SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
Madhusudan Murarilal Sharma — Appellant
Versus
Jyotsna Nilesh Sharma And Another — Respondent
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 206 of 2015
Decided on : 28-03-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
R.S. Sirpurkar, Adv., S. Agrawal, Adv., M.K. Pathan, Adv.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 15 and 21 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2, 3, 5, 12, 17, 18 and 19 - Domestic Violence - Torturing Physically And Mentally - I married and staying at second floor of ancestral property of in-laws whose relatives are staying at first and ground floor from where entrance is provided to my floor - For last one and half years my husband’s cousin brother is torturing me physically and mentally - I am also put in wrongful confinement by closing entrance of my rooms and I am unable to move out even for medical treatment - My husband has already approached various authorities to save me out of wrongful confinement however in spite of initiative by police authorities etc and filing several FIRs against accused person he is not ready to abide by law of land nor obey directives of police authorities - Moreover accused person and his supporters impersonated to MSEB mala fidely and got electricity connection of my house disconnected by hook or crook and I am staying in dark rooms for more than a year - It may be noted that several number of criminal cases have been filed by police against accused person for indulging into criminal activities – Held, Intention of Legislature was certainly not to provide a forum and remedy to every aggrieved woman irrespective of circumstances irrespective of relationship with offender or nature of grievance - Statutory scheme reveals that provisions can be invoked only by an aggrieved person who is defined to mean any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by respondent - Jurisdictional facts which are precondition to taking cognizance are woman must be or must have been in a domestic relationship with respondent and she must have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by respondent - domestic relationship as statutorily defined presupposes that respondent and complainant lived or have lived together in a shared householder which is defined to mean a household where person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with respondent - household could be owned or tenanted either jointly by aggrieved person or respondent or owned or tenanted by either of them and could belong to joint family of which respondent is a member - Whether aggrieved person or respondent has any right title or interest in shared household is immaterial - Application is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Rohit B. Deo, J.

The applicant-Madhusudan Murarilal Sharma is questioning the tenability of the proceedings instituted by non-applicant Smt. Jyotsna Nilesh Sharma under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ("DV Act" for short). The objection to the tenability of the proceedings is rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Khamgaon, by order dated 05-2-2014 and Criminal Revision 46/2014 preferred by the applicant is dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by judgment dated 08-10-2014.

2. Heard Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant 2/State of Maharashtra. None appears on behalf of non-applicant 1 Smt. Jyostna Nilesh Sharma.

3. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the complaint under the D.V. Act is an abuse of the process of law. This submission is predicated on the assertion that the complainant and the present applicant were/are not in "domestic relationship" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. The extension of the said submission is that even if the averments in the complaint are taken at face value, no case of domestic violence is made out.

4. In the context of the submission canvassed, it would be necessary to peruse the complaint dated 15-10-2011 which is forwarded by the complainant Smt. Jyotsna to the Superintendent of Police, Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana. The said complaint was forwarded by the officer to the Naib-Tahsildar who submitted report under Section 5(1) and (2) and Section 17(3) of the D.V. Act. The said report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Buldhana and Miscellaneous Criminal Case 48/2012 was registered under the provisions of the D.V. Act.

    The applicant herein is the cousin brother of Shri Nilesh Sharmathe husband of the complainant Jyotsna. The complaint forwarded by Smt. Jyotsna to the concerned officer reads thus :

"Shri Lakshmi Gautam, IPS,

Superintendent of Police

(The State Assistance for Violence against Women) &

Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana (M.S.)

Respected Sir,

Reg. : Wrongful confinement of helpless woman-request for action under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Rules 2006 thereunder-request for SOS help.

With great agony and pain, I wish to invite your kind attention towards the physical and mental agony I am suffering for more than one and half year due to the torture by the relatives of my in-laws.

I married to Mr. Nilesh K. Sharma, and staying at the second floor of the ancestral property of the in-laws whose relatives are staying at first and ground floor from where the entrance is provided to my floor. For last one and half years, my husband's cousin brother Mr. Madhusudhan M. Sharma (address as below) is torturing me physically and mentally. I am also put in wrongful confinement by closing the entrance of my rooms and I am unable to move out even for medical treatment. My husband has already approached various authorities to save me out of the wrongful confinement however, inspite of initiative by police authorities etc. and filing several FIRs against the accused person Mr. Madhusudhan, he is not ready to abide by the law of land nor obey the directives of the Police Authorities. Moreover, the accused person and his supporters impersonated to the MSEB mala fidely and got the electricity connection of my house disconnected by hook or crook and I am staying in dark rooms for more than a year. It may be noted that, several number of criminal cases have been filed by the Police against the accused person for indulging into criminal activities as under :

Sr.No.

FIR No. & Date

U/s. Of I.P.C.

Court case No.

Name of Party

01

165/08, 10/8/08

341, 143, 323 & 506

808/2008

State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma and Or

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top