Multiple proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act do not justify quashing such cases and the court must assess maintenance capability.

O R D E R

The petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.6/2023 on the files of the Grama Nyalaya, Payam. The said case has been instituted by the second respondent herein, who is the wife of the first petitioner, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2015 (hereafter referred as ‘the Act’), seeking various reliefs of protection, maintenance and compensation. In the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid M.C.

2. The Grounds raised by the petitioners for seeking quashment of the aforesaid proceedings before the Grama Nyayalaya, are as follows:

i) The petitioner in that M.C (second respondent in this petition) had suppressed the pendency of M.C No.74/2023 before the Family Court, Thalassery, with regard to the claim for return of gold ornaments.

ii) The second respondent herein, who is the petitioner in M.C No.6/2023 before the Grama Nyayalaya, had instituted an original petition before the Family Court, Thalassery, during the pendency of the aforesaid M.C, for return of gold ornaments or realisation of its costs, without disclosing the pendency of the aforesaid M.C before the learned Nyayadhikari.

iii) The second respondent has instituted M.C.No.6/2023 before the Grama Nyayalaya, Payam, Kannur with mala fides. She is not in need of any amount as maintenance from the first petitioner herein since she is capable of maintaining herself.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Multiple proceedings before various judicial forums is not a reason to quash a case instituted by the aggrieved person under the provisions of the Act, seeking reliefs provided under the aforesaid enactment. It is clear from Section 26 of the Act that any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceedings, before a Civil Court, Family Court or a Criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent, even though such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of the said enactment. It is further provided in the aforesaid section that any such reliefs mentioned above, under the provisions of the aforesaid sections may be sought in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceedings before a civil or criminal court.

5. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged suppression on the part of the second respondent in revealing the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, while approaching the Grama Nyayalaya under the provisions of the Act, that aspect could very well be brought to the notice of the learned Nyayadhikari, to substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent had approached the Grama Nyayalaya without good faith. Likewise, if the petitioners are having a case that the second respondent had approached the Family Court, Thalassery, for reliefs without disclosing the fact that she had already approached the Grama Nyayalaya under the provisions of the Act for the same reliefs, then the said aspect could be brought to the notice of the learned Judge presiding the Family Court, Thalassery. It is for the courts concerned to take appropriate decision upon the above allegation of the petitioners that the suppression of material facts with regard to the pendency of proceedings before another court would itself reveal the lack of bona fides on the part of the second respondent. At any rate, the aforesaid reason cannot be taken as a ground to quash the proceedings pending before the Grama Nyayalaya, Payam, Kannur under the provisions of the Act. The contention of the petitioners regarding the capability of the second respondent to maintain herself, is also a matter which is to be decided by the cou