Karnataka High Court
N.J. Bharamadevanand S/O N B Jwalanna, vs Chaitra W/O N J Kiran, on 14 December, 2016
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100618/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI N.J. BHARAMADEVANAND
S/O N B JWALANNA,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: 21, 2ND FLOOR, NAGENDRA
BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, BANASHANKARI
1ST STAGE, NEAR J.K. TRADERS,
BENGALURU.
2. SMT.MEENA
W/O AJIT PATIL,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:GOVERNMENT
SERVANT, R/O: # 207,
PRESTIN BANGAN VILLA,
GIRINAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
7TH CROSS, BENGALURU.
3. SMT.SUKANYA
W/O N B JWALANNA,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: H.NO. 184,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
1ST , 2ND , 3RD MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU NORTH,
TALUKA BENGALURU,
DISTRICT BENGALURU.
2
4. S V JWALAMALINI
W/O N J BHRAMADEVANAND,
R/O: 21, 2ND FLOOR,
NAGENDRA BLOCK,
1ST MAIN, BANASHANKARI,
1ST STAGE, NEAR J.K. TRADERS,
BENGALURU,
5. N B JWALANNA,
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:PENSIONER,
R/O: H.NO. 184, NAGENDRA
BLOCK, 1ST, 2ND , 3RD MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU NORTH TALUKA,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SADASHIV S PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT.CHAITRA
W/O N J KIRAN,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/O:#21, NAGENDRA BLOCK,
1ST MAIN, BANASHANKARI 1ST
STAGE, J.K. TRADERS, BENGALURU
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: NO. 49,
MEGADHOOT HOUSING SOCIETY,
BHARATI NAGAR, WEST,
SHAHPUR BELAGAVI.
2. KUMARI. PRANJAL
D/O N J KIRAN,
AGE:8 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
R/O: DO, SINCE MINOR,
3
REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI : MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR R1
R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1 )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, SEEKING
TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.176/2016 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
AND JMFC, BELAGAVI, UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
DOMESTICE VIOLENCE ACT, 2005.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in Crl.Misc. No.176/2016 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC., Belagavi, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings as against them.
2. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.Misc. No.176/2016 are the wife and daughter respectively, of respondent No.1. The material on record would indicate that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are living separately from 4 respondent No.1 before the Court below. Petitioner No.1 is taking care of her minor daughter, petitioner No.2, who is stated to be studying at Belagavi, where both petitioners are residing in the house of the father of petitioner No.1.
3. When the matter stood thus, in the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), summons were issued to respondent Nos.1 to 6 before the Court below and on service of summons, they have entered appearance.
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 before the Court below have come up in this petition contending that allegation of domestic violence made by respondent No.1 herein against them is baseless and that respondent No.1 herein has left the matrimonial home without informing her husband, who is respondent No.1 before the Court below or the family members. Petitioner Nos.3 and 5 herein are the parents and petitioner No.1 herein is the brother of respondent No.1 before the Court below. It is stated that petitioner 5 Nos.2, 3 and 5 herein are residing separately and petitioner No.1 herein along with his wife (petitioner No.4 herein) is residing in the second floor of the building, where the husband of respondent No.1 herein is residing. There is no kind of dispute between petitioners herein and respondent No.1 herein and discord, if any, is between respondent No.1 herein and her husband (respondent No.1 before the Court below), which has resulted in respondent No.1 herein staying away from the matrimonial home. In that view of the matter, in the petition in Crl.Misc. No.176/2016 filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking relief of maintenance, petitioners herein (respondent Nos.2 to 6 before the Court below) are not necessary parties.
5. Considering the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have decided to stay separately from petitioners herein, the question of granting protection to them from respondent Nos.2 to 6 before the Court below does not arise inasmuch as they are not residing in the joint family. It is apparent from the records that even when respondent 6 No.1 herein was residing with her husband (respondent No.1 in the Court below), they were residing in the same building, where each family was living separately with their respective spouse and children. Therefore, there was no joint family status, with reference to residence and boarding.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the contesting respondent. In this proceedings, parties were directed to be present before the Court in order to explore the possibility of settlement of dispute between the parties. Though the husband (respondent No.1 in the Court below) is willing to live in matrimony with his wife (respondent No.1 herein) and his minor daughter (respondent No.2 herein), wife is not willing to continue her matrimonial relationship with him and she has refused to accept any term for settlement to resume marital relationship with him. In this background, what remains to be considered in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act before the Court of JMFC., 7 Belagavi, is the right of petitioner No.1 therein to seek maintenance for herself and her minor daughter as well as separate residence as provided under the provisions of the Act. So, in this background, prayer No.4 sought in Crl. Misc. No.176/2016, would not be of any relevance insofar as it pertains to respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the said Court.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated in Crl.Misc. No.176/2016 as against respondent Nos.2 to 6 (petitioners herein) are hereby quashed reserving liberty to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) to pursue the same against respondent No.1 in the Court below for all the reliefs, which they have sought in the said proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma