Domestic violence claims require continuous domestic cohabitation; lack of relationship negates proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

(PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.)

Heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarmah, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE praying for quashing the proceedings of D.V. Case No.212 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. The 51 year old respondent filed an application under Sections 12 , 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT , 2005 against the present petitioner, being her husband. They were married on 08.02.2008. Initially, they stayed at Duliajan, though their marriage was solemnized at Guwahati.

4. They had marital disputes. Therefore, the respondent filed a divorce proceeding, being F.C. (Civil) Case No.447 of 2010 in the Family Court. Though, the Family Court delivered a judgment, both the respondent and the petitioner decided to patch up their differences. Even after expiry of 10 years subsequent thereto, they could not have a proper relationship. Therefore, the respondent again filed another divorce proceeding being Case No.425/2018.

5. The respondent started to live in her parents’ house. On one occasion, in order to patch up their dispute, the respondent came to her matrimonial house but her husband left the house and started to reside at a hotel after locking his bedroom in his house.

6. Narrating the aforesaid facts, among other prayers, the respondent filed the said application before the court below seeking an amount of Rs.2 crore as compensation and damage caused to her mentally and emotionally. The petitioner reportedly earns Rs.2.3 lakh per month by working as the Chief Executive Engineer at Oil India Limited, Duliajan.

7. The leaned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 12 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT and issued notice to the present petitioner.

8. The learned counsel Mr. Sarmah has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Madras Court that was delivered in Arul Daniel & Ors. v. Suganya, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435. In this judgment, the Hon’be Madras High Court has held that the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable, though a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on a limited ground on patent lack of jurisdiction.

9. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. S. Dutta has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158 . Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 37, 38 and 39 are quoted as under.

“31. There are two parts of Section 482 . Both parts save the inherent powers of the High Court. The first part is applicable where the power is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under ‘this Code’. When a notice is issued on an application under Section 12 (1), the learned Magistrate does not pass any order under the CrPC. When orders granting any of the reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are passed, the orders of the learned Magistrate are not under the CrPC. Therefore, the first part of Section 482 cannot apply to proceedings under Section 12 (1) of the DV Act, 2005.

32. The second part of Section 482 saves the inherent power of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, in a given case where a learned Magistrate is dealing with an application under Section 12 (1), the High Court can exercise the power under the sec