Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Rathnakala, J.
Nagarathnamma and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
M.S. Vanithashree – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5246 of 2010 and Criminal Petition No. 3685 of 2013
Decided On : 01-02-2016
Domestic Violence - Proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 18, 19, 20 - The court quashed the proceedings against the in-laws, finding that they did not have a shared household with the wife and were not liable for domestic violence. The court also highlighted the legal principles regarding shared household and the liability of family members in cases of domestic violence.
Fact of the Case:
The wife alleged harassment and domestic violence by her in-laws and sought protection and maintenance orders under the Act. The in-laws challenged their inclusion in the case, arguing that they did not have a shared household with the wife and were not liable for domestic violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the in-laws did not have a shared household with the wife and were not liable for domestic violence. It quashed the proceedings against them, emphasizing that the complaint did not attribute specific roles to the in-laws in the alleged acts of domestic violence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the wife had a shared household with the in-laws and whether the in-laws could be held liable for domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the definition of shared household under the Act does not encompass temporary stays or rented properties. It also highlighted the need for specific allegations against family members in cases of domestic violence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings against the in-laws, concluding that they were not liable for domestic violence.
Rathnakala, J.
In Crl.P. No. 5246/2010:
1. The petitioners herein are arrayed as respondents in proceedings initiated by the respondent under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, 'Act'). They are her in-laws. She is wife of V. Santosh Nagammanavar, S/o petitioner No. 1 and 2 and brother of 3rd and 5th petitioner. 4th petitioner is a married daughter of the family.
2. The allegation of the respondent in her petition under Section 12 of the Act in essence was, she was living with her in-laws, pursuant to her marriage, she went to UK with her husband on 20.05.2006. He was taking good care of her. However, when these petitioners contacted him over phone, he would pick up quarrel with her for trivial reasons. During December 2006, he brought her back to India and left her in the matrimonial house by insisting her to take up course in computers and staying in her parents' house, he returned to UK. Thereafter, from June 2007, he stopped telephonic calls to her. He issued a legal notice calling upon her to consent for divorce. She had tolerated all the harassment of dowry inflicted on her by the in-laws. During her stay at her in-laws house, she was beaten, tortured, abused on one pretext or the other that she is unemployed and she has no other source of income. She was willing to go and reside at the matrimonial house, however, her in-laws in collusion with their daughters, son have been threatening that they would not allow her to stay in the matrimonial house. She intended to go and reside with the respondent/husband, however, she fears harassment and danger to her life...etc.
3. Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 3rd petitioner is a deserted woman, after marriage she is staying with her parents. 4th petitioner is residing at UK on the assignment of her husband herself. 5th petitioner is residing away from his parents with his family in a house constructed of his own. He is also in abroad on assignment of his profession. Respondent/wife does not have any matrimonial house in Bengaluru. Whenever her husband visits India, he resides with his brother/5th petitioner. Several proceedings are pending between the petitioners and her husband. Divorce petition is filed by her husband whereas respondent has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Criminal case was also initiated on her husband. This court quashed the complaint against all in-laws except her husband-Dr. Santosh. She is not entitled for any relief against the respondent in the present petition. Without application of mind, learned Magistrate has issued process against them. Notice issued without calling for Child Development and Protection Officer Report is erroneous. Petitioner No. 1 and 3 being female relatives cannot be arrayed as respondents within the meaning of Section 2q of the Act. None of them are having domestic relationship with her within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. The complaint filed by her against these petitioners ended up with B report. Further investigation is quashed by this Court. There is no shared household within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act. Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act are not applicable so far as these petitioners are concerned. They cannot be called upon to pay monetary relief to the respondent under Section 20(2) of the Act. Hence, the entire proceedings is liable to be quashed in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court and in catena of the judicial pronouncements passed by this Court.
4. Sri. L. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petition filed by her husband for divorce is dismissed and her petition for restitution of conjugal rights is allowed. She was prevented by her in-laws in joining the matrimonial house at Bengaluru. Hence, she was compelled to file petition for protection and maintenance orders under the Act. The proceedings under the Act being civil in nature, the provision of Secti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
