IMPORTANT POINT
Infidelity can occur even in strongest of marital relationship.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—In the Affairs of this World, Men are saved, not by Faith, but by the Lack of it. Benjamin Frenklin.

2. As the issues raised in both the captioned applications are the same and the prayer is also to quash the selfsame proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The Special Criminal Application No.5672 of 2016 has been filed by the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2. The respondents nos.3 and 4 are the grandchildren of the writ-applicant. The respondent no.2 is married to one Mehul Bipinbhai Tamboli i.e. the son of the writ-applicant. In the wedlock, the respondents nos.3 and 4 were born.

4. The writ-applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“26(A) be pleased to quash qua the present petitioners the impugned complaint registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.131 of 2016 and pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Bhavnagar and the impugned Order dated 05.04.2016 passed thereunder by the Ld. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar;

(B) pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to stay further proceedings under the impugned complaint registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application no.131 of 2016 and pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Bhavnagar and the impugned order dated 05.04.2016 passed thereunder by the Ld. 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhavnagar;

(C) An exparte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted;

(D) such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.”

5. The case of the writ-applicant (mother-in-law) as pleaded in her writ-application is as under:-

“3. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen of this country and her fundamental rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a housewife and belongs to a highly respected family. She is mother-in-law of Respondent No.1 and is opponent No.2 in the impugned complaint.

4. Respondent no.2 is wife of Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli, who is Opponent No.1 in the impugned complaint.

5. Respondent No.2 is an educated person herself and her brother, Baijubhai, is a medical practitioner. Uncle of Respondent No.2, Dr. Rajubhai J. Dave is practicing for the last 35 years in Bhavnagar as a Child Specialist.

6. The Petitioner submits that the marriage between Respondent No.2 and Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli was a love marriage and took place on 16.2.1993 according to Hindu tradition. Out of the wedlock, Respondent No.2 and Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli have a 20 year old daughter, Anushree and a 15 year old son, who are respectively Respondents Nos.3 and 4 herein.

7. The petitioner has been residing with her husband, Bipinbhai Fulchandbhai Tamboli at a bungalow on Plot No.2294, Hilldrive Road, Bhavnagar for decades and was residing there when the marriage of Rspondent No.2 and Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli took place on 16.02.1993.

8. The Petitioner submits that the family of the Petitioner had very well accepted Respondent No.2 as a daughter-in-law, which is evident from the fact that for about 13 years after the said marriage, Respondent No.2 and Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli lived in a joint family. The Petitioner submits that the family of the Petitioner including Respondent No.2 celebrated festivals and various family occasions and took vacations including a trip in 1998 to the US where the younger brother of Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli was studying and even visited Disneyworld in Florida, USA. Younger brother of Mehulbhai Bipinbhai Tamboli got married in 2001 and even after his marriage, there was joint living in the Tamboli family. In other words, Respondent No.2 was comfortably living with the family of the Petitioner herein.