The court determined that the spouse lacked status as an 'aggrieved person' under the DV Act, leading to quashing of the complaint as it constituted abuse of legal process.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 19(1)(f), (2)(8), 20, and 22 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings initiated under the DV Act, claiming allegations were false and malicious - The court held that the respondent did not show she was an "aggrieved person" under the Act, emphasizing that continuation of the proceedings constituted an abuse of process. (Paras 1, 26, 28)

(B) Domestic Violence - Definition and applicability - The court found that the material submitted by the respondent did not indicate any domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act, stating that the petitioner did not commit acts that qualify as domestic violence. (Paras 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
Marriage was solemnized on 29.05.2020 during COVID-19 with only 50 attendees; continuous allegations and accusations were made by both parties post-marriage; petitioner filed for divorce due to hostile environment, while respondent initiated DV Act proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the respondent's claims under the DV Act were unsubstantiated and constituted an abuse of legal process.

Issues: The court addressed whether the respondent was an aggrieved person and if domestic violence was present to merit DV Act protections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that allegations made by the respondent were not credible and highlighted the absence of domestic violence as defined by law, enabling the quashing of proceedings.

Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court quashed the DV Act proceedings, holding the respondent was not an aggrieved person and there was no domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act. (!) (!) (!) - The court found that continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing Crl.Misc.No.24/2022. (!) (!) - The order directs the Registry to send a copy of the order to the trial Court through e-mail. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner who is sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.24/2022 on the file of II MMTC, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 12 r/w 19(1)(f), (2)(8), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short).

2. In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that he and respondent came to know each other through an online platform that provides matrimonial service and agreed to marry. Petitioner is working and residing in USA, while respondent was working and residing at Bengaluru. Petitioner has lost his mother. He and his father made it clear that they have no demand for any dowry and they are only looking for a good and well educated girl with good family background. Their only expectation was that petitioner should have a companion who respect elders and family values and after marriage she would shift to USA and carry on with their marital life. At that time, respondent was working at Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru as Lead Product Engineer. She has lost her father. Her mother and brother were living at native place. She expressed that she is deeply bound by family values and would treat petitioner's father like her own father. Due to COVID-19, marriage was celebrated on 29.05.2020, at the native place of respondent and attended by only 50 people.

2.1 After the marriage, respondent shifted to her marital home. On the first night she refused to share bed with petitioner stating that she is tired and not in the mood. Though disappointed, petitioner respected her choice and did not pressurize her for consummation of marriage. After the marriage, petitioner was shocked to notice a completely different behaviour and attitude of respondent. She stopped working and went on a rampage demanding undemandable things. She was not doing any household work, like cooking, taking care of the house and not even lent a helping hand. When tried to put some sense into her mind, she would start acting up, shout at the petitioner, throw the TV remote control, cell phones and bang the doors hard. Her aggression was too extreme. Petitioner hoped that she would conduct herself well as the time lapses and she need some time to adjust to the marital home.

2.2 However, respondent is a person of suspicious character and cheap mentality. She would call petitioner's friend and family members and enquire whether he had an affair with someone. She would follow him stealthily whenever he went out to buy provisions and also suspect him when he spoke to his female colleagues as part of his work obligations. She used to taunt petitioner in every possible manner and made his life miserable.

2.3 Respondent used to disrespect petitioner's father saying that he is old fashioned man and not upto her standard and that she was earlier getting salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month and it is below her dignity to be around such a person and it is funny to expect her to treat him with respect, because he is her father-in-law. On the other hand, petitioner's father treated her as his own daughter. Petitioner and his father used to cook food for respondent and take care of her needs. However, she was very rude and mean to them.

2.4 Even after few days of marriage, respondent did not co-operate with petitioner for consummation of their marriage. Every time petitioner took a step forward, respondent went away from him stating that it pains her and it needs time to prepare herself for consummation of their marriage. On her suggestion, they went to her rented premises at Jigani which was still not vacated. Though they stayed for 4 days, she did not co-operated for consummation of their marriage. Respondent was in the habit of secretly recording the private conversation she had with petitioner. She is very dominating and used everything to be done according to her likes and disl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document