IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be quashed unless it is clear that no prima facie case exists and the allegations are malicious.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.J. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the proceeding registered as Misc. (D.V.) Case No. 148/2023 filed by the respondent No.2 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup, seeking protection under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. Respondent No. 2, as the petitioner, has initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking protection under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the Act. This case has been registered as Misc. (D.V.) Case No. 148/2023, which has been filed by her solely to harass the present petitioner, and the petition does not disclose any prima facie case against him.

3.2. The petitioner married respondent No. 2 according to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, and their marriage was based on mutual love. They were wed at the Shimachalam Temple in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, following Hindu rites and rituals. From August 2012 onward, the respondent No.2 resided at her mother’s house in Gajuwaka, as she had already conceived by that time. In November 2012, during her fifth month of pregnancy, she and her mother decided to go to Guwahati, and the present petitioner accompanied them. On 25.03.2013, respondent No. 2 gave birth to a baby boy and stayed at her father's residence.

3.3. In September 2013, the petitioner took his wife, respondent No. 2, to Gajuwaka, Andhra Pradesh, where her brother was employed. To accommodate her, the petitioner rented a place near her brother’s house and began living there with her. However, respondent No. 2 soon began troubling the petitioner and even changed the rented premises while they were in Gajuwaka.

3.4. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 filed a domestic violence case against the petitioner, numbered Misc. (D.V.) Case No. 148/2023, in which she made false and concocted allegations against him, claiming that he forced her into undergoing multiple abortions between 2013 and 2017. The respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to support her claims, which appear to have been made solely to harass him and damage his reputation.

3.5. Furthermore, the petitioner did his best to fulfill her wishes and even celebrated the birthdays of their two sons in a grand manner, as insisted by respondent No. 2. After the birth of their eldest son, in around September 2013, she returned from her father's place in Guwahati to Gajuwaka. To ensure respondent No. 2’s comfort, the petitioner shifted their residence to a rented house near her brother’s home in Visakhapatnam.

3.6. For three years of their marriage, the petitioner managed to secure a job in March-April 2015 in a private company. However, the demands of respondent No. 2 increased, and she pressured him to repeatedly move from Nathayapalem to Samathanagar. Out of love and affection for his family, the petitioner complied. Their elder son was admitted to a school in Gajuwaka, but after the death of the petitioner’s father due to kidney failure, he had to resign from his job and return to Narsipatnam.

3.7. After the birth of their second son in 2017, the family moved again to Samathanagar, Gajuwaka, to meet respondent No. 2’s demands and to secure a better future for their sons. In May 2021, when respondent No. 2 suffered from COVID-19, the petitioner attended to her and covered all her medical expenses till her recovery. However, after this, she began to quarrel with him and started abusing his mother. When the petitioner objected to her behavior, she threatened him with dire consequences and stated that she would not allow him to live peacefully.

3.8. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 ceased verbal commu