 |
| DV Case Dismissed Judgment 2020, DV Act 2005. |
DV Case dismissed Judgment 22.07.2020-Bald statements without any specific details against the distant relatives of the husband in the view to harass them.
The order of issuance of notice under D.V.C. Quashed & the petition against the relatives is dismissed.
This petition was filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
by the respondents No.4 to 14, (the relatives of the husband) in D.V.C. on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati.
The High court observed that the counsel for the relatives
submit that the scope of Section 12 would not per se contemplate arraigning in
the relatives of the husband of the complainant wife,.
The counsel also submits that relatives are residing away from the shared household as is defined under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act and as such, there was no commission of domestic violence by these relatives insofar as the complainant wife is concerned.
Hence, a petition against the relatives who are relatives of the husband of the complainant wife needs to be quashed.
______________________________________________________
____________________________________________________The counsel also submits that relatives are residing away from the shared household as is defined under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act and as such, there was no commission of domestic violence by these relatives insofar as the complainant wife is concerned.
Hence, a petition against the relatives who are relatives of the husband of the complainant wife needs to be quashed.
______________________________________________________
Read Related Article-Domestic Violence Case Quash Judgment 22.01.2020- No Specific Allegations against Distant relatives of husband on the Acts of Domestic Violence. DV Criminal Case Quashed.
The high court also observed the submission of the counsel of complaint wife that the relatives of husband of complainant wife
also had a strained relationship with complainant wife and her husband and as
such, they also contributed to domestic violence.
He also submits irrespective of the fact that they are residing elsewhere; they are necessary parties in this petition since they also instigated the husband of the complainant wife in imparting the domestic violence and therefore sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.
______________________________________________________
He also submits irrespective of the fact that they are residing elsewhere; they are necessary parties in this petition since they also instigated the husband of the complainant wife in imparting the domestic violence and therefore sought for dismissal of the criminal petition.
______________________________________________________
Check Related Article-DV Act, 125 CRPC केस मैं पति मेंटेनेंस/खर्चा देने से कैसे बचे How to avoid giving Maintenance
______________________________________________________
The High court also observed that the High Court
Government Pleader also supported the impugned order and stated that the
proviso 2(q) of the Act, permits the relatives of the husband can also be
proceeded under the Act.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
After hearing the parties, the High Court considered
various facts & definitions in DV Act and came to the conclusion that the
allegations leveled against the relatives are very vague and bald in nature
without there being any specific instances of domestic violence as is completed
under Section 3 of the Act.
When the allegations do not contain a semblance of domestic violence as per Section 3 of the Act proceeding against them by the issuance of notice by trial court needs interference by this court.
Moreover, as could be seen from the relief claimed in the petition as referred to supra, no specific relief whatsoever is claimed except making a bald statement that these relatives are to be punished.
When the allegations do not contain a semblance of domestic violence as per Section 3 of the Act proceeding against them by the issuance of notice by trial court needs interference by this court.
Moreover, as could be seen from the relief claimed in the petition as referred to supra, no specific relief whatsoever is claimed except making a bald statement that these relatives are to be punished.
It had also concluded by the High court that the relatives
were not residing with the husband of the complainant wife, they could not be
considered are the persons belonging shared household as is defined under
Section 2(s) of the Act.
As such, they are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the dispute in question. The high court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda and others V/s. Parimala reported in (2020) 3 SCC 14.
As such, they are not necessary parties for the adjudication of the dispute in question. The high court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda and others V/s. Parimala reported in (2020) 3 SCC 14.
______________________________________________________
Read Article on Useful Tips for Husbands to handle Mediation proceedings in 498a/DV/125 Cr.P.C.
______________________________________________________
On applying the legal principles enunciated in the above the decision to this case, it was seen by the High court that in the case also
except making bald statements without there being any specific details as to
alleged domestic violence, relatives are not residing with the husband of the complainant
wife, have been arraigned as party respondents only to harass
them.
The High the court also opined that the trial court before issuing the notice, should have
applied his mind as to the existence of prima- facie case as against the relatives are concerned. In the said order,
the trial court has not even noted that there exists a prima facie case against
the relatives are concerned.
The order was passed mechanically. Order does not indicate as to what prompted the trial court to proceed against the relatives also and without there being any semblance of application of mind as to the existence of prima facie case, ordering issuance of the notice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
The order was passed mechanically. Order does not indicate as to what prompted the trial court to proceed against the relatives also and without there being any semblance of application of mind as to the existence of prima facie case, ordering issuance of the notice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Because of the conclusion was taken by the High Court,
the order of issuance of notice as against the relatives under D.V.C. is hereby quashed and the
petition against the relatives is dismissed.
 |
| How to Fight Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC |
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment