Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
S.Kumara Swamy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos.2085 and 2086 of 2019
Decided on : 11-03-2022
Criminal Procedure Code - Domestic Violence Act - Section 482 - DVC No.17 of 2011 - Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. - Rule 6(5) and Rule 12 of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed criminal petitions to quash orders passed in DVC No.17 of 2011. The petitioner was directed to pay compensation and maintenance to the respondent. The respondent filed applications under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. alleging non-compliance by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applications filed by the respondent were maintainable as they complained of the petitioner's violation of the court orders. The court also found that the notice was not served on the petitioner in compliance with the procedure laid down under Section 12 of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the respondent's applications under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. and the procedure for serving notice on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applications filed by the respondent were maintainable as they complained of the petitioner's violation of court orders. The court also found that the notice was not served on the petitioner in compliance with the procedure laid down under Section 12 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the docket orders and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
Lis involved in both these Criminal petitions is one and the same and parties are common, these petitions are being heard in common and disposed of with the following
1-a. The Crl.P.No.2085 of 2019 is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated 01.10.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.586 of 2018 in DVC No.17 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class/Special Mobile Court-Cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. Whereas, the Crl.P.No.2086 of 2019 is filed to quash the order dated 01.10.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.584 of 2018 in the said DVC.
2. Heard Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor representing State and Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent herein. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent herein, the wife of the petitioner, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) vide DVC No.17 of 2011 seeking certain reliefs against the petitioner herein. Vide order dated 18.03.2013, the Court below has allowed the said application in part and directed the petitioner herein to return the dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the 2nd respondent herein within two months from the date of the order, further directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 2nd respondent towards maintenance and also towards procuring a residential accommodation by her. The petitioner herein is further directed to pay the said amount of maintenance from the date of the petition and on or before 5th of every succeeding month.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner herein, filed a revision vide Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 09.02.2016 modified the said order dated 18.03.2013 in DVC No.17 of 2011 and directed the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation as directed by the Court below on or before 25.03.2016 and as far as the maintenance granted by the Court below the same is reduced to Rs.10,000/-to Rs.9,000/-per month payable by the petitioner herein from the month of March, 2016, continue to pay the same regularly on or before 10th of every succeeding month and the remaining order of the Court below, is unaltered.
5. The petitioner herein had filed four applications vide Crl.M.P.No.584 of 2018, 585 of 2018, 565 of 2018 and 765 of 2018 under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 31 of the Act, seeking to punish the petitioner herein for noncompliance of the order dated 18.03.2013 passed in the DVC, as modified by order dated 09.02.2016 in Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2015. The applications vide Crl.M.P.No.585 of 2018 and 765 of 2018 were closed since the petitioner herein has complied with the said order insofar as the payment of costs and arrears of maintenance. The Crl.M.P.No.584 of 2018 and 586 of 2018 are filed seeking to punish the petitioner for noncompliance of the order dated 18.03.2013 as modified by order dated 09.02.2016 by non-paying dowry amount and compensation amount. Vide docket orders both dates 01.10.2018, learned Magistrate issued N.B.W. against the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive the notice.
6. Challenging the said orders, both dated 01.10.2018, the petitioner herein filed the present criminal petitions seeking to set aside the said docket orders.
7. Sri P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very petitions filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging noncompliance by the petitioner herein of the order dated 18.03.2018 passed in DVC as modified vide order dated 09.02.2016 in Crl.R.C.No.1107 of 2015 for payment of dowry amount and compensation are not maintainable. The 2nd respondent has to file a suit for recovery of the said
The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of applications under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for violation of court orders.
Proceedings initiated under Section 12 seeking reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 are civil in nature – Proceedings under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. are not to be fo....
The court established that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and distinct from criminal proceedings, thus not subject to quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The court established that applications for maintenance under the D.V. Act must be properly categorized, and the Magistrate has the authority to modify maintenance orders based on changed circumstanc....
The Domestic Violence Act proceedings are civil in nature, and the proper procedure involves issuing notices rather than summons, emphasizing the distinction from criminal jurisdiction.
A person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the PWDV Act for non-compliance of monetary orders such as maintenance or interim maintenance orders.
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
