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.

Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - PWDV Act, 2005, Section 12
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the proceeding under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, alleging wrongful implication in a domestic violence case by the wife of another individual. The petitioner argued that they were distant relatives and not necessary parties for the proceeding.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the present petitioners were not necessary parties for the adjudication of the proceeding under the PWDV Act and their presence was not required. The court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceeding against the present petitioners.
Issues: Wrongful implication of distant relatives in a domestic violence case, abuse of court process, mis-joinder of parties
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the present petitioners, being distant relatives residing in a separate district, were not necessary parties for the proceeding under the PWDV Act. The court also found that the proceeding suffered from mis-joinder of the present petitioners.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the proceeding under Section 12 of the PWDV Act was quashed in respect of the present petitioners. No costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application has been preferred for quashing of the proceeding being Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the PWDV Act), pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Court, Purulia.

2. The opposite party no.2 herein is the wife of one Kuntal Panda (who is not the petitioner herein) and after marriage, said Kuntal Panda and the opposite party no.2 started to reside as husband and wife at Flat No.104, Block - KA, Siddha Town, Rajarhat, under P.S. Narayanpur.

3. Petitioner alleged that since the very inception of the marital life, the opposite party no.2 never shown any inclination or enthusiasm to accept her marriage nor she had any sympathy, trust, regard, respect, love or affection towards adjustment of her matrimonial life. Subsequently, she was detected to be a psychiatric patient and she was medically treated by a psychiatrist.

4. On 15th February, 2020 the respondent no.2 left the matrimonial home situated at Rajarhat, New Town, on the pretext of visiting her ailing grandmother at Purulia. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge that on 17th February, 2020 the opposite party no.2 has filed an FIR being FIR No.59 of 2020 under Section 498A/325/34/506 of the IPC against her husband, her parents in law and other family members and also against the present petitioners. The petitioners have been wrongfully and mischievously implicated in the said FIR by the opposite party no.2 with an ulterior motive.

5. The petitioner no.1 herein is a permanent resident of Bankura District which is admitted by the opposite party no.2 in her written complaint dated 17th February, 2020. The petitioner no.1 is a businessman by profession and is a family man. After the aforesaid marriage of respondent no.2, the petitioner no.1 never visited in the marital home of the respondent no.2 at Rajarhat and last time, the petitioner no.1 had seen the respondent no.2 at her marriage ceremony and had never interfered in the family life of the respondent no.2.

6. The petitioner no.2 herein is 20 years old daughter of petitioner no.1 who is also a student and also permanent resident of Bankura District, which is also admitted by the opposite party no.2 in her complaint. The opposite party no.2 in conspiracy with her parents has criminally intimidated the husband that until the ownership of the residential property at Rajarhat is transferred in favour of opposite party no.2, her husband will continue to suffer cruelty and other criminal proceedings.

7. Both the petitioner no.1 and 2 never had any far away dealing with the family life of the opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 with an atrocious motive has implicated them to create wrongful oppression upon the husband and parents of the husband in order to grab the aforesaid Rajarhat flat.

8. On 3rd July, 2020 the opposite party no.2 mischievously filed present application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the petitioners herein including her husband, her parents in law and also against the present petitioners which has been registered as Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 and is pending before the learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. The statements and contents of the said application under Section 12 of the said Act is altogether contradicting with the statements made in the written F.I.R dated 17th February, 2020, lodged by opposite party no.2 herein.

9. The petitioner no.1 and 2 both are permanent resident of Bankura District and, as such, question of inflicting any kind of physical or mental cruelty or domestic violence cannot and does not arise against the far distant relatives, permanently settled in a separate district. In the Misc. Case No.68 of 2020 the opposite party no.2 had made no specific allegation against the present petitioners nor there is any specific allegation as to how and when and in what manner the petitioners caused the Act of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document