Bangalore District Court
Ms.Priyanka Chandra Naskar vs Mrs.Archita Pal on 7 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE: MAYO HALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
(CCH-58)
Present: Smt.B.S.Rekha,
B.A.,(LAW), LL.B.
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
Dated this the 7th day of September 2015
Crl.R.P.25094/2015
Petitioners: :1. Ms.Priyanka Chandra Naskar,
Aged about 24 years,
s/o late Abraham,
residing at Ukilpara,
Palpara Road,
Baruipur, 24, arganas,
West Bengal-700 144.
2. Ms.Mita Chandra,
Aged about 54 years,
w/o Uday Chandra Chandra,
residing at Ukilpara,
Palpara Road,
Baruipur, 24, arganas,
West Bengal-700 144.
3. Mr.Uday Chandra Chandra,
Aged about 62 years,
residing at Ukilpara,
Palpara Road,
Baruipur, 24, arganas,
West Bengal-700 144.
2 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
(By Sri.J.Prabhakar, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent: Mrs.Archita Pal,
w/o Shri Jayanta Chandra Chandra,
aged about 26 years,
r/a No.140/22, II floor,
K.K.House, Kuvempu Road,
New Thippasandra Road,
Vignan Nagar,
Bangalore-560 075.
(By Sri Manu Kulkarni Advocate)
ORDERS
This revision petition is filed u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. against the
order passed by MMTC-I, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore in
Crl.Misc.70/2015 dated 1.6.2015 wherein the trial court dismissed
the application filed u/s 2(q) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act.
2. The contention of the petitioners are that the respondent's
father had expired during the year 2001 while the respondent was
going to school and the respondent single handedly was brought up
by her mother who was a pensioner since 2001. The respondent's
3 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
husband who is the 1st petitioner in Crl.Misc.70/2015 had met the
respondent through Bharat Matrimony(Bengali Matrimony) and had
been interacting with the respondent since March. The respondent
and her mother were staying together in Bangalore and the
respondent's mother intended to purchase a flat during the month of
July 2013 and communicated this fact to 2nd and 3rd Petitioners.
Since the beginning of August 2013, the 2nd petitioner along with
the 3rd petitioner started demanding dowry, expensive items and
furniture, etc. The 2nd and 3rd Petitioners were displeased with the
marriage alliance for various reasons and they returned the saree
gifted by respondent's family to the 1st petitioner during the time of
respondent's sister's marriage since the respondent's twin sister was
married during the month of January 2013. However on 6.12.2013,
the marriage took place and the marriage expenses were incurred by
respondent's mother totaling to Rs.7,80,000/-. After the marriage,
the respondent stayed with her husband in his residence at Baruipur
till 2nd week of December 2013 and during that period, the 1st and
2nd Petitioners were constantly demanding dowry and started
4 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
abusing the respondent. Later, the respondent and her husband
moved to Bangalore and stayed in the house on rent taken by the
mother of the respondent. The respondent is a B.Tech graduate and
working since 2011 while her husband is a B.E.graduate since 2006.
the husband of the respondent induldged in drinking and the
respondent expressed her displeasure of his drinking habit. Later,
the husband of the respondent started to misbehave with the mother
of the respondent and he started assaulting the respondent
physically. On 11.10.2014, respondent approached the HAL police
and lodged a complaint. The respondent's husband stopped
communicating with her. Since October 2014 inspite of sending
mails and messages, he stopped all communications with the
respondent. The Petitioners humiliated and harassed the respondent
in various forms amounting to domestic violence and threw her out
of the house. The Petitioners who are the accused filed an
application u/s 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act stating that the petition filed by the aggrieved
person(respondent herein) does not disclose that they lived together
5 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
in the shared household as they are the residents of Baruipur, 24
Pargans, West Bengal and that the aggrieved person is residing in
Bangalore. However, the trial court has dismissed the application
on the ground that the husband of the respondent has assaulted the
respondent in the presence of the Petitioners when she visited
Kolkata which is her matrimonial house and relied on Sec.27 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which states that
the aggrieved person can file a petition under this Act wherever she
resides or the respondent resides or where both of them resided.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this
revision on the following grounds:
Grounds of Revision Petition:
The Hon'ble trial court erred in passing an order of
dismissal. At the very instance, the above petition is not
maintainable. The Petitioners have been falsely implicated. They
are permanent residents of West Bengal, 24 Paraganas, Baruipur.
