Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur And Others vs Pooja Rani on 11 January, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010
Date of decision : 11.01.2013
Manjit Kaur and others .....Petitioners
VERSUS
Pooja Rani ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners are ladies and being aggrieved against the case registered against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') have approached this Court for quashing the same on the ground that the complaint is abuse of process of court against the petitioners.
The sole respondent, in this case, who is complainant had married Gurpreet Singh on 28.11.2005. Out of this wedlock, there are two male issues born. As per the petitioners, marriage was performed in a simple manner. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be housewife and is aged about 57 years. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are real sisters-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No. 4 is cousin sister of husband of the complainant.
Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -2-
It is stated that the complainant is modern girl and is of quarrelsome nature. Initially, the couple lived happily but later some differences arose between the husband and the wife. The complainant/wife left the matrimonial house with both children for which her husband Gupreet Singh submitted a complaint with police. The compromise was reached between the parties on intervention of the village panchayat. As per the compromise, couple started living separately from the family. The petitioners claim to have disowned the couple because of their bad behaviour. It is stated that thereafter the couple had also started living separately.
The husband made efforts to bring back the wife. The complainant had filed case for maintenance. During these proceedings, statements were recorded by the police when the husband expressed his willingness to bring back the wife. The wife refused to join the company of the husband. The complainant/wife has also lodged FIR under Section 406/498-A IPC. It is stated that the allegations in the FIR are general in nature and are vague.
Now, the complainant has filed complaint under Section 19 of the Act against the petitioners and the Judicial Magistrate has summoned the petitioners vide his order dated 22.01.2009. The petitioners have put in appearance and have filed written statement. Their plea is that the complaint is not maintainable against the petitioners, who are the ladies. In this regard, reference is made to Section 2-Q of the Act, which defines the respondent as under:-
(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -3- person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner."
On the basis of this definition, it is urged that the respondent as envisaged under the Act only would be adult male person and not any female. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Kant versus Smt. Alka Sharma 2007 (4) RCR (Criminal) 930.
This precise issue arose for consideration before the Madhaya Pradesh High Court and it is held that the complaint for offence under the Act can only be filed against adult male person and that the complaint against lady is not maintainable. The Court had, accordingly, quashed the proceedings qua ladies. The relevant observation made by the Court after making reference to the term 'respondent' as defined are as under:-
"Thus, it is provided by this definition that an application can be filed by an aggrieved person including the respondent claiming relief under the Act only against the adult male person. However, as per the proviso appended to this provision, a wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. For understanding these two parts, i.e. the main part of the Section and the proviso, it is necessary to understand the scheme of the Act. The first three paragraphs of the statement of object and reasons under Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -4- which the bill No.116 of 2005 for passing the act was placed before the parliament, are as under (published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II Section 2 page 22 dated 22nd August,2005):-
"Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No.XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family. 2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.
3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society."
(Emphasis supplied) Keeping these objects and reasons in mind to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -5- violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, the bill was presented before the parliament which has become the Act after passing the same by the parliament. Thus, it cannot be lost sight of that the Act has been passed keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. Thus, basically the act has been passed to provide the civil remedy against domestic violence to the women. However, as provided by Sections 27 and 28of the Act, a Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate has been empowered to grant a protection order and other orders and to try the offence under the Act. Vide Section 28 of the Act, it is mentioned that save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and the offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Vide sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 19, it is also provided that a Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence and such order shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall be dealt with accordingly. Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C. dealt with security for keeping peace and for good behavior which runs from Section 106 to 124. In these Sections, it is provided that for keeping the peace and maintaining good behavior, a person can be directed by a Magistrate to execute a bond with or without sureties and in case of non-compliance of such Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -6- order, that person can be detained into custody. Section 31 of the Act provides penalty for breach of protection order passed by the Magistrate, which is punishable as an offence. A protection order can only be passed under Section 18 of the Act."
Perusal of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act read in the light of Section 31 would clearly show that the definition of respondent is such that for obtaining any relief under the Act, the application can be filed or a proceeding can be initiated against only adult male person and on such application or under such proceeding, aforementioned protection order can be passed. These orders also could be passed only against the adult male person. As provided under Section 31 of the Act non compliance of the protection order or interim order of protection has been made punishable and as such it can be stated that the complaint for this offence can only be filed against such male adult person/respondent, who has not complied with the protection order. Accordingly, it can be held that the application under Section 12 of the Act filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners, who were not the adult members, would not be maintainable. As per the view formed by the Court in case of Ajay Kant (supra), the present petition deserves to be accepted.
None has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant to oppose the prayer made in the petition. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed. The complaint filed by the Criminal Misc.-M No. 9849 of 2010 -7- respondent against the petitioners under section 12 of the Act and also the subsequent proceedings taken thereafter are hereby quashed.
January 11, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE