Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Now for the decision of present petition, the points for consideration are:

[1] Whether the learned trial court could issue notice to the respondent in application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 without receiving the report of Protection Officer; [2] Whether the aforesaid application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, is maintainable after acquittal of petitioner under Section 498A IPC and decision of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C;
[3] Whether the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is within the period of limitation or not?
Point 1 Firstly, I will deal with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner where it is argued that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the respondent without receiving the report of Protection Officer which is Annexure P-2. Section 2 (a) and (e) of 6 of 11 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 respectively defines the aggrieved person and the domestic incident report. The aggrieved person means any woman who is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The 'domestic incident report' means a report made in the prescribed form on receipt of a complaint of domestic violence from an aggrieved person. The act of domestic violence is also defined in Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. As per Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the application can be made to the Magistrate by "an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person, may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

I have considered the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, after marriage of Hardeep Khan with Rano on 06.01.2002 marital dispute started and ultimately, Rano along with her minor son came out of the matrimonial home on 20.04.2009. In the application filed by the applicant, Rano under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-1), she has 8 of 11 narrated about the incident dated 20.04.2009 when she was turned out of the matrimonial home. The petitioner was acquitted under Section 498A IPC which is a criminal case and it is to be proved by the prosecution beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. The Court is to follow the procedure as prescribed under Cr.P.C. as well as Evidence Act. On the other hand, the application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is of different nature. The intent of Legislature is to provide protection to a lady who is suffering domestic violence in the hands of her husband or any member of matrimonial home. The applicant can claim various reliefs by filing this complaint like maintenance allowance, rent for separate accommodation, damages and compensation etc. Therefore, more or less by filing application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the aggrieved person can get various reliefs by filing one application. Rano- respondent/applicant is still legally wedded wife of the petitioner, Hardeep Khan and she is looking after her son alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that once the petitioner was acquitted under Section 498A IPC that will create a bar for his wife Rano to seek relief under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On this point, there is authority of a Coordinate Bench cited in 2014 RCR Criminal 942, case titled as "Geeta Kappor and another Vs. State of Haryana and another" wherein it was reiterated that the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the proceedings under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code are separate and different in nature. Therefore, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the maintainability of application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, filed by Smt. Rano 9 of 11 against the petitioner does not hold any ground. So far as payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or other application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. will not effect the application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the respondent can claim maintenance under the one case subject to adjustment of maintenance already paid by him.

Point-III Thirdly, it is argued that as per the version of respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 20.04.2009 and the present application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed on 05.05.2017 after period of more than 08 years. It was argued that as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the complaint could have been filed within period of one year after the commission of offence.

The aforesaid factual position is not disputed. It is matter of record that Hardeep Khan was acquitted in the FIR registered against him under Section 498A IPC. He is also making payment of maintenance allowance as awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that Rano is still legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She is facing agony of matrimonial dispute till date. The complaint filed by her under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, is to some extent civil in nature. In case, there is violation of any order passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 that is held punishable under Section 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Therefore, mere filing of complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act cannot be barred under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. This section will come 10 of 11 into operation when any order passed under Section 12 of the Act is violated. On this point, there is authority cited in 2022(2) Civil Court Cases 769, Supreme Court of India, case tilted as "Kamatchi Vs. Lashmi Narayanan" where it is clearly explained that limitation period provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 where the judgment was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was set aside by accepting the appeal.