IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Vinay Joshi, J.
Vishal S/o Bhaskarrao Thakre & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Application (APL) No. 475 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - The court dismissed the application seeking quashing of the entire proceeding filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the application disclosed instances of domestic violence and prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate was sufficient for the issuance of summons.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, alleging instances of domestic violence, after the couple separated due to differences.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application, stating that the application disclosed instances of domestic violence and prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate was sufficient for the issuance of summons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged domestic violence, shared household, and the sufficiency of specific allegations about domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application disclosed instances of domestic violence and prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate was sufficient for the issuance of summons, thus no case of quashing was made out.
Final Decision: The application seeking quashing of the entire proceeding filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was dismissed.
JUDGEMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Admit. By consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.
3. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 403/2018, the applicants have filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the entire proceeding filed by non-applicant No.2/wife in terms of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘D.V. Act’). The challenge is raised on two counts, that is the parties have not lived in “shared household” and secondly there are no specific allegations about the domestic violence.
4. The non-applicant No.2/wife married with the applicant No.1/husband on 12.04.2014. After marriage, they lived together and blessed with a male child. In the month of November 2016, the couple separated due to differences. Therefore, the non-applicant No.2/wife alleging instances of domestic violence, has applied to the Magistrate claiming multiple reliefs as available under the provisions of D. V. Act.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that in absence of specific instances of domestic violence, the Magistrate could not have invoked the provisions of the D. V. Act. It is argued that soon-after the marriage, the couple started to reside separately at Wardhan and then at Bhuwaneshwar in the State of Orissa which were the working places of husband. It is submitted that the non-applicant No.2/wife has not lived with her parents-in-law at any point of time. After delivery of a child, non-applicant No. 2/wife never returned for cohabitation. She has secured job of Teacher and thus, declined to stay at her matrimonial house. More emphasis is laid on the point that the application is bereft of specific instances of domestic violence.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant No. 2/wife resisted application by contending that the application gives a detail account of several instances about her mental as well as physical harassment. Time and again, she has been harassed to meet unlawful demands. She was frequently humiliated and thus, she was harassed mentally as well as physically. Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2/wife by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Shyamlal Devda and others Vs. Parimala, AIR 2020 SC 762 would submit that at this stage, prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate about the instances of domestic violence are sufficient for issuance of summons.
7. It is the case of non-applicant No.2/lady that she got married with the applicant No.1 on 12.04.2014 and resumed cohabitation at Bhandara which was her matrimonial house. She has delivered a child from the wedlock. She reiterated that since beginning, she has been persistently harassed to meet various demands. Non-applicant No. 2/wife stated that from the very next day of the marriage, she has been humiliated by the applicants. It is her case that her mother-in-law used to quarrel and her husband used to abuse and beat her at the instance of his parents. She has given detail account about instances of demand of various articles namely air conditioner, motorcycle, furniture, cooking gas etc. Non-applicant No. 2/wife further stated that in the month of August 2014, when she was to shift at Wardha, the applicants did not allow to take her household articles. During her stay at Wardha, she was harassed and neglected by applicant No.1/husband. Non-applicant No.2/wife has specifically stated that after delivering a child, she resumed her matrimonial duties at the house of her husband. The things were repeated as she has been harassed at the instance of applicants.
8. Certainly, it cannot be said that the application is bereft of instances of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the D. V. Act. Though specific dates have not been mentioned, however the application gives elaborate account as to how on particular occasion non-applic
Prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate about instances of domestic violence is sufficient for the issuance of summons under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that invoking the D.V. Act after adverse findings in previous proceedings can amount to an abuse of process of law. The court also clarified that c....
Lack of domestic relationship precludes application of domestic violence laws.
The Domestic Violence Act provides protection against domestic abuse, allowing claims to be made even after leaving the shared household, and the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot ....
Only individuals living in a shared household with the aggrieved person qualify as respondents under the Domestic Violence Act, as defined in Sections 2(q) and 2(f).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a complaint under the DV Act to proceed against the respondents, they must have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and live....
Distant relatives residing in a separate district may not be necessary parties in a domestic violence proceeding under the PWDV Act, and their presence may not be required for adjudication.
For domestic violence proceedings, courts must find specific allegations against individuals; general claims are insufficient to hold parties accountable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the shared household definition under the DV Act, emphasizing the importance of permanency in living arrangements and the int....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.