Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anita Chaudhry, J.
Vipinder Pal Singh Sidhu And Others - Appellant
Versus
Jashanjeet Kaur - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 39768 of 2016
Decided On : 02-08-2018
Domestic Violence Act - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - [DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT] - [Section 482 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the requirements for a complaint to be maintainable under the Act. It highlighted the definition of domestic relationship and shared household, and emphasized that domestic violence can only occur when the parties have lived together in a shared household. The court also emphasized that economic and physical abuse can only constitute domestic violence when the parties are living together. The court quashed the complaint and summoning order against certain petitioners as it found that the complaint was a misuse of the process of the court and did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Domestic Violence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners, including the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, claimed that the complaint was not maintainable as they were not in a domestic relationship with the respondent. The respondent alleged continuous domestic violence and sought various reliefs, including monetary relief and a right of residence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint and summoning order against certain petitioners were quashed as the complaint was a misuse of the process of the court and did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Domestic Violence Act. The court dismissed the petition with respect to the husband, stating that the trial court should examine the claims for monetary relief and maintenance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was maintainable against all the petitioners, considering the domestic relationship and shared household requirements under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that domestic violence can only occur when the parties have lived together in a shared household. It emphasized that economic and physical abuse can only constitute domestic violence when the parties are living together. The court quashed the complaint and summoning order against certain petitioners as it found that the complaint was a misuse of the process of the court and did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Domestic Violence Act.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the complaint and summoning order against certain petitioners were quashed. The petition with respect to the husband was dismissed, leaving the claims for monetary relief and maintenance to be examined by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Anita Chaudhry, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law while petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the respondent.
2. In brief the facts pleaded by the petitioners; respondent was married to petitioner No.1 on 19.11.2005. A daughter was born to them in November, 2008. The respondent and petitioner No.1, after marriage, stayed initially in a rented accommodation in Mohali and in May, 2006 they went to the parental house in Village Bidowali for two weeks. A close relative had died in an accident and they attended the bhog ceremony and thereafter the respondent did not go to the village. The petitioners claim that petitioner No.1 and the respondent stayed at Mohali and respondent started working with Healthyway Immigration Services Limited, Sector-42, Chandigarh and in June, 2007 the couple shifted to Noida and the respondent started working in a School in Noida. The couple shifted to Mohali in August, 2009. It was pleaded that petitioner No.1 was finding it difficult to concentrate on his work as during their stay in Delhi, the respondent had been attending late night parties with her friends, returning home late drunk and she stopped taking care of the daughter. On return, the respondent opened her own boutique by the name of Temble/Tia Design Studio in September/October 2010 at parental house. It was pleaded that due to the conduct of the respondent, life of petitioner No.1 became hell and he moved out of the rented accommodation i.e. House No.2009, First Floor, Phase 10, Mohali w.e.f. 11.05.2011. It was claimed that the respondent also locked the house and moved along with the daughter and started living in her parental home in House No.2047, Phase-10, Mohali. Petitioner No.1 filed a divorce petition in March, 2012 which was dismissed in 2014. FAO was pending in the High Court. It was pleaded that a complaint was filed and notice was issued by the Magistrate without calling for the report of the protection officer and petitioner No.1 had filed his reply detailing the factual position on 19.07.2013 and even at that time, the report from the CDPO had not been received. The petitioners had appended the photographs, copy of the divorce petition and documents relating to the Tia Design Studio set up by the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioners and after recording preliminary evidence, petitioners were summoned. It was pleaded that petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 had filed an application dropping the proceedings against them and the respondent had filed reply to the application. Meanwhile, CDPO appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and sought time to file report and the case was adjourned and the CDPO had filed the reply but the respondent failed to respond to the application filed by them and the case was adjourned time and again and the Magistrate allowed maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- without deciding the application. It was pleaded that the Court below did not consider the fact that the respondent was not in the domestic relationship with the petitioners and the respondent had made false allegations accusing petitioner No.1 forcing her to watch pornography or forcing her to get money from her parents while they were staying at Noida. It was pleaded that the respondent concealed the fact that she was admitted in Max Hospital for one day on account of food poising and not on account of overdose of sedatives. It was pleaded that the rented accommodation was kept locked and the respondent removed all her belongings and shifted to her parent's house and the Court did not appreciate the fact that they were not in a domestic relationship with either of the petitioners. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 had got married in February, 2004. It was pleaded that the general and vague allegations had
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
