IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDITION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR CRR 178 of 2025 Samrat Sarkar & Ors.

-Vs.-

Smt. Manika Karmakar For the Petitioners : Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahasaya Ms. Ambalika Ghosh For the Opposite Party : Ms. Priti Das Hearing concluded on : 24.07.2025 Judgment on : 28.07.2025 Uday Kumar, J.:-

1. The present revisional application, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeks the extraordinary intervention of this Court to quash the proceedings of Misc. Petition No. 489 of 2024 initiated on the application filed by Opposite Party, Manika Karmakar, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the DV Act"). The petitioners, comprising the husband (Samrat Sarkar) and his parents, challenged the domestic violence proceedings under Misc. Petition No. 489 of 2024, on the grounds of statutory non-compliance of Section 12(4) of the DV Act, a blatant abuse of the legal process, predicated on both procedural non-compliance and, more significantly, the deliberate suppression of crucial material facts by Opposite Party. They submitted that the continuation of such a proceeding, based on suppressed facts and questionable motives, amounts to harassment, particularly for the elderly and ailing petitioners.

2. The foundational facts of the marital dispute reveal a marriage solemnized on December 13, 2021, which quickly descended into discord. Opposite Party alleged "physical and mental torture" within months, claiming her husband's undue influence by his mother and her subsequent financial distress, leading to her departure from the matrimonial home on August 19, 2023. This separation marked the beginning of a series of legal and pre-legal actions that are central to the present controversy.

3. Significantly, Opposite Party initiated Matrimonial Suit No. 191/2024 for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, prior to the instant proceeding initiated on her DV Act application. In an attempt at reconciliation, the husband-initiated pre-litigation proceedings at the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Jalpaiguri, on October 31, 2023. These efforts proved futile, with a critical development emerging on February 12, 2024, during the DLSA proceedings. Here, Manika Karmakar unequivocally refused to return to her matrimonial home, demanding a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs) as compensation for granting a divorce. Crucially, she also admitted on record that she was an employee of Jalpaiguri Government Polytechnic Institute with "sufficient income to maintain herself." Further, on December 16, 2023, a formal acknowledgment confirmed her voluntary removal of all her 'stridhan' and personal belongings from the matrimonial home.

4. It was against this detailed backdrop of matrimonial discord, a pending divorce suit initiated by the wife, failed conciliation efforts, and explicit admissions regarding her financial independence, that Manika Karmakar filed the DV Act application (Misc. Petition No. 489 of 2024) on December 23, 2024. In this complaint, she sought substantial monetary compensation and monthly maintenance, critically omitting any disclosure of her established employment and income. Moreover, in a pivotal misrepresentation, the Section 12 application form falsely indicated the absence of any prior litigation under the Hindu Marriage Act, by marking 'X' against the relevant query, despite her own divorce suit being actively pending. The petitioners further emphasized the advanced age (75 years) and ailments of the father-in-law, who serves as the primary financial support, and the nascent stage of the husband's legal career.

5. Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahasaya, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, initially raised concerns about non-compliance with Section 12(4)