Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
In the said
judgment in the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs. Sarathi
Choudhury and another (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
specifically held that the concept of continuing offence gets
attracted from the date of deprivation of Stridhan and that
therefore, an application in that context would have to be
entertained and it cannot be thrown out on the ground of
limitation. This Court is of the opinion that the definition of
domestic violence under Section 3 of the D.V. Act shows that
depriving an aggrieved person of not only Stridhan but also
shared household, maintenance, alienation from assets, banks
lockers etc, prevention from entering place of employment of the
aggrieved person, would all be covered, under the concept of
continuing offences. Therefore, merely because the wife in the
present case was, according to her, driven out on 03.02.2011 and
the complaint was filed after one year i.e. on 17.10.2012, it
cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation. The
concepts of continuing cause of actions and continuing offences
would apply and the contention raised on behalf of the husband
relying upon Section 468 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted. Thus, it is
::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2021 06:47:28 :::
wp.372.2019 +2 17/19
found that the complaint of the wife cannot be thrown out on the
ground of limitation, despite applicability of the Cr.P.C. as per
Section 28 of the D.V. Act.