Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. Patil, J.
Vinay P D - Appellant
Versus
Conica Shambaya - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4773 of 2016
Decided On : 10-09-2020
M.T. Nanaiah, Advocate, Balasubramanya B N, Advocate, Geetha Menon, Advocate
The concept of continuing offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the duty of the court to scrutinize the facts from all angles in cases of domestic violence.
Headnote:
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Domestic Violence - Continuing Offence - [HUSBAND] - [Domestic Violence] - [Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 12] - The court discussed the concept of continuing offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and its application to the case. It highlighted the duty of the court to scrutinize the facts from all angles and the sensitive approach expected from the courts in such cases. The court emphasized that the status between the parties is not severed in cases of continuing offence and that the application is not barred by limitation. The court also considered the domestic relationship and access to the shared household in its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court, related to an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, filed by the wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was not barred by limitation and dismissed it as devoid of merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petition filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Act was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the concept of continuing offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and emphasized the duty of the court to scrutinize the facts from all angles. It concluded that the application was not barred by limitation and dismissed the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT
B.A.Patil, J. - This petition is filed by the husband under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash all the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court - 1 Mayo Hall Unit Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.58/2016.
2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri M.T.Nanaiah, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Smt.Geetha Menon for the respondent virtually.
3. The facts leading to the case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 15.6.2008 by spending some amount. Petitioner was working in Devarashola tea estate in Tamilnadu State. The respondent was working at Bengaluru. With an intention that the petitioner would join the respondent, at weekend he or she used to come and in the night they used to return. It is further alleged that out of the said wedlock on 5.11.2009 a male child was born. From that date the petitioner without there being any reasons used to shout and cause lot of distress. It is further alleged that during May, 2011 the father of the petitioner passed away due to massive heart attach. The respondent stayed back with motherin- law at Kushalnagar. During the said period, the petitioner used to pressurize her to quit her job at Bengaluru and take up a teaching job at kushalnagar. There were some differences of opinion between the couple. The child was admitted to school. During February, 2012 the respondent paid the fees. The petitioner never used to come home, never used to bother about the welfare of the respondent and her minor child. The petitioner used to make reckless and wild allegations through emails. It is further alleged that petitioner and respondent were living together in various places from 2008 to 2014 and subsequently on 13.4.2016 she filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, ('Act for short) seeking protection orders, monetary reliefs etc.,. After issuance of the summons, being aggrieved by the said issuance of summons the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned Senior Counsel are that the marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute and as per the contention of the respondent, since 2014 they have not lived together and not joined. After living separately for a period of two years, respondent has filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act on 29.2.2016. It is his further submission that the maximum punishment is one year and from the cause of action complainant ought to have been filed within a period of one year in terms of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and admittedly the case having been filed on 29.2.2016 is barred by limitation and as such the same is liable to be quashed.
5. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention he has relied upon the decision in the case of Mrs.Sarah Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cherian and Others . He has also relied upon one more decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) AIR SC 1125 and another decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Srinivas Vs. G.Dhanalakshmi in Criminal Petition No.2419/2009 disposed of on 5.4.2013. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued by drawing the attention to the copy of the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act contended that till April 2015 the petitioner used to visit the minor son and the respondent used to stay at her matrimonial home at Kushalnagar and she used to go to Bengaluru once a month. When the petitioner visited his son till April 2015 and the petition has been filed by the respondent on 29.2.2016, then under such circumstances the petition is not barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. It is her further submission that as per the p
