IMPORTANT POINTS
The provisions in the statute especially Section 28, conferring power on the Magistrate to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under subsection (2) of Section 23 would indicate that the scheme of the statute is that the approach of the courts shall be to enforce the provisions of the Act, keeping in mind the fact that the parties who are close relatives in most of the cases, would at some point of time reconcile their differences and lead a life in harmony and the opportunity for the parties to bring about a settlement of their differences is not lost on account of the steps taken in the proceedings. If proceedings under the Act are permitted to be used as tools of harassment, I have no doubt that the possibility of the parties settling their disputes amicably and leading a life in harmony would be bleak.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

These matters relate to one and the same proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act), and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in Crl.M.C.No.7977 of 2018.

2. The second respondent is the wife of the third respondent and the petitioners are the mother and sister respectively of the third respondent. The marriage between the second respondent and the third respondent was solemnized on 18.11.2005 and they have a child aged nine years. The second respondent instituted M.C.No.28 of 2017 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg under Section 12 of the Act, against the petitioners and the third respondent. Annexure-AI is the application preferred by the second respondent in this regard. It is alleged by the second respondent in Annexure A1, among others, that the petitioners had taken away her gold ornaments on the very first day of her marriage; that the petitioners have been ill treating her thereafter with the support of the third respondent; that the petitioners and the third respondent did not extend to her any care or protection while she was carrying; that the petitioners and the third respondent were indifferent towards her even after she delivered the child; that the petitioners and the third respondent used to humiliate her parents and that the third respondent is providing only paltry amount for her sustenance. The reliefs sought in the proceedings on the said allegations include orders prohibiting the petitioners and the third respondent from committing acts of domestic violence, orders directing the petitioners and the third respondent to return the gold ornaments, orders directing the third respondent to pay maintenance and to provide alternative accommodation to the second respondent, orders restraining the third respondent from alienating his properties etc. The case set out by the petitioners in the Crl.M.C is that the facts disclosed in the application do not make out a case of domestic violence as defined under the Act and the proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of the court liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code).

3. O.P.(Crl)No.234 of 2019 is one instituted by the second respondent stating, among others, that after service of notice on the petitioners and the third respondent, the court below passed an interim order in the proceedings on 14.2.2018, directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent and Rs.5,000/- to the child towards their maintenance; that Ext.P3 order has so far not been complied with by the third respondent, and that nevertheless, further action is not being taken by the court in view of the interim order passed by this court staying the further proceedings in Annexure A1 application. The second respondent, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for enforcement of the interim order passed by the court on 14.2.2018 and for disposal of Annexure A1 application finally within a time limit.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the second respondent. There is no appearance for the third respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the stand taken by the petitioners in the Crl.M.C. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that a trivial matrimonial dispute has been blown out of proportion by the second respondent for the purpose of instituting Annexure A1 application and the intention of the second respondent is to exert pressure on the third respondent to satisfy her illegitimate demands. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the allegations in the application as far as the petitioners are concerned, are vague and ambiguous and the learned Magistrate, in the circumstances, ought not to have issued notice to the petition