Delhi District Court
Karamjeet Singh And Ors vs Ravinder Kaur on 6 October, 2023
THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE09, WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No: DLWT010033972020
Crl. Appeal No: 106/2020
In the matter of:
1. Karamjeet Singh
S/o. Sh. Gurdiyal Singh
2. Smt. Surinder Kaur
W/o. Sh. Karamjeet Singh
3. Sh. Mandeep Singh
S/o. Sh. Karamjeet Singh
4. Sh. Varinder Kaur
W/o. Sardar Mandeep Singh
All R/o. House No. G243,
First Floor, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi110018. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ravinder Kaur
S/o. Sh. Sandeep Singh
D/o. Sardar Gurjeet Singh
R/o. House No. 106, Block4,
First Floor, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi110015. ...Respondent
Date of receipt of appeal :25.08.2020
Date of receipt in this court :22.06.2021
Date of hearing arguments :05.10.2023
Date of pronouncement of order :06.10.2023
Final order :Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellants are aggrieved from the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 (In short 'impugned order') of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court01, West (In short 'learned Trial Court'), vide which Ld. Trial Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 1 of 10 Court had declined their prayer to dismiss the complaint u/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'D.V. Act) filed against them by respondent Smt. Ravinder Kaur.
2. Present appeal assails the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 primarily on the ground that respondent Smt. Ravinder Kaur has not prayed any relief against them in her complaint/application dated 15.02.2016 u/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, but still Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 12.01.2018 had granted interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/ per month to the respondent. The said order was passed by ignoring the absence of existence of any domestic relationship between the appellants herein and the respondent.
3. It is also argued that complaint dated 15.02.2016 was preferred after more than four years after the separation of the respondent from the son of appellant No. 1.
4. It is also submitted that the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home with the appellants only for 25 days and has not claimed any relief of whatsoever nature against the appellants. All the reliefs are claimed against Sandeep, son of the appellant No. 1 and 2 whose whereabouts and availability is not known to the appellants. Therefore, the initial complaint dated 15.02.2016 is liable to be dismissed. However, Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the same and passed the Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 2 of 10 impugned order dated 23.07.2020. Hence, the present appeal.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon following case laws :
(a) Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab -
MANU/SC/0988/2011;
(b) N. Prasad v. Harithalakshmi - Criminal O.P. No. 2017 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras;
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the present revision petition submitting that Ld. Counsel is making misleading arguments regarding non claiming of any relief against the appellants and also about the maintainability of the complaint/application against the appellants. The argument regarding filing of present petition after four years from the dissolution of the marriage of respondent and son of the appellant No. 1 and about its maintainability are misplaced. Reliance is placed upon Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan - Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2022 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13th April, 2022. It is argued that the reliance of Ld. Counsel upon the ratio of Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Others (supra) is meritless as the same has already been overruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan (supra) observing that filing an application u/s. 12 of Domestic Violence Act cannot be equated to lodging of complaint u/s. 2 (d) of Cr.P.C. or initiation of prosecution. Therefore, the Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 3 of 10 application u/s. 12 of Domestic Violence Act need not to be filed within one year of alleged act of domestic violence. Therefore, it is submitted that the said judgment is immaterial for the purpose of the instant matter.
7. Reverting back to the facts of present case, admittedly, the son of the appellant No. 1 and 2 got married with respondent on 24.01.2012 at New Delhi. The factum of stay of respondent with son of the appellant No. 1 and 2 and other appellants upto 19.02.2012 i.e. only for 25 days is also admitted. Respondent is residing separately since 19.02.2012 and filed the application u/s. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on 15.09.2016 against her husband Sh. Sandeep Singh, his parents namely Karamjit Singh (appellant No. 1 herein) and Surender Kaur (appellant No. 2 herein) and his brother and sister in law Mandeep Singh (appellant No. 3 herein) and Varinder Kaur (appellant No. 4 herein). The respondent herein also filed an interim maintenance application along with her aforesaid petition and the same was decided on 12.01.2018 thereby awarding monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/ per month to her. Thereafter, the appellant Nos. 1 to 4 preferred an application for dismissal of complaint filed against them. The said application of the appellants was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.07.2020 which is under challenge before this court.
8. The perusal of the application u/s. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act filed by the respondent against the appellants herein shows that Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 4 of 10 same was filed on 15.09.2016 during the subsistence of domestic relationship between the respondent as well as the appellants herein because the exparte divorce was obtained by the respondent herein on 09.11.2017 and the aforesaid application was filed before her aforesaid divorce. It is also revealed that the respondent herein has leveled specific allegations in her aforesaid application against all the appellants herein and this fact is also mentioned by Ld. Trial Court in its order dated 01.03.2017. It was also observed in the said order that respondent was residing with all the appellants herein in a shared household leading to issuance of summons to them. Perusal of the aforesaid application u/s. 12 of D.V. Act also shows that the respondent herein has leveled various allegations of physical and mental cruelty against all the appellants herein. Ld. Trial Court has also observed and recorded the same in its impugned order dated 23.07.2020. The existence of said relationship is mandatory to bring an action and obtain a relief under the aforesaid Act of 2005. The existence of domestic relationship between the parties at the time of filing the aforesaid application was necessary and the aforesaid application was filed by respondent herein on 15.09.2016 during the subsistence and existence of the domestic relationship between the parties. Therefore, there seems to be no substance in the argument that the respondent has not claimed any relief against the appellant or that aforesaid application of the respondent herein is not maintainable against the appellants herein Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 5 of 10
9. Now, coming to the next argument qua the filing of the application after expiry of limitation period. It is contended that the application u/s. 12 of the aforesaid Act can be filed by the aggrieved person within one year from the date of accrual of cause of action in her favour. The court cannot take cognizance if such application is preferred after the expiry of the limitation period, prescribed u/s. 468 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed upon the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab & Others (supra).
