Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Natarajan, J.
Arun Aravind Habbu S/o Late Sri Arvind Habbuand ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Archana Prabhakar, W/o Arun Arvind Habbu – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.1217 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2020
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - D.V. Act - Section 12 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 - Rule 6(1) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Trial Court - Committed domestic violence - Application on ground of maintainability - Whether filing of petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act in Form-II as prescribed under Rule 6(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 is mandatory - Case of petitioners is that respondent/wife filed a petition before trial Court under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against these petitioners claiming relief under various provisions of D.V. Act and also seeking maintenance from these petitioners - Trial Court also granted interim maintenance to child per month - After appearance petitioners filed objections contending that petition is not maintainable as it was not filed in form prescribed under Rule 6(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 and prayed for dismissing petition as not maintainable - Trial Court after hearing arguments rejected said contention and posted matter for filing objections to main petition - Assailing same petitioners filed an appeal before First Appellate Court which also came to be dismissed – Hence petitioners are before this Court by way of this revision petition – Held, On a bare reading of Rule 6(1) of D.V. Rules application of aggrieved person under Section 12 of D.V. Act shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto which itself goes show that it is only an option to file an application in Form-II and also a option or choice given to file application other than in Form-II - It is not mandatory to file an application only in Form-II - That apart provision under Rule 6(2) of D.V. Rules provides that even Protection Officer can also forward application to Magistrate and as per Rule 6(3) of D.V. Rules if aggrieved person is illiterate Protection Officer shall read over application and explain to her contents thereof - As far as next contention is concerned Section 12(3) of Act says that every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto - Rule 6 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules is to effect that every application of aggrieved person under Section 12 shall be in form II or as nearly as possible thereto – Therefore application should be in Form II is not a mandatory one - Failure to file an application as per Form No.II does not affect proceedings – Court in respectful agreement with principle laid down by High Court of Madras in above said case that filing application under Section 12 of D.V. Act in Form-II is not mandatory and filing application other than Form-II does not affect proceedings – Otherwise filing petition mentioning all averments in detail like a complaint is also maintainable - Division Bench of this Court in case has held that any violation of this Rule or non compliance will not prejudice case of parties - In another case a coordinate Bench of this Court in case of General Secretary has held that monitory benefit cannot be deprived to a person just because claim was not made in prescribed format - Such hyper technical objections are only unwarranted and deserve rejection - In another judgment in case a coordinate Bench of this Court has taken a similar view - In view of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and various judgments of this Court as well as judgment of High Court of Madras court hold that filing of application/petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act in Form-II as per Rule 6 (1) of D.V. Rules is not mandatory and application can be filed other than Form-II – Therefore application if not in Form-II that itself is not a ground for dismissing application on ground of maintainability even if there is violation of Rule 6(1) of D.V. Rules and it is only a directory - Legislature prescribed format only to facilitate deserted women/victim of domestic violence even for helping illiterate women for approaching Court and making out their case before Magistrate in simple form as prescribed as per Form-II and it is only an optional and even women are permitted to file petition like any petition under any other law – Therefore Court cannot dismiss application on ground of maintainability - Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
This revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Crl. Misc.No.65/2018, dated 15.10.2018 and the same was upheld by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’) in Crl.A.No.2147/2018, dated 05.09.2019.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent/wife filed a petition before the trial Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘D.V. Act’) against these petitioners claiming relief under various provisions of the D.V. Act and also seeking maintenance from these petitioners. The trial Court also granted interim maintenance to the child at Rs.4,000/- per month. After appearance, the petitioners filed objections contending that the petition is not maintainable as it was not filed in the form prescribed under Rule 6(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (for short D.V.Rules) and prayed for dismissing the petition as not maintainable. The trial Court after hearing the arguments rejected the said contention and posted the matter for filing objections to the main petition. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which also came to be dismissed on 05.09.2019. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court by way of this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petition filed by the respondent-wife is not maintainable as it is not in the form prescribed under the D.V. Rules. As per Rule 6 of the D.V.Rules, every application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. But, the very petition filed by the respondent/wife runs into 13 pages. It is drafted like a civil suit. Thereby, there is violation of Rule 6 of the D.V. Rules and as per Section 2(m) of the D.V. Act, “prescribed” means, the rules provided under the D.V. Act. Therefore, in view of the violation of Rule 6 of the D.V. Rules, the petition requires to be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
1. General Insurance Council and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 354.
2. Prakash Patel vs. State Appropriate Authority PC and PNDT Act, 1994 and others reported in 2013 (2) GLH 531
3. Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009 Criminal Law Journal 721 (Full Bench of Gujarat High Court)
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife contended that the Rules under the D.V. Act is only the guidelines and directory in nature, but not mandatory. The Rules and Act were brought by the Legislature in order to help the women deserted by the husband and his relatives and it is a social legislation. If the petitioner narrates the domestic violence committed on her, in detail, that itself is not a ground to dismiss the petition on the ground of maintainability and in support of his argument, the learned counsel contended that in a similar situation the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, has held that the Rules under the D.V. Act is only directory and not mandatory. Further, he relied upon the following judgments of this Court:
1. R. Muniswamy vs. State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.55590/2018.
2. General Secretary, Vokkaligara Sangha, Bangalore and another vs. R.Chandramouli and others reported in (2002) 4 Karnataka Law Journal 129.
3. Smt. Laxmavva vs. The State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary and others reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1028. (Division Bench)
4. G.M.Siddeshwar vs. Prasanna Kumar reported in (2013) 4 SCC 776 (judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court)
Hence, prayed for dismissing the revision petition.
6.
SupremeToday
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
