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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1242

MANISH PITALE
Bhushan – Appellant
Versus
Sau. Nilesha Bhushan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
S.A.Mohta, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The DV Act invocation after adverse findings in previous proceedings constitutes abuse of the process of law. (!) - The applicant's second marriage after a divorce decree does not constitute domestic violence under the DV Act. (!) (!) - The filing of DV Act proceedings three months after Supreme Court confirmation of divorce findings, relying on the same incidents, amounts to abuse of process and should be quashed. (!) (!) (!) - The Family Court’s findings of cruelty and the divorce decree, confirmed up to the Supreme Court, bar re-litigation under the DV Act for the same issues. (!) (!) - The High Court allowed the application and quashed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 778 of 2016, setting aside impugned orders. (!) (!) - The respondent’s DV Act application sought relief (maintenance, compensation, etc.) based on repeated contentions from earlier litigation, which the court found to be harassment and abuse of process. (!) (!)

What is the tenability of invoking the DV Act after adverse findings in prior proceedings?

What is the status of a second marriage after a divorce decree under the DV Act?

What constitutes abuse of process of law in filing DV Act applications when facts already decided in divorce proceedings?


JUDGMENT

1. This application is listed at Sr.No.209 in the final hearing board for today. A specific note was given at the top of the cause list stating that no adjournment would be granted on any ground in the matters listed at Sr. No.201 to 210.

2. When the application was called out for hearing in the pre-lunch session, the learned counsel for the applicants appeared and argued at length. The sole respondent has been served and is represented through counsel, although none appeared for the sole respondent. The application was then kept in post lunch session at 2.30p.m. but, none appeared on behalf of the sole respondent. As noted above, the learned counsel for the applicants was heard finally.

3. By this application, the applicants have sought quashing of criminal proceedings bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.778 of 2016, filed by the sole respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.V. Act'). The applicants have also prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, issuing notice in the application filed by the respondent herein and also rejecting

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