 [AKB] Item No.9 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 02.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair on the ground that the definition 'aggrieved person' in Section 2 (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act in short) does not include the child of an aggrieved person.

Mr. K.M.B. Jayapal has submitted that this basic contradiction in law was not properly considered by the Learned Sessions Judge in dismissing the Criminal Appeal being No. 01 of 2024. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 2(a) and also Section 20 (1) of the DV Act in support of his contention. According to him as the child is not subject of any violence under DV Act, maintenance of such child cannot be claimed under the provisions of DV Act. He has fairly submitted that such maintenance can be claimed on behalf of minor child under Section 125 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (Section 144 of BNSS, 2023).

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner is not in accordance with law. She has drawn the attention of this Court to explanation IV of Section 3 wherein it has been categorically laid down that maintenance allowance can be claimed not only for the aggrieved wife but also for her children.

I have gone through the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2024 and I have found that the Learned Sessions Judge has categorically dealt with the issue and has clearly expressed his views with reasons. I have also found that although Section 2 (a) of DV Act does not clearly include the child of an aggrieved person to be considered as an aggrieved human being, but explanation IV of Section 3 deals with economic abuse which are usually perpetrated upon an aggrieved wife. I have also taken into consideration Section 20 (1) of the Act.

In view of the above I do find that even a child of an aggrieved woman who may not be subject of any domestic violence, as pointed out by the learned Counsel of the petitioner, is also entitled to maintenance allowance under the DV Act.

Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, the instant criminal revisional application is disposed of. The impugned order dated

02.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2024 is hereby affirmed.

CRR/5/2026 is, thus, disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)