10. The application u/s. 12 of the aforesaid Act in the present case is filed by the aggrieved wife Ravinder Kaur, respondent herein on 15.09.2016 with various prayers including the prayer of prohibiting the appellants herein from committing any act of domestic violence, aiding and abetting the act of violence/alienating assets as well as directing her husband (not traceable) to pay adequate, fare and reasonable maintenance out of income from his joint family business etc.
11. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act provides a remedy to an aggrieved person or Protection Officer to file an application before the Magistrate seeking one or more relief under D.V. Act. Thereafter, the Magistrate may pass a protection order under Section 18 of aforesaid Act if on being heard the aggrieved person and the respondent, he finds that any domestic violence has taken place or his likely to take place. Section 31 provides the penalty for breach of protection order (passed u/s. 18 of D.V. Act) by Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 6 of 10 the respondent and if it is found that the respondent breaches of protection order or of an interim protection order, he commits offence under the D.V. Act and same shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both. Provision of section 28 speaks about the applicability of Cr.P.C in D.V Act with regard to all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 of D.V. Act. Section 32 makes the offence under Section 31 cognizable and non bailable. Rule 15(6) provides about the about the discretion of magistrate to separate proceeding in respect to charges framed under Section 31 of DV Act or Section 49(A) or any other offences is not summarily triable and provides the power to proceed to summarily try the offence of the breach of protection order under Section 31, in accordance with the provision of chapter XXI of the Cr.P.C.
12. Now, from above discussion, it is gathered that the section 31 of D.V act is offence to breach protection order passed by learned Magistrate whereas section Sections 12,18,19,20,21 and 23 are procedural provision under D.V. Act. Now the question remains with regard to applicability of Section 468 Cr.P.C in D.V. Act. to the context of issue involved in the present case. Let us read the section 468 Cr.P.C. :
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation (1) Except as Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 7 of 10 otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
13. It appears that Section 468 Cr.P.C. deals with bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and according to it Court can not take cognizance in respect to offence punishable with fine, upto one year and one year to three years if the period of 6 months, 1 year and 3 years, respectively have been expired. Therefore, it is not in dispute section 468 Cr.P.C deals with bar for taking cognizance with respect to offence not to application. Further, Section 472 provides the provision of continuing offence and in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.
Now the following question arises :
Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 8 of 10
(i) Is there any limitation period to file an application under Section 12 of D.V.Act before the Court?
(ii) Whether the proceeding of Section 12 of D.V. Act is a continuous cause of action or not?
14. The High Court of Delhi dealt with the issue in the case of Anthony Jose Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others reported in (2018) SCC Online DEL 12956 and held that non providing of maintenance is a continuous cause of action and wife would not be debarred for seeking maintenance under Section 12 of D.V. Act and the complaint thereon cannot be dismissed being barred by limitation.
15. In the present case, it appears that in her application filed on 15.09.2016 by aggrieved wife (the respondent herein) has claimed the maintenance from her husband along with other reliefs against the appellants herein. The present whereabouts of her husband/son of the appellants are not known to any person including the appellants herein.
Therefore, now settled legal position is that no limitation period has been prescribed for an application under Section 12 of D.V Act and non providing of maintenance is continuous cause and wife cannot be debarred to seek the maintenance under Section 12 of D.V. Act and her complaint cannot be dismissed being barred by limitation.
The applicability of limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. comes into the picture only when there is Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 9 of 10 violation of protection order passed under Section 18 of D.V Act and consequently offence is committed under Section 31 of D.V. Act. Therefore, the principle laid down in the Inderjit Singh's Case is not adverted to this case. Reliance is placed upon the case of Kamatchi v. Laxmi Narayanan (supra). Hence, the ground taken by Ld. counsel for the appellants with regard to limitation is hereby discarded being devoid of any merits.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or material illegality in the impugned order dated 23.07.2020 which would have occasioned injustice, if it is not setaside and accordingly, does not require any interference from this Court.
17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and findings, the present appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
18. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
19. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 06th day of October, 2023 (Sunil Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge09 West/THC/Delhi CERTIFICATE This judgment contains 10 (ten) pages and each page has been signed by me.
(Sunil Kumar Sharma) Additional Sessions Judge09 West/THC/Delhi/06.10.2023 Crl. Appeal No.106/2020 Karamjeet Singh & Others v. Ravinder Kaur Page No. 10 of 10