The respondent filed false criminal case against the Petitioners for
the offence u/s 498-A r/w sec.34 of IPC and u/s 3 & 4 of Dowry
6 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
Prohibition Act before Baruipur P.S. in case No.1445/14 and
subsequently the Petitioners were enlarged on bail. At no point of
time the Petitioners came to Bangalore. The respondent filed a
false case in Crl.Misc.No.70/2015 by falsely implicating them. The
1st petitioner got married on 30.11.2012 at Baruipur and she is
living in her matrimonial home along with her husband. There are
no materials on record to show that the Petitioners have committed
Domestic violence. Hence, the order of the trial court is not proper.
3. The respondent has not filed objections.
4. Heard arguments.
5. The point that would arise for my consideration is:
Whether the Revision petition filed by the
petitioners deserves to be allowed?
6. My finding on the above point, is in the
affirmative for the following :
REASONS
7. In this case in order to substantiate the contention that
the Petitioners does not come under the purview of Domestic
7 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
violence Act, the Petitioners' counsel relied upon the citation
reported in Madras High court II(2014)DMC
403(Mad)(C.Chandramohan -v- Varsha) and another, wherein it
is held that:
Allegation against brother of husband- Quashing of
proceeding- No domestic relationship between
Petitioners and first respondent's family since 2005-
Domestic Incident Report dated 17.12.2012 informs of
acts of domestic violence committed only by husband of
complainant/first respondent- Complaint allegations not
only inhertently improbable but tainted by mala fides-
Proceedings against first and second Petitioners
quashed.
In another Judgment in Crl.M.C.452/2012 between Sonia Chauhan
Raghove- Sanjive Raghove & Ors, wherein it is observed that:
(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.
A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic
relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person, if
the aggrieved person had lived together with the
respondent in a shared household. This living together
can be either soon before filing of petition or 'at any
point of time'. The problem arises with the meaning of
phrase " at any point of time". Does that mean that
8 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
living together at any stage in he past would give right
to a person to become Crl.M.C.No.3878 of 2009 Page
3 of 7 aggrieved person to claim domestic
relationship? I consider that " at any point of time"
under the Act only means where an aggrieved person
has been continuously living in the share household as
a matter of right but for some reason that aggrieved
person has to leave the house temporarily and when
she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live
in the property. However " at any point of time"
cannot be defined as "at any point of time in the past"
whether the right to live survives or not. For example
if there is a joint family where father has several sons
with daughters-in-law living in a house and ultimately
sons, one by one or together, decide that they should
live separate with their own families and they establish
separate household and start living with their
respective families separately at different places, can it
be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right
to live in the house of father-in-law because at one
point of time she along with her husband had lived in
the shared household. ...
Only a compelled or temporarily going out by
aggrieved person shall fall in phrase" at any point of
time".
In another Judgment in Criminal Petition No.8684 of 2012
between I.A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 others -v- The State of A.P.
rep.by its PP, wherein it is held that:
Now the Petitioners herein, who are respondents 5 to 8
in the DV case, are seeking to quash present case
against them in the said DV case by inter alia
contending that as under:
9 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
The Petitioners are strangers to the family of
the 2nd respondent and her husband. On
receipt of summons in the D.V.case, the
Petitioners had entered their appearance and
are conesting the case. The complaint given
by the 2nd respondent does not disclose
commission of any domestic violence as
defined in Section 2(g) read with Section 3 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic
violence Act 2005(the Act, for short). The
Petitioners do not come within the definition
of domestic relationship as defined in Section
2(f) of the Act. They are not related by
consanguinity, marriage or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage. They
are also not the family members living
together as joint family. the contents of the
petition of the 2nd respondent do not disclose
any acts of so called domestic violence
committed by the Petitioners herein. The
learned Magistrate had failed to apply his
mind and had mechanically issued the
summons ignoring the fact that the Petitioners
do not come with the purview of the
provisions of the Act. It would be a mental
torture for the Petitioners to face the trial,
which is unnecessary in the DV Case. Hence,
the continuation of the proceedings in the DV
Case against the Petitioners is nothing but an
abuse of process of law and the court.
