SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1842

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Not Mentioned, J
Kuldeep Singh and Others v. Rekha
Criminal Case|14942/2015



The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Quashing of proceedings - Applicants petitioned for quashing a domestic violence complaint against them - Court found domestic relationship had ceased as respondent established separate households - Complaint against applicants No. 2 to 8 quashed, but proceedings against applicant No. 1 upheld. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Domestic Relationship - Definition and its implications under law - The court clarified that domestic relationship ends when parties establish separate households and cannot file for domestic violence under the Act if no shared household exists at the time of complaint. (Paras 6, 9)

(C) Inherent Powers - Exercise under S.482 of Cr.P.C. - Highlighted limitations; quashing proceedings for alleged domestic violence only considered based on allegations without further evidence. (Para 5)

Table of Content
1. summary of marriage and complaint details. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by applicants and respondent. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis of domestic relationship required for d.v. claim. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
4. court's conclusion on the maintainability of the complaint. (Para 10)
5. final decision of the court regarding the complaint. (Para 11)

1. Applicants have filed present petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of criminal Case No. 14942/2015 under S.12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short DV Act) pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore.

2. It is not disputed that the marriage of the applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 23.11.2010. Out of their wedlock they are blessed with a daughter Ku. Trisha (respondent No.2). The applicant No.2 is the father of the applicant No.1 and he is employee of Central Government and presently posted Deputy Registrar in Laxmi Bai National University of Physical Education, Gwalior. The applicant No.3 is wife of applicant No.2, whereas the applicant No.4 is younger brother of the applicant No.1 and he is in private service and lives in Gurgaon. Applicant No.5 is grand father of the applicant No.1 and applicant No.7 and 8 are aunties (Mosi) of the applicant No.1.

3. The facts of the case are that on 20.04.2015 the respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the applicants under S.12 of DV Act before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore alleging that in the marriage the parents of the respondent No.1 has given Rs.8,50,000/- cash, gold and silver ornaments and other households articles as dowry. Although the applicants are not satisfied with the aforesaid dowry and after the marriage they started making demand of Rs. 22,000,00/- for purchasing fortuner car. On 20.09.2012 the applicants ousted her from the matrimonial house and since then she is living at Indore in her parental house alongwith her daughter (respondent No.2). She has also filed an application under S.9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Gwalior. During the proceedings of reconciliation she expressed her willingness to live with the applicant No.1 but he refused to keep her, therefore, she was compelled to file this complaint under S.12 of DV Act. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in which she made prayer for grant of Rs. 20,000/- for herself and Rs.10,000/- for respondent No.2 as maintenance from the applicants. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid complaint, applicants filed this petition for quashment of the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that at the time of marriage applicant No.1 husband of the respondent No.1 was working in Private Job at Indore and after few weeks of marriage, the respondent No.1 was also living at Indore with applicant No.1 where she was also working as Design Engineer in Shakti Pumps Pvt. Ltd at Pithampur. It is further contended that after a week of marriage the respondent No.1 started behaving abnormally on the grounds that she is an engineer whereas her husband is not having same status and she will not get job in Gwalior, therefore, she does not want to live any more in Gwalior. She also started abusing the applicant No.1 to 3 without any reason. After few weeks she shifted to Indore and resided their with the applicant No.1. It is also alleged that the respondent No.1 does not want to live with the applicant stating that she has solemnized the marriage with applicant No.1 under the pressure of her parents and as such she was not willing to marry with applicant No.1 because she loved someone else before marriage and therefore demanded that she be left at her paternal home. Hence, the applicant had no choice but to take her to her paternal house at Indore. Accordingly, she left her matrimonial house on or about 2012 and went to Indore. When the applicant No.1 and 3 contacted the res












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top