Karnataka High Court
Shankar Gouda S/O Shivana Gouda Mali ... vs Smt Ambika W/O Shankar Gouda on 24 March, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
foe) ORDER
In this Criminal! Petition, petitioner has sought -- for quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Misc. r No.119/2008 pending on the. file. of the GMEC-IL, . Rec ur.
2. The respondents herein. bas fled a, Criminal Miscellaneous under Section 12 read swith Sections 18 19, 20 and (22. of the "Pro etion of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 (nereinatter referred fo as 'the Act) pater ulia alleging that, she is the second wile or 'the hirst petitioner, 'and that he had married her during. the - subsistence of his first marrage. Respondent No.2 ig the som born out of the said . relationstiip. She claimed that, the first petitioner and ~ his father. second petitioner started harassing her and "pave her physical and mental torture. They used to abuse in filthy language and started demanding
- s.50,000 /- towards dowry. She further alleges that herself and her child have not been provided any shelter, food and maim icnance. With these allegations, she sought for relief under the provisions of the Act. /
3. SriAppa Rao, learned counsel for the petiuoners, submits that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the first petitioner and. respondent NO.i ser the respondent NO.2as born oui, of ther relation. A false comp fi 8 . =e . agaist ihe petilioners. Petit tioner. NO, 2 is aged. pers and is father of petitionc: "NO. i ia allegation are made against hin also. : He Y she abmitted 'that the entire case 2 respondent NO LIS miscencerved under the p ovision sof the Ae i 40° Per. conira Jearned counsel for the respondents subaitied ; that respondent NO.1L had fled a Criminal Cor rinplaint for the offences punishable
-under ' Sec (ions 3 76, S06, r/w Section 420 of IPC ee gainst petitioner NO.1. In the sail case, respondent a4 No on ander sister were examined in support of the "prosecution ease wherein the counsel representing petitioner NO.1 suggested that respondent No.1 is the weit of petitioner NO.1. Ultimately, the said sessions case ended m acquittal on account of respondent No.1 admitting that she is the wife of petitioner NO.1. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under the provisions of the Act, petitioner NO.1] is p dt:
required to maintain her and provide food and snelter. It is also submitted that allegation madeim the. complaint clearly establishes the offence punishavle under the said provisions, in such, ciroumstance there is no ground to quash the proceedings. --
5. In the application filed before the court below prima facie shows that respondent No.1 alleges that she is the. second wile of first petitioner. Second petitioner is the father-in-law. There is harassment of assault, deriand of monev, not providing food, shelter and mamicnarice. -
6, The act does not require a relationship of chusband and wife. Even if they live together in the " nature.of married couple, it is sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. Since there are serious 'allegations, | find no justification to quash the . proceedings. Accordingly, the petition fails and the sare is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE