Point of law : Under Section 2(q) of the DV Act, the word respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Having taken note of this, the very contention of the petitioners herein cannot be accepted

ORDER :

This revision petition is filed under sections 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court and also order of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi granting Rs.3,000/-per month to the petitioner as maintenance and medical expenses and also ordered to provide separate residential house to the petitioner at Yelsangi village for her residence, out of three houses, which is situated near Gram Panchayat, Yelsangi as per Domestic Incident Report and also directed to pay arrears of maintenance within one month and further direction was given to the concerned jurisdictional police to carry out the order of the Court.

2. The petitioners in this petition have contended that the respondent-wife has filed Criminal Misc. No.15/2011 against the petitioner No.1 before the JMFC Court at Indi, and also Criminal Misc. No. 11/2010 to produce the custody of the children and petitioner No.1 was living separately and the same has not been considered by both the courts and ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-is illegal and the same is required to be set aside. The petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the elder brother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the younger brother-in-law of the respondent and the Court has not looked into the facts of the case. It is also contended that petition is barred by limitation under section 468 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it requires interference by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 Crl.L.J. 309 wherein in similar set of facts of the case, when the application is filed under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the ‘DV Act’ for short), the Court held that petition is barred by limitation. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, paragraph Nos.24 and 25 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in view of provisions of section 468 of Cr.P.C., the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of sections 28 and 32 of the Act read with Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred as the ‘DV Rules’) which make the provisions of Cr.P.C., applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association vs. Noida and others(2011) 6 SCC 508. It is further observed that undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the Court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the Court in generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of the case permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice and warrants quashing of the same.

4. The learned counsel also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court in J.Srinivas vs G.Dhanalakshmi disposed of on 05.04.2013 in Criminal Petition No.2419/2009, wherein also this Court held that the complaint 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 registered in the year 2009 in respect of the offence alleged of the year 2004, the complaint was hopelessly barred by time and could not have been entertained.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that section 468 of Cr.P.C., is not applicable to the facts of case on hand. The learned counsel in support of his argument, he relied upon the order of this court in the case of Sri Puttaraju vs. Smt.Shivakumari in Criminal Revision Petition No.730/2019 disposed of on 01.04.2021. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that this Court has also ta