Telangana High Court
Sri Ayyawar Madhusudhan vs Smt. Vakulabharanam Shivashruthi on 14 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.450 OF 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 in DVC.No.92 of 2018 on the file of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal seeking quashment of DVC against them.
2. The facts in brief as per the DVC filed by respondent No.1 herein in brief are as under:
3. The wedding of the petitioner with respondent No.1, who is not before this Court, was performed on 22.04.2015 at Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs, gold ornaments, TVS Jupiter (2 wheeler) and other house hold articles were given to the family of her husband on demand. After the marriage, the petitioner has started her matrimonial life at Hyderabad. Her husband was working as Medical Coading Analyst and was earning salary of Rs.80,000/-. Petitioner No.1, who is the father-in-law of respondent No.1, was working in RTC. Respondent No.1 got pregnancy during wedlock. Then the husband of respondent 2 No.1 and the petitioners started harassing respondent No.1 for getting the pregnancy aborted. They used to abuse her in filthy language stating that in case respondent No.1 give birth to female child, they will spoil her life. The petitioners used to harass respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was not permitted to make phone calls to her parents. The husband of respondent No.1 used to tell her that he had married in order to succeed her properties. Respondent No.1 went to Hanamkonda for delivery where she has given birth to a male child on 16.03.2016. Her husband has visited twice. Subsequently, she has joined her husband at Hyderabad. Later harassment of her husband was continued. Respondent No.1 went to Nizambad to attend a function at her in-laws house where she has suffered with stomach pain and the doctor, who has treated, advised her to go for Hernia operation for which the petitioners have responded arrogantly stating that respondent No.1 is a patient.
4. On 06.10.2016, when mother of respondent No.1 came to Hyderabad to invite respondent No.1's husband for Dussehra, he has abused respondent No.1 and beat her and later her 3 mother has taken her to Hanamkonda. Respondent No.1's husband and the petitioners herein have continued to demand for additional dowry of Rs.15 lakhs.
5. The second pregnancy of respondent No.1 was got aborted by her husband. One week after the abortion, respondent No.1's husband has necked her out on which she was constrained to go to Hanamkonda in night hours. Again respondent No.1 went o Hyderabad on 26.05.2018. The harassment of her husband continued. The harassment was in respect of additional dowry of at least Rs.10 lakhs. A panchayat was also held wherein the petitioners and husband of respondent No.1 continued to demand additional dowry. The husband of respondent No.1 got issued legal notice with false allegations which she has replied and finally she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and also lodged a complaint against her husband under Section 498A IPC.
6. Aggrieved by the filing of petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the petitioners, who are the parents and the sister of the husband of respondent No.1, filed this petition on the following grounds.
4
7. After the marriage of respondent No.1 with the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, both of them started living at Hyderabad. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/parents are residing at Warangal as petitioner No.1 was working in RTC at Warangal, whereas petitioner No.3 got married and was living at Bangalore. Petitioners were never lived with respondent No.1 and her husband at Hyderabad. The allegations levelled against them are omnibus. Petitioner No.1 transferred to Hyderabad recently and started residing with his wife i.e., petitioner No.2 and earlier to that they used to reside at Nizamabad.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings in DVC.No.92 of 2018 against the petitioners can be quashed?
10. In order to fastened the liability under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"), the petitioners shall fall under the definition of 2(f) of the 5 Act, which defines "domestic relationship", which runs as under:
"2. Definitions.-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
11. In the case on hand, the marriage of respondent No.1 with her husband took place at Tirupathi and reception was organized at Hanamkonda. After that as respondent No.1's husband was working at Hyderabad, both respondent No.1 and her husband shifted to Hyderabad and started living separately. Whereas, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are residing at Nizamabad, as petitioner No.1 was working in RTC at Nizamabad and the marriage of petitioner No.3 was performed in the year 2015 and since then she has been residing in her matrimonial house at Bangalore. Therefore, once the petitioners are residing at different places and not residing with respondent No.1 and her husband, there is no domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. On account of non-residing of the petitioners along with respondent No.1 and her husband at 6 Hyderabad, they are nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs of respondent No.1 and her husband.