8. Against this, the respondent has relied upon the
Judgment reported in 2011 KCCR Shortnotes 166 between
10 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
Sou.Sandhya Manoj Wankhade -v- Manoj Bhimrao
Wankhade and Ors., wherein it is stated that:
In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature
never intended to exclude female relatives of the
husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint
that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic
violence Act, 2005.
In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court
went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being
influenced by the definition of the expression
"respondent" in the main body of Section 2(q) of the
aforesaid Act.
However, this citation is not applicable to the case on hand because
the contention of the Petitioners is that they are residing separately
and not with the aggrieved person and her husband.
In another Judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.63 of 2013
between Sau Kalpana -v- Hanma @ Seema and others , wherein
it is held that:
The proceedings under the provisions of the said Act
cannot be equated with a criminal trial. Therefore, the
considerations, whether or not there were sufficient
grounds for proceedings in a given case, ought not arise
in such proceedings. The proceedings are akin to civil
proceedings. The Additional Sessions Judge has
misdirected himself in applying the principles which are
brought in picture when a challenge to the correctness
11 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
of the order issuing process to appeal and answer to the
charge of an offence, needs to be decided.
In another Judgment reported in 2013 Crl.L.J 1767 between Neeraj
Goswami and others -v- State of U.P. and Anr. wherein it is held
that:
The Division Bench of this court, in which I(Justice
Shri Narayan Shukla) has been one of the members in
the case of Dr.G.N.Saigal and another -v- Judicial
Magistrate I Class Court No.4 Amrawati and two
others Writ Petition No.8410 of 2007(MB) and other
connected writ petition No.9409 of 2010(MB)
considered the issue of jurisdiction.......
This citation relates to territorial jurisdiction of another case.
However this case cannot be a relevant case for the particular case
on hand.
9. In this case admittedly this respondent resided in her
matrimonial house at Kolkata only from 1.12.2013 till 6.12.2013.
Thereafter herself and her husband shifted to Bangalore. Whatever
the allegations made is mainly against the husband of the
respondent. There are some minor allegations against these
Petitioners that the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners were displeased about the
12 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
marriage alliance due to caste reason and deliberately returned saree
gifted which is prior to the date of marriage. However, the
domestic relationship starts after the marriage. The things which
happened prior to the marriage does not constitute domestic
violence. In this case, when she stayed only for 6 days in the
matrimonial house at Kolkata and thereafter there is no contention
taken that the Petitioners came to Bangalore and caused domestic
violence, this court can come to the conclusion that there is no such
domestic violence as alleged by the respondent from the Petitioners.
The trial court has observed in its order that the respondents No.2 to
4 have caused domestic violence by abusing her and also not met
her when she visited the matrimonial house. However, how these
acts amount to domestic violence, is to be considered by this court.
The trial court ought to have been considered all these aspects
before passing the order. In this case, these Petitioners 1 to 3
established that they have not committed any domestic violence.
Hence the petition filed by them has to be allowed. Hence, I answer
the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
13 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15
ORDER
Crl.Revision Petition filed by the petitioners u/s 397 Cr.P.C.is allowed.
The application filed u/s 2(q) of PWDV Act by these Petitioners is allowed.
The trial court is directed to proceed only against the 1st respondent.
Send a copy of the order to the trial court.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcript corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court this the 7th day of September 2015) (B.S.Rekha) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall, Bangalore.
14 Cr.R.P.No.25094/157.9.2015 Petr by JP Respt by MK For orders.
Order pronounced in open court [vide Separate order] Crl.Revision Petition filed by the petitioners u/s 397 Cr.P.C.is allowed.
The application filed u/s 2(q) of PWDV Act by these Petitioners is allowed. The trial court is directed to proceed only against the 1st respondent.
Send a copy of the order to the trial court.
(B.S.Rekha) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.
15 Cr.R.P.No.25094/15