Dv case after 3.5 years and after 498a acquittal

All depends upon merits of the case. but you may try using this judgement

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/share_files/Bombay-HC-DV-cannot-be-filed-after-1year-of-separation--9440.asp

Anybody is free to file whatever case he/she wants. But should also be prepared to face defamation case if proof not available. Thing is to have stomach to fight. If bonafide then no worry but if malafide no one will let off scot free unless other party succumbs.

What are the facts of the case.

After marriage she filed 498a case. got acquittal after 3 years. Now after 3 years still DV case is possible ?

Originally posted by : lostkite
	Is it possible to file DV Case to file after 3.5 years and after acquittal of 498a case.

498a is for dowry harassment.  DV is for getting mainly financial relief and if you manhandled her etc.  That case of dowry is different, it has no bearing upon any other case other than divorce case if it is pending before FC.  DV case is totally new story and can be filed at any point based on fact that you both stayed together at one point in time during course of marriage.

Best way out is go for settlement, pay money and get rid of her.

There is no year bar to file DVC case but as you said you have acquitted from 498A, so here you need to see that 498A and DVC has same or more or less then you can file quash in HC as it is abuse of process of law running same allegations in another court.There is a judgement by Madhaya Pradesh HC Swapnawali vs..... search and see

There is no clear time limitation for filing a complaint under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Punishment of imprisonment under the DV Act is under Section 31 (Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent) and Section 33 (Penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer). For both the offences the imprisonment period may be extended up to one year, under the DV Act. Section 468 of The Code of Criminal Procedure enumerates the limitation period for offences as according to the term of imprisonment for the offences.

 

Section 468(2)(b) reads as: “The period of limitation shall be one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year”. Thus, the period of limitation with regard to Sections 31 and 33 of the DV Act would be one year.

 

In the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab the limitation period with regard to the DV act was considered, wherein the Court did not lay a limitation period for the DV act.

 

If the nature of domestic violence is of the nature of ‘continuing offence’ then period of limitation will only start from when the offence stops or when there is a divorce between husband and wife. In case of a divorce, with ‘continuing offence’ the period of limitation begins from the date of divorce.

 

On the same, in a recent Supreme Court judgment, Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury and Ors. , the Court with regard to Section 12 of the DV act laid that in the case of a ‘continuing offence’, as long as the status of the parties remains same, the aggrieved person is not bound by any limitation.

 

However a delay in filing a complaint against the culprit in has adverse effects. It is usually argued that knowing that a particular crime is being committed and then remaining silent on it means that by your conduct you have already condoned the act by not initiating any action. It is advisable that if you want to take a action, you must show that you were not aware of the facts when the offence was committed however as and when it came to your knowledge, you took the steps. Otherwise adverse inference will be taken that you purposefully delayed and the story so put forth may be seen suspiciously by the investigating officer/court etc.

 

There is no express provision under the DV act which per se provides protection from false allegations or false accusations. If a case under the DV act has been filed then the onus of proving the case lies on the plaintiff. The person levelling the accusations has to establish his or her case by leading evidence. The case would have to be fought on merit depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.