12. In P. Sugunamma and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, it is observed by this Court at paras 15 and 16 as under:
"15. A plain and analytical reading and a harmonious consideration of all the provisions of the Act, particularly, the above definitions brings to the fore the following aspects: A person can be arraigned as a respondent in a DV case provided he is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The proviso to Section 2(q) says that an aggrieved wife may also file a complaint against the relation of a husband. A plain reading of the said definition would make it manifest that any person who can be arraigned as a respondent must be a person who is or has been in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have subjected the aggrieved person to any act of domestic violence. Unless the said requirements are fulfilled a person cannot be arraigned as a respondent in a DV Case. Coming to the aspect of 'domestic relationship', the domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who either are living together or had at any point of time lived together in a 'shared household' when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition of 'shared household' is already extracted supra.
16. Therefore, in the well-considered view of this Court, for a person to be made a respondent in a DV case filed by an aggrieved woman, such respondent, must have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have been living or must have lived together in a shared household along with the aggrieved person when they are 1 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 305 7 related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Therefore, when any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household and who has/had no domestic relationship cannot be made a respondent to a case filed by the woman under the provisions of the Act."
13. Similarly, as in the case referred above, in the case on hand there is no material to show that the petitioners were living with respondent No.1 and her husband at Hyderabad. Therefore, as there is no domestic relationship defined under Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, the offence under Section 12 is not attracted.
14. In another decision reported in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and others vs. State of Telangana and another2, this Court has held at paras 13 and 14 as under:
"13. The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not 2 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 470 8 the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C. petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non-involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court. We can find such instances in the decisions cited by the petitioners. i) In Inderjit Singh Grewal's case (supra), the complainant and her husband took divorce by mutual consent before the District Judge, Ludhiana under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and later it appears, she filed a complaint before the Magistrate under D.V. Act on the allegation that herself and her husband obtained decree of divorce by playing fraud upon the Court and now her husband causes domestic violence to her. She independently filed a civil suit in the Court of Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana seeking declaration that the decree of divorce was null and void as it was obtained by fraud. In this scenario, Hon'ble Apex Court held that when she was a party to the fraud, she cannot take advantage of it and in any event, the Magistrate Court in criminal proceedings cannot declare the decree of Civil Court as null and void and thus held that the continuation of proceedings amounts to travesty of justice and quashed. ii) In Ashish Dixit's case (supra), the complainant appeared to have filed the petition under D.V. Act not only against husband and parents-in-law but also against some sundry persons including the tenant of the house whose name was not known to her. In such circumstances proceedings were quashed. iii) In Markapuram Siva Rao's case (supra), the facts were that earlier case under Section 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were ended in acquittal against other accused except the husband and subsequently with identical allegations, the wife filed a petition under D.V. Act against all of them. It was held that such petition would amount to abuse of process of 9 Court and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, except in exceptional circumstances stated supra, the quash petitions are not maintainable on a simple ground that the respondents are unnecessarily roped in the case without their fault.
14. To sum up the findings:
(i) Since the remedies under D.V. Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V. Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass ex parte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.
ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court."
15. Considering the above authorities, except in exceptional cases where there is no domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f), quashment of DVC under Section 482 IPC cannot be entertained. In the case on hand, as discussed above, there exists no relationship between the petitioners and respondent 10 No.1, as they have not resided together after marriage. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were residing at Nizamabad and petitioner No.3 was residing at Bangalore and respondent No.1 and her husband started residing at Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 went to Hanamkonda, her parents' place for delivery of baby boy, and later returned back to Hyderabad continued her conjugal relationship and got the pregnancy which was aborted. Subsequently, according to respondent No.1, disputes between the de-facto complainant and her husband continued for want of additional dowry. It is also alleged that her husband stated to have sent respondent No.1 out of the house on which she went to Hanakmonda and not returned. Later her husband filed a petition for divorce whereas respondent No.1 filed a petition for conjugal rights and a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
16. In the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act, it is mentioned that when the de-facto complainant went to Nizamabad, which is her in-laws place to attend a function, she was humiliated as she suffered stomach case and doctors have diagnosed that she was suffering from Hernia. Therefore, this 11 incident also clearly speaks that her in-laws are residing at Nizamabad and not with them.
17. All the allegations levelled against the petitioners are omnibus and since relationship under Section 2(f) has not been established, as discussed above, the petition filed against the petitioners will not sustain.
18. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in DVC.No.92 of 2018 on the file of learned VI Additional Judicial first Class Magistrate, Warangal, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 14.09.2022 ES