IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
VINOD CHAERJI KOUL, J.
S. Rawail Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Gurinder Jeet Kour and Another – Respondents
CRMC No. 43 of 2018
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Domestic Violence - Relationship Dissolution - J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act - 12(1) - [Domestic Violence - J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act] - [Section 13 CPC, Section 14 CPC, Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the dissolution of the marriage between the parties and the absence of domestic relationship, which led to the quashing of the complaint and the FIR. The judgment and decree of divorce passed by the District Court Wisman, Germany, was held to be conclusive and binding upon the parties. The court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, as the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked in the absence of a domestic relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashment of the complaint and the FIR filed under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, as the marriage between the parties had been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed by the District Court Wisman, Germany. The court found that there was no domestic relationship existing between the parties, and thus, the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marriage between the parties had been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and there was no domestic relationship existing between them. Therefore, the complaint and the proceedings were quashed, and the petition was allowed. The court also upheld the rejection of the application seeking registration of an FIR against the respondent, as there was no domestic relationship existing between the parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could be invoked in the absence of a domestic relationship between the parties due to the dissolution of the marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dissolution of the marriage and the absence of a domestic relationship precluded the invocation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. The court invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, as the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked in the absence of a domestic relationship.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and the proceedings initiated under the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, and upheld the rejection of the application seeking registration of an FIR against the respondent, as there was no domestic relationship existing between the parties.
JUDGMENT :
VINOD CHAERJI KOUL, J.
1. Petitioners in the instant petition seek quashment of the complaint titled Gurinder Jeet Kaur vs. S. Baldev Singh and Others filed under section 12(1) of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act (for brevity ‘impugned complaint’) which is pending before the Court of Learned JMIC, Sub-Judge, Jammu (for brevity ‘trial Court’) wherein process has been issued by the trial Court against the petitioners herein.
2. The aforesaid complaint has been filed by the respondent-complainant-Gurinder Jeet Kaur on 20.12.2017, wherein she complained about being subjected to domestic violence by the accused-petitioners herein.
3. In brief, the acts of domestic violence are that she and the petitioner No. 4-Baldev Singh were married on 19.01.2007 as per the Sikh rites (Anand Karaj) and rituals at Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Greater Kailash Kunjwani, Jammu and out of the said wedlock one child, namely, Gurshish Singh has born. She alleges in the complaint that at the time of solemnizing of the marriage sufficient dowry in the shape of articles, i.e., Refrigerator, washing Machine, Air-conditioner, TV and Gold ornaments were given to the petitioners and in addition to the said articles, cash amount of Rupees one lac was also given to them. She alleges that after solemnizing of marriage she was residing in H. No. 98, Sector No. 9, Nanak Nagar, Jammu with the petitioners and their attitude from the very beginning was cruel and unbecoming towards her. They used to taunt her for bringing fewer dowries and were pressurizing her to fulfill other demands of dowry. The petitioners started torturing and harassing her on one pretax or another and also not being provided proper food and cloths and other basic amenities. Even after the birth of the child, their attitude did not change, but turned bad to worst. Her husband-Baldev Singh who is working in Germany, used to come to Jammu after 4-6 months and when she asked him to accompany her, he used to abuse and beat her, she was thus, maltreated by the accused-Baldev Singh. In the complaint it was further alleged that complainant was thrown out of her house on 02.09.2010 and was threatened not to come back unless she brings Rs. 02 lacs for them. She on hearing that her husband-Baldev Singh was leaving for Germany on 10.10.2010 she also booked her tickets and went to Germany along with her son. On reaching Germany, she was not treated properly by her husband-Baldev Singh and was not allowed to reside with him. She was compelled to live in a separate accommodation. It was alleged that all the articles of Stridhan have been retained by the petitioners herein. She completed her studies in Jammu in the month of November, 2017 and now she is residing at Jammu and her minor son is studying in Class-IIIrd in Germany and his expenses are incurred by her and her daily needs and that of minor child are approximately one lac per month which are being borne by her. She claims in the complaint that petitioner-Baldev Singh is doing his business in Germany and earning Rs. 02 lac per month and has no liability except to maintain her and child.
4. The petitioners have challenged the complaint as well as the process issued by the trial Court precisely, on the ground that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner No. 4-Baldev Singh and respondent-Gurinder Jeet Kaur. The petitioners submit that the allegations contained in the complaint filed by her under the Domestic Violence, Act are false and frivolous. It is submitted that after the marriage both the complainant-respondent herein and petitioner No. 4-Baldev Singh shifted to Germany where Baldev Singh was settled and working since 2002 on account of his employment. Both of them became the permanent residents of Germany, in support of their contention they have placed on record copy of the divorce issued by the District Court Wisman, Germany. It is stated that after shifting to Germany the relationship
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dissolution of the marriage and the absence of a domestic relationship precluded the invocation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship between the respondent and the complainant for the court to pass an order under the DV Act....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint under the PWDV Act may not be maintainable after a prolonged period of living separately and after the decree of divorce, as it co....
Maintainability of complaint – Domestic relationship has to be in present and not in the past.
A divorced woman is entitled to file a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, and the trial court must adjudicate the petition finally to test the authenticity of the allegations.
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
The court ruled that foreign divorce decrees are not valid if parties did not effectively submit to the foreign jurisdiction, highlighting the importance of domestic matrimonial laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.