ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Domestic Violence Case No. 110 of 2015 including the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which ad interim relief has been granted to the opposite party no.2 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 for her day-to-day maintenance and to continue her studies.

2. Three important issues, which arise for determination in this case are:—

(i) Whether an ex-wife can file a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short the ‘D.V. Act’) when the relationship has come to an end with a decree of divorce?

(ii) Whether an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would be maintainable for quashing a proceeding under the provisions of the D.V. Act?

(iii) Whether the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. would be applicable in case of a proceeding under the D.V. Act?

3. Before, I proceed ahead to discuss and decide the aforesaid questions, it would be essential to briefly narrate the factual issues.

4. A complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 27 of the D.V. Act was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and three others in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein that she was married to the petitioner on 14.02.2013 at Barauni, Begusarai. Her parents had spent Rs.18 Lakhs over her marriage. After the marriage, she was taken to her sasural at Jamshedpur. In sasural, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws for demand of Rs. 10 lakhs. They used to utter that the petitioner being a class-II officer in B.H.E.L., whose monthly salary is Rs.1.25 lakhs, was being offered Rs.25 lakhs as dowry by several persons. They asked her to demand Rs.10 Lakhs from her parents failing which she was threatened to be driven out of her matrimonial house. She has alleged that after sometimes, she was taken to Lingampally, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) where her husband was posted. Even there, she was being subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.10 lakhs and a luxury car. She has alleged that her husband and in-laws also attempted to kill her, but somehow she could save her life and, ultimately, on 23.04.2013, she was ousted from the house by her husband and in-laws at Hyderabad. An information, in this regard, was given to the Hyderabad Police, but no action was taken on her complaint. Thereafter, she came back to Patna at her parents’ house. Even in Patna, she was threatened to bring dowry as demanded.

5. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant prayed for the following reliefs from the court under the D.V. Act from the husband:—

(i) Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for physical and mental sufferings;

(ii) Rs. 15 lakhs for loss of education;

(iii) Rs. 25 thousand per month for maintenance;

(iv) Rs. 20 thousand per month for residential accommodation or a direction to allow the petitioner to reside in the flat of her husband at Hyderabad; and

(v) Rs. 25 lakhs for cumulative suffering and loss.

6. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate and notice was served to the petitioner and another accused persons, he appeared and filed show cause on 31.05.2016 denying the allegations levelled by the opposite party no.2. A specific stand was taken before the learned Magistrate that the D.V. case is malicious and has been filed with oblique motive and is not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Act, 2005 are not made out. It was also pleaded that the opposite party no.2 had hardly stayed for 5-6 days at Jamshedpur after marriage and she stayed for about two months at Hyderabad. The marriage was performed without any dowr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document