Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
Mohd. Anees Khan, S/o Mohd. Saleem Khan and others – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Farhat Naaz, W/o Shri Mohd. Anees Khan – Respondent
M. Cr.C. No. 17475 of 2014
Decided On : 22-12-2016
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 - The court discussed the interpretation of the Act, including the requirement for calling a report from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider, the definition of 'respondent' to include female adult members, and the necessity of mentioning the exact date of cause of action in the application. The court also considered the timing of divorce in relation to the initiation of the case and its impact on the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence and seeking reliefs. The petitioners challenged the registration of the case and subsequent proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the registration of the case without calling for a report from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider was not an error. It also concluded that the definition of 'respondent' includes female adult members and that mentioning the exact date of cause of action in the application was not necessary. The court found that the timing of divorce by petitioner No.1 had no material impact on the case.
Issues: Interpretation of the Act, including the requirement for calling a report from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider, the definition of 'respondent', and the necessity of mentioning the exact date of cause of action in the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act, the timing of divorce in relation to the initiation of the case, and the understanding of the cause of action in domestic violence cases.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashment of the order and subsequent proceedings was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to bear the respondent's expenses.
Rajendra Mahajan, J.
This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is directed for setting aside the order dated 10.10.2014 and quashing the entire proceedings in MJC-R/2688 of 2014 titled Smt. Farhat Naaz v. Mohd. Anees Khan and two others, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal (for short the 'Court').
2. The facts, in nutshell, for adjudication of this petition are given below :-
2.1. Respondent Smt. Farhat Naaz has filed an application against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity "the Act") in the court seeking reliefs provided under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Act and return of her Stridhan. The substratum of the application is that on 26.12.2012 the marriage of respondent was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Mohd. Anees Khan as per Muslim rites and customs at Bhopal. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Imamunabi Khan and petitioner No. 3 Mohd. Saleem Khan are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively. She has alleged that in the marriage, her father spent Rs. 6,00,000/- (six lakh rupees) out of which he had given Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees) in cash to the petitioners through a bank demand draft. In addition to that, her father gave domestic articles and ornaments in dowry. From the very first day of her marital life, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 told her that they are expecting from her father that he would give them Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh rupees) in cash. But, he gave only Rs.2,00,000/- (two lakh rupees) which is a very small amount. Thus, her father insulted them. They also told her that petitioner No.1 is doing a job in Abu Dhabi and that if they had married him in any other family they would have received much more dowry. Thereafter, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 started harassing her mentally by taunting her and cursing her father. After one week of the marriage, petitioner No.1 wanted to go Abu Dhabi leaving her with his parents. At her great insistence, he took her with him to Abu Dhabi. There, he often misbehaved and ill-treated her. He used to say that he would keep her with him as his domestic servant, so long as her parents have not given Rs.8,00,000/- (eight lakh rupees) to his parents. Whenever she objected to his rude behaviour, he committed marpeet with her. About two months later, he forcibly sent her back to India from Abu Dhabi with an ulterior motive that seeing her woes, her parents would give them the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-. After her arrival in India, her parents and brothers took her to her matrimonial home so that she could live with petitioners No. 2 and 3. At that time, they misbehaved with her parents and brothers. They told them that they would allow her to live with them only after receiving Rs.8,00,000/- from them. Under the circumstance, she had to return to her parental house. She waited for about two months in the hope that her in-laws would take her back with them, but in vain. Thereafter, she again went to Abu Dhabi on her own expenses. There, petitioner No.1 did not allow her to enter his residential flat. As a result, she had to spend the whole night sitting outside of his flat with her luggage. In the next day morning, the neighbours saw her in a pitiable condition and reprimanded him. Thereafter, he allowed her to enter his flat. However, he would rudely behave with her. He often cursed her parents and also committed marpeet with her. He did not bring cooking materials from the market and he would say that he had not invited her to live with him in Abu Dhabi. He used to force her to go back to India. In the circumstances, she had to return India. Again, her parents initiated talks of settlement and took her to the residence of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. They again told them that they would keep her only when Rs.8,00,000/- has been paid to them. She has also alleged that petitioner No.1 used to send her e-mails hurting her feelings and threatening to defame her parents.
2.2. The re
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
