Allegations under domestic violence law must be specific and timely, as vague claims and unexplained delays undermine the complaint's validity.

Order :

S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks the quashing of the order dated 15^th March 2017 passed by the SDJM, Bhubaneswar in CMC No.706 of 2016 filed by the present Opposite Parties under Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The petition also seeks the setting aside of a judgment dated 1^st September 2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar dismissing the appeal under Section 29 of PWDV Act thereby affirming the order dated 15^th March 2017 of the SDJM dismissing the petition filed by the present Petitioners questioning the maintainability of the aforementioned CMC No.706 of 2016 on the ground of limitation. Inter alia, both the SDJM and the Sessions Judge took the view that the question of limitation was mixed question of fact and law which could be gone into only at the stage of trial.

2. The background facts are that Petitioner No.1 had married to Opposite Party No.1 on 6^th July, 2007. A son was born on 23^rd May, 2008. In the complaint filed under Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act on 23^rd November 2016, Opposite Party No.1 is silent about when she left the matrimonial home whereas according to the Petitioners she left matrimonial home some time in 2009.

3. Mr. Gautam Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, at the outset submits on instructions that he is pressing the present petition for quashing of CMC No.706 of 2016 only as far as Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 i.e., the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned and not Petitioner No.1 who happens to be the husband of Opposite Party No.1.

4. Referring to the application under Section 12 (1) of the PWDV Act, Mr. Misra submits that the allegations as far as Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned are at best vague and unspecific and the entire petition has been made belatedly 9 years after Opposite Party No.1 left the matrimonial home. He refers inter alia to the decisions in Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 14 SCC 374 , Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 , Seenivasan v. State (2019) 8 SCC 642 and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599

5. Mr. Bigyan Sharma, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand defends the impugned orders of the SDJM and Sessions Judge and submits that the question of limitation if any is a mixed question of fact and law and the parties could not avoid facing trial on that score. As far as the allegations against the Petitioners under PWDV Act are concerned, he submits that there were allegations made against Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 which were specific although the exact dates on which such incidents occurred were not mentioned. He submits that the non-compliance of orders passed by the Court in proceedings under the PWDV Act would itself constitute an offence and therefore, the Court should not at this stage interfere with the proceedings under Section 482 Cr PC.

6. The above submissions have been considered. On a perusal of the order dated 15^th March 2017, it is seen that baring the last paragraph of the order, it merely sets out all the contentions of the Petitioners and observes that since PWDV Act is a beneficial law intended to provide relief to a destitute lady and has retrospective effect “the cause of domestic violence can be better appreciated at the time of trial and not at the present stage”.

7. As far as the judgment dated 1^st Septem