Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Saktipada Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
Anima Chakraborty & Another - Respondent
CRR. No. 649 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Domestic Violence - Hindu Marriage - Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act 2005 - Cr.P.C. - IPC - D.V. Act 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act after the respondent left the matrimonial house. The respondent filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, claiming residence and injunction. The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the petitioner's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of domestic violence were not substantiated and that the remedies under the D.V. Act were not available to the respondent as the parties were already divorced before the initiation of the proceedings under the Act.
Issues: Allegations of domestic violence, applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the validity of the lower courts' rulings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the remedies under the D.V. Act were not available to the respondent as the allegations of domestic violence did not relate to the period of subsistence of the marriage and the parties were already divorced before the initiation of the proceedings under the Act.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the lower courts were set aside, and the petitioner's appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT
The present revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), 1st Court, Contai, Purba Midnapore in C.R.Rev. 1 of 2014 (Sri Saktipada Chakraborty Vs Anima Chakraborty) affirming the Judgment and Order dated 16th October, 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class 1st Court, Contain in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2012.
The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner married the opposite party no. 1 about 31 years ago under Hindu rites and customs and a male child was born out of their wedlock who is now about 31 years old.
The petitioner states that on 24.12.1984 the respondent left her matrimonial house with her brother on the pretext that her father was ill and since then did not came back to the petitioner’s house. The petitioner subsequently went to bring back the opposite party no. 1 but she did not come and several reconciliation proceedings were held but failed.
On the basis of a Complaint U/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Bhupati Nagar P.S. Case No.61 of 2003 dated 20.12.2003 U/s. 498A/307/34 of IPC was started against the petitioner and his other family members.
That after trial G.R. No. 518 of 2003 was dismissed by acquitting all the accuseds on 28.05.2007. No appeal was preferred by the opposite party no. 1.
The petitioner had no other alternative but to file an application U/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with a prayer for decree for divorce, being MAT Suit No. 203 of 2010 before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Contai and the said Mat Suit was finally disposed of by allowing the prayer of the petitioner.
The opposite party no. 1 and her men during pendency of Criminal Case under Section 498/307, 134 of I.P.C. against the petitioner came to the house of the petitioner, damaged the house, looted crops and drove out the petitioner, his aged mother and his deaf and dumb brother from their own house.
The opposite party then filed an application U/s. 12 read with Section 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act 2005 before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Contai and the petitioner appeared before the Ld. Court and filed his written objection denying all her allegation.
The Ld. Magistrate disposed of the Misc. Case without appreciating evidence adduced by the petitioner, by allowing the prayer of the respondent No.1 herein by granting residence order and also order of injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent No. 2 from entering into the said premises and also not to dispose of the said residence.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16th October, 2012, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing Cri. Rev. No. 1 of 2014 (Shakti Pada Chakraborty – Vs – Smt. Anima Chakraborty) before the Ld. Additional District Judge, Contai bearing Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2014 and the said appeal was finally heard and disposed of by the Ld. Additional District Judge (F.T.C) 1st Court, Contai, dismissing the appeal by affirming the Judgment and Order passed by the Ld. Magistrate.
Mr. Amlan Jyoti Sengupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred both in law and facts.
That the learned Courts have failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 1 had initiated a false case under Section 498A/307/34 of I.P.C. against the petitioner and other members as such subsequently they have been acquitted.
That the judgment and order dated 16th October, 2012 and judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Magistrate and Ld. Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) 1st Court, Contai are not in accordance with law and should be set aside.
In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 1.
The parties in the present case have been divorced by a decree dated 08.09.2011 in Matrimonial suit No. 203/10 passed by the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Contai.
The application filled by the opposite party no. 1, under Section
The remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 are not available if the allegations of domestic violence do not relate to the period of subsistence of the marriage and the....
The duty of a husband to maintain his wife and provide alternative accommodation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is upheld based on evidence of income and living arrang....
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allows for protection orders to be sought without a limitation period, and a domestic relationship is defined broadly to include past cohabitation, regardless of curre....
The proceedings initiated under the D.V. Act are of a civil nature and not criminal, and therefore, the provisions of Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. regarding sanction for inquiry into or trial of offenc....
The status of divorce must be established in civil court; until then, obligations under the Domestic Violence Act remain enforceable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
