Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020- No Specific Allegations against the distant relatives of husband on the acts of DV. DV Case Quashed.
 |
| Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020 |
Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020- In this article, the High Court held that the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru was not right in saying that there was a prima facie case against the parents-in-law and other relatives of the husband, and there are no specific allegations against them. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of the husband have caused the acts of domestic violence. Therefore, the Domestic Violence case against the parents-in-law and other relatives is hereby quashed.
Case Brief - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
According to the facts mentioned in the complaint filed by the wife, the marriage between the wife and her husband was solemnized on 01.05.2006 as per Hindu rites, rituals, and customs in Rajasthan.
It is stated that after the marriage, the wife was residing with her husband in her matrimonial house in Chennai along with her Parents-in-law.
It is also stated that in April 2014, the wife and her husband went to Bengaluru from Chennai to attend the wife’s sister's wedding and after the said wedding, the wife expressed her desire to remain in Bengaluru for some time, which acceded to by the husband with the understanding that the wife would stay in her parent’s house for a short time.
Case Brief - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
It is further stated that according to the husband and parents-in-law, the wife thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home or cohabit with the husband.
Later, the husband filed an Original Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights before the family court, in Chennai.
Upon this, thereafter, the wife claiming herself to be a victim of domestic violence, seeking a protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act filed a criminal complaint before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru against her husband, parents-in-law and other relatives of her husband who are in Chennai, Rajasthan and also in Gujarat under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Brief - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
The Magistrate, Bengaluru, by the order dated 16.04.2015 issued a notice to the husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives of the husband by holding that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the wife under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Aggrieved by the issuance of summons, the husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives of the husband have filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings against them.
By the impugned judgement, the High Court dismissed the petition by holding that in the complaint filed by the wife, various instances of domestic violence at different places, viz. Chennai, Rajasthan, and Gujarat are narrated by the wife and therefore, the complaint filed in Bengaluru is maintainable under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Being aggrieved, the husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives of the husband have filed the present appeal.
_________________________________________________
Read Latest Article- 498A Quash after Chargesheet 27.09.2022- Andhra Pradesh High Court-No Specific Allegation made against Brother-in-law. F.I.R Quashed.
Arguments - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
The advocate appearing on behalf of the husband, parents-in-law and other relatives of the husband submitted that neither the marriage of the wife and her husband was solemnized at Bengaluru nor the matrimonial house was at Bengaluru and therefore, the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Domestic Violence Act.
It is also submitted that vague allegations have been leveled against the family members of the husband, which are not at all substantiated.
It is further submitted that with a view to harassing the family members of her husband, the wife has made allegations against all the family members of her husband, including those who are residents in the States of Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Chennai and the complaint is an abuse of the process of the court.
Arguments - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
Therefore, he prayed for the quashing of the criminal case of Domestic violence against the husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives of the husband.
On the other hand, the advocate appearing on behalf of the wife submitted that by virtue of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, the place where the wife permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business, then in that case the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant protection order and other orders under the Domestic Violence Act.
It is also submitted that the wife is currently residing within the territorial limit of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Bengaluru City, and that the High Court rightly held that the Magistrate at Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the wife.
Arguments - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
It is further submitted that there are several instances of domestic violence against the husband and other relatives, particularly, the parents-in-law who have been harassing the wife, have taken away the wife’s jewelry, and insisted upon her buying properties.
Therefore, it is stated that the High Court rightly refused to quash the order of taking cognizance.
_________________________________________________
______________________________________
Court’s Opinion - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
It is stated that the intention of Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act is to provide more protection to women, and it relates to protection orders, whereas Section 20 of the act empowers the court to order monetary relief to the aggrieved person.
When the acts of domestic violence are alleged before issuing of notice, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.
It is also stated that in the present case, the wife has made allegations of domestic violence against the fourteen people in which there is the husband, the parents-in-law of the wife, and all eleven other people who are relatives of the parents-in-law. Seven of the people, including the parents-in-law and husband, are residents of Chennai and four of the relatives are residents of Rajasthan and three relatives are residents of Gujarat.
Court’s Opinion - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
It is further stated that there are allegations against the husband and parents-in-law that they have taken away the jewelry of the wife gifted to her by her father during the marriage and the alleged acts of harassment of the wife.
It is also stated that there are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of the husband have caused the acts of domestic violence, and it is also not known how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan and Chennai can be held responsible for the award of monetary relief to the wife.
Upon view of the above discussion, the court held that the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru was not right in saying that there was a prima facie case against the parents-in-law and other relatives of the husband, and there are no specific allegations against them.
Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed, and the criminal case of Domestic Violence against the Parents-in-law and other relatives is hereby quashed.
_________________________________________________
Conclusion - Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020
In this article, the High Court held that there are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of the husband have caused the acts of domestic violence, and it is also not known how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan and Chennai can be held responsible for the award of monetary relief to the wife.
It is also held that the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru was not right in saying that there was a prima facie case against the parents-in-law and other relatives of the husband, and there are no specific allegations against them.
Therefore, the Domestic Violence Case against the parents-in-law and other relatives of the husband is hereby quashed.
Join Facebook Group - Apaizers Mens Rights
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment