Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Pushpendra Kumari W/o Lt. Sh. Guman Singh Ji – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 611 of 2022, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 612 of 2022
Decided on : 05-07-2024
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - The court quashed summons issued against the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing the lack of evidence for domestic violence and the delayed nature of the complaint, which raised questions about its credibility. The court highlighted the need for the trial court to adjudicate the merits of the case without prejudgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged summons issued against them in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act initiated by the respondent (wife). The respondent's mother-in-law's summons were quashed as she had no objection. The petitioners argued that they never shared a household with the respondent and that the allegations were fabricated, coming 19 years after marriage and after the respondent voluntarily left her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of domestic violence were unsubstantiated, particularly given the long delay in filing the complaint and the absence of any prior complaints during the marriage. The court noted that the respondent's claims were contradicted by her own admissions and the lack of evidence.
Issues: Whether the summons issued under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners should be quashed based on the lack of evidence and the delayed filing of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of evidence supporting claims of domestic violence, coupled with the significant delay in filing the complaint, warranted the quashing of the summons against the petitioners. The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence in domestic violence cases.
Final Decision: The summons issued against the petitioners were quashed, and the court directed that the trial court should adjudicate the matter without requiring the presence of certain petitioners, focusing on the dispute between the husband and wife.
ORDER :
ARUN MONGA, J.
1. Under challenge herein vide Cr.W.P No.611/2022 is summons issued by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, on 01.11.2022 against the petitioners in proceedings under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act instituted by the respondent no.2 (wife) in CRM No.205/2022. The second Cr.W.P No.612/2022 has been filed seeking quashing of summons issued by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, on 01.11.2022 against the petitioners in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act instituted by the respondent no.2 (wife) in CRM No.204/2022. Both petitions are being disposed of vide this common order.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the complainant— respondent No. 2 (in both petitions) states that she has no objection if the summons issued to the mother-in-law of the complainant, who was arrayed as a party in the complaint before the Magistrate under the D.V. Act, are quashed.
3. Therefore, qua her, no adjudication is warranted before this Court. The issued summons are quashed.
4. The grounds of the petitions are as follows: The petitioners never shared the household with respondent No. 2. The charges levelled against the present petitioners in the said D.V. Act petition under Section 23 are completely fabricated and appear to be scripted solely to tarnish the image of the husband and family in society. Respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint under Section 23 of the DV Act 19 years after her marriage and 3-4 years after voluntarily deserting her husband and matrimonial relatives. She herself admits that she stayed in Delhi with her husband from 2003 to 2017, during which no complaint was filed. Now the charge sheet has been filed in this FIR and all the petitioners have been exonerated from charges levelled under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 of the IPC. Hence the contents of the D.V. Act petition hold no ground and must be quashed at first instance.
4.1 Due to the lavish lifestyle of respondent No. 2 and her desire to start a large-scale business, she frequently demanded money from her husband. However, in 2018, when husband of respondent No. 2 lost his job, he requested her to restrict expenses and avoid unnecessary spending. This small restriction infuriated respondent No. 2, leading to frequent quarrels with her husband. In 2019, without any reason, she voluntarily left her husband and moved to her parents' house.
4.2 The facts and circumstances of the D.V. Act Petition do not prove any kind of violence ever happened to respondent No. 2, as she never filed any written complaint. This itself raises significant questions, especially considering the petition was filed 18-19 years after her marriage, revealing clear intentions on the part of respondent No. 2. She also falsely claimed that her inability to conceive was due to her husband's impotency, whereas the truth is that medical complications prevented her from conceiving. In her complaint, she completely reversed the story and falsely accused her husband. Hence, the summons issued against the present petitioners deserve to be quashed.
5. In the preceding part of this order, the summons issued to the senior citizen 75 years old widow mother-in-law of the complainant (Pushpendra Kumari), who was arrayed as a party in the complaint before the Magistrate under the D.V. Act, stand quashed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that qua the remaining petitioners, it would be appropriate if grounds set up in this petition are first gone into and adjudicated by the learned trial Court instead of their being commented upon or prejudged summarily by this Court at this stage. Ordered accordingly.
7. However, on the oral request of learned counsel for petitioners, given that the dispute is primarily between husband and wife, it is directed that Learned trial court to
The court established that credible evidence is essential in domestic violence cases, and significant delays in filing complaints can undermine the validity of such claims.
Authority requires specific reasoning in summoning orders under domestic violence proceedings; appellate courts can uphold detailed findings even if initial orders lack depth.
Prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate about instances of domestic violence is sufficient for the issuance of summons under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature, and warrants of arrest are inappropriate in such cases.
For domestic violence proceedings, courts must find specific allegations against individuals; general claims are insufficient to hold parties accountable.
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
The High Court upheld the summoning orders issued by the Trial Court in a case filed under the DV Act. The Court found that the allegations made by the respondents were sufficient for summoning the p....
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
