IMPORTANT POINT
Proceedings under the DV Act are civil in nature, and the Cr.P.C. does not apply, making petitions under it not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

(Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) :

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, in CRA-119-2022 arising out of case bearing No. DV-225- 2020 titled as ‘Neelam Sharma v. Arvind Razdan and others’, vide which, while setting aside the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, the appeal filed by the respondents under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 07.06.2015 according to Hindu rites and rituals and it was their second marriage. Out of this wedlock, no child was born. The petitioner filed a complaint under the provisions of DV Act against the respondents and other family members on the allegations of demand of more dowry. When no child was born to the petitioner, they started misbehaving her and she was pressurized to bring her share from the property of her father. When the petitioner did not do so, she was beaten up. The petitioner was also supposed to take the job of Teacher. Thus, the complaint was made by the petitioner with the allegations of maltreatment and cruelty and prayer for monetary relief was also made.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the liberty was granted by this Court to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action by not invoking the provisions of Cr.P.C., she has again filed a fresh petition challenging the impugned order. However, the Registry has raised an objection and directed her to file Criminal Revision.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record of the case with her able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable qua proceedings arising out of Section 12 of DV Act as concluded by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and others v. State of Punjab and others in CRM-M-19553-2023 decided on 24.04.2023, after dealing with the issue in extenso.

5. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, 2022 SCC Online SC 446, speaking through Justice U. U. Lalit, has opined that the ratio of law laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal , (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not be applicable to proceedings instituted under Section 12 read with Section 13 of DV Act. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:

“29. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated filing of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.

30. It is, however, true that as noted by the Protection Officer in his Domestic Inspection Report dated 2.08.2018, there appears to be a period of almost 10 years after 16.09.2008, when nothing was alleged by the appellant against the husband. But that is a matter which will certainly be considered by the Magistrate after response is received from the husband and the rival contentions are considered. That is an exercise which has to be undertaken by the Magistrate after considering all the factual aspects presented before him, including whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong.

31. Lastly, we deal with the submission based on the decision in Adalat Prasad. The ratio in that case applies when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and issues process, in which event instead of going back to the Magistrate, the remedy lies in filing petition under Section 482 of the Code. The scope of notice under Section 12 of the Act is to call for a response from the respondent in terms of the Statute so that after considering rival submissions, ap