Date of Judgment:
9th Aug 2021.
Bench:
Mr. Manish Pitale, J.
Parties:
Petitioner – Bhushan.
Respondents – Nilesh Bhushan.
SUBJECT
In the present instance, the applicants had appeared before the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings filed by the respondents under the respective provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.Furthermore, the applicants prayed for the dismissal of the criminal proceedings filed against the JMFC, because the same was instituted on false grounds and was an abuse of due process of law.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Section 12 –states that 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.
- Section 23 –states the power of the Judicial Magistrate to grant interim and ex parte orders if he deems fit so that would be just and fair in the eyes of the law with prima facie evidence indicating that the respondent has committed an act of domestic violence.
- Section 3 –states that any harm or injured or endangerment to the life and limb of the aggrieved person by the spouse causing mental, as well as physical agony, shall constitute domestic violence.
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 494 –states that whosoever has a living husband or wife remarries during the lifetime of the spouse without getting a valid decree of divorce from the Court of law, shall be liable to imprisonment which may extend to 7 years coupled with a fine.
BRIEF FACTS
- In the instant petition, the applicants were aggrieved by the miscellaneous Criminal Case filed by the sole respondents under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and subsequently prayed for dismissal of a similar suit which was contended by the applicants to be a falsely instituted criminal proceeding before the JMFC.
- The Applicant was married to the sole respondent, and soon after their marriage, there was household incompatibility and verbal discord, following which the applicant proceeded to institute a suit for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty.
- Subsequently, the aforesaid petition so filed for divorce was decreed by the Family Court at Akola.The Court averred to the materials facts and evidence of the case and concluded by stating that as per the testimonies of the victim, there was the infliction of domestic cruelty on the applicant No.1.
- Furthermore, an application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the respondent, aggrieved by the same the respondent moved an application to the Family Court of Appeals. After dismissal, the same was appealed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in which the divorce decree was confirmed and the dismissal of the application for restitution of conjugal rights was also confirmed.
- The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that the suit instituted by the respondents was not sustainable as per the facts and circumstances of the case, it was further argued that the identical facts and circumstances that were mentioned and relied on in the previous set of procedures involving the divorce decree and the denial of the application for restitution of conjugal rights.
- Additionally, it was argued that applicant No.1 executing a second marriage after the incident on which the respondent sought to rely cannot be an incident for which the respondent could invoke requirements of the D.V. Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the respondent was entitled to rely upon incidents about the same period and relatable to the allegations and contentions raised in the aforesaid round of litigation?
- Whether the act of the Applicant No. 1 performing a second marriage after the grant of a divorce decree can be said to be an act of domestic violence under the provisions of the DV. Act?
- Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the provision of the DV. The act can be said to be an abuse of the process of law?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble High Court noted that there was no mistake that such divorce order entered in this instance was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as was the rejection of the respondent’s application for restitution of marital rights.
- Subsequently, the Court noted that the contentions put forth by the respondents in the initial proceedings could not be disputed and on the basis of such pleadings relating to the incidents alleged by the respondents, the Family Court had concluded the respondent's allegations, and the conclusions had reached finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
- Thus, the Court stated that after the Hon'ble Supreme Court denied her Special Leave Petition and confirmed the rulings of the Family Court and the instant Court,for identical reasons, then the respondents could not be permitted to repeat the same issues by applying the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
- Additionally, the Hon’ble Court disregarded the second marriage performed by the applicant no. 1, after the grant of the divorce decree, and stated that the respondent’s claim that the above said act constituted Domestic Violence could not be accepted.Further, for it to come under the purview of the DV Act, the requirements meted out u/s 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had to be met.
- The Court further stated that the method in which the procedures under the D.V. Act were sought to be started was nothing more than a misuse of the legal system; thus stating that the respondent could not be allowed to keep the applicants involved in this type of litigation while the D.V. Act's criteria appeared to be unmet on the surface.
CONCLUSION
Dismissing the criminal complaint the Hon’ble Court allowed the application, remarking that the respondent seemed to be willing to start and prolong such proceedings against the applicants as a form of harassment. The Hon’ble Court said that the abuse of the due process of law cannot be permitted in this instant matter, accepting the fact that the same was not duly appreciated by the Magistrate in the previous instance while passing the impugned order.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
