Delhi District Court
Ruchika Gupta vs Nitin Gupta on 24 January, 2012
Ruchika Gupta Vs Nitin Gupta
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
( MAHILA COURT - SOUTH EAST DISTRICT )
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CC NO. 179/03
Ruchika Gupta
............................. COMPLAINANT
Versus
Nitin Gupta
......................... RESPONDENT
DATE OF ORDER 24.01.2012 ORDER ON DROPPING OF PROCEEDINGS
1. This order shall dispose of an application for dropping of proceedings preferred on behalf of the respondent Silpa Aggarwal qua her being a married sister in law.
2. Arguments were advanced by both the parties. The case was argued primarily on the ground that MM has no power of recalling of the order under criminal law by the counsel for the complainant quoting the landmark judgment in the case of Adalat Prashad. On the contrary, the CC no. 179/03 Page no.1 Ruchika Gupta Vs Nitin Gupta argument of the respondent was based on the contention that D.V. Act is governed by the provisions of civil law and the power of recalling lies with the magistrate.
3. My attention was drawn to the objects of the Act in which it is specifically mentioned that the D.V. Act was enacted to provide remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in society although a similar provision has already been provided u/s 498 A IPC.
4. My attention was also drawn to Rule 6 (5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006 where it is stated that application u/s 12 D.V. Act shall be dealt in the manner laid down u/s 125 CrPC. The counsel for the respondent has also relied upon two judgments i.e. Vijay Verma Vs State of Delhi wherein it is held that " Domestic relationship comes to an end once the the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and established her own household with her husband"
CC no. 179/03 Page no.2
Ruchika Gupta Vs Nitin Gupta
He also relied upon the judgment of Jagmohan Aror Vs Saroj Arora wherein it is stated that "Any order passed under Section 125 CrPC is not a final order and can be amended, altered or recalled by the trial court with the change of circumstances".
5. I have heard both the counsels at length and went through the case file thoroughly. I am of the view that the complainant and respondent no. 1 Nitin Gupta were married in the year 2005 and the present case was filed in the year 2007. Marriage of Silpa Aggarwal was solemnized on 30.06.2006. Silpa Aggarwal resided with the complainant from 2005 to 30 June 2006.
6. As per the report of protection officer, domestic violence upon the complainant started from the date of marriage of the present applicant Silpa Aggarwal i.e. 30.06.2006 meaning whereby that prior to the date of marriage of the applicant, no domestic violence was committed upon the complainant. The fact today is that the applicant is not residing with the complainant and cannot be said to be a part of the joint family. Even on the CC no. 179/03 Page no.3 Ruchika Gupta Vs Nitin Gupta date of filing of the complaint by the complainant she was not in domestic relationship with the complainant since she was already married in the year 2007. I would also rely upon the judgment of Harbans Lal Vs Payal Malik 2010 (3) LRC 177 (Del) wherein it has been held that "It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and 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 speaks of living together at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complainant under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there."
CC no. 179/03 Page no.4
Ruchika Gupta Vs Nitin Gupta
7. In the above circumstances, since the complainant was not in domestic violence with the applicant at the time of filing of the complaint. Therefore she could not have been arrayed as respondent.
8. Now, coming to the legal aspect that whether I have the power to recall the order . I am in agreement with the counsel for the applicant that the object of D.V. Act clearly states that the proceedings shall be civil in nature. Moreover, the procedure of D.V. Act shall be governed in terms of proceedings laid down u/s 125 CrPC. In these circumstances, I recall the order of summoning passed against the applicant. Proceedings qua the applicant stands dropped.
9. Now to come up for further cross examination of the complainant on 15.03.2012.
Announced in open Court (POOJA TALWAR)
today i.e. 24.01.2012 MahilaCourt/MM/
SED/Saket/ND/24.01.2012
CC no. 179/03 Page no.5