Date of Judgement:
9th August 2021
Coram:
Justice Manish Pitale
Parties:
Applicant: Applicants
Respondent: Sole Respondent
Subject
The Bombay High Court dealt with the issues concerning the application of allegations raised in an earlier suit that was disposed of by Courts, in a fresh suit. It also perused the question as to whether a second marriage can be held to be domestic violence under the DV Act.
Overview
- Applicant No. 1 and the Sole Respondent got married in 2011, however, soon after marriage, there was a matrimonial discord, and Applicant No. 1 filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
- The Family Court at Akola decreed for divorce in 2014, and also passed an order rejecting the Respondent’s application for restitution of conjugal rights.
- The Respondent filed an appeal against the decree and the order, before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in 2015. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Court, and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, and consequently, the Family Court’s orders stood confirmed.
- Thereafter, the Respondent filed a petition before the Court of the Magistrate, under Sections 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, and put forth the same allegations as was stated in the divorce hearing, and also added that the Applicant No. 1 had treated her with cruelty, by entering into a second marriage.
- The Applicants filed an application for dismissing the proceeding on the ground of tenability. It was further submitted that the respondent could not invoke the provisions of the D.V. Act when there was an already settled litigation between the parties.
- However, the Magistrate rejected the application, and the Applicants approached the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking its direction to set aside the orders of the Magistrate, along with the entire proceeding.
- Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order to stay the further proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
- The learned counsel for the Applicants made their submissions; however, no one had appeared on behalf of the Respondent, during the hearing.
Issues Involved
- Whether the respondent is entitled to rely upon incidents that were relatable to the allegations and contentions raised in an earlier round of litigation, to claim relief under the Domestic Violence Act?
- Whether entering into a second marriage after the grant of divorce decree would be an act of domestic violence under the D.V. Act?
- Whether the proceeding initiated by Respondent under the D.V. Act can be said to be an abuse of the process of law?
Important Provisions
- Sections 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act: Under Section 12, an aggrieved person can present an application before the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act, and Section 23 empowers the Magistrate to pass any interim order on the receipt of such an application.
Judgement Analysis
- The Supreme Court held that the Respondent is not allowed to reiterate the same allegations and contentions raised in the initial round of litigation, when the same has been heard and decided by the Family Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court. (Paragraph No. 10)
- With respect to the second marriage of the Applicant No. 1, it was held that a mere second marriage would not come under the ambit of Section 3 of the DV Act that defines Domestic Violence.
- “Although, it may be said that the respondent could have claimed that there had been a domestic relationship between the parties, for the reason that the applicant No.1 and respondent were married at a point in time, but the said fact in itself would not be enough for the respondent to initiate the said proceedings under the provisions of the D.V. Act, much after the divorce proceedings had attained finality and findings had been rendered against her,” it was observed further. (Paragraph No. 12)
- With respect to the last issue raised, the learned judge opined that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent under the DV Act were an abuse of process of law. It noted, “The respondent appeared to be interested in initiating and continuing such proceedings as a tool of harassment against the applicants. The prayers pertaining to monthly maintenance, compensation, residence order etc. have all been made in the backdrop of such allegations, which are nothing but a repetition of the contentions raised in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuance of further proceedings in such a matter would amount to permitting abuse of the process of law.” (Paragraph No. 14)
With these observations, the Bombay High Court allowed the Applicants’ application, and accordingly quashed the impugned orders of as well as the entire proceedings before the Magistrate.
Conclusion
Abuse of the process of law is increasing in the recent years. Not only men, but also women have been reported to misuse the legal system according to their own motives. Just how the rape cases are on a rise, in the same way, the false rape charges are also increasing. The same is the case with cruelty and domestic violence. It is no doubt that women suffer comparatively more than men, however, the same is making us ignorant to the plight of innocent men. There are cases of false accusations against men on cruelty, rape, domestic violence, etc. It is the responsibility of the courts to carefully look into these issues to prevent such misuse. The instant case is also a related matter, wherein the respondent wife had instituted proceedings against her husband, under the Domestic Violence Act, when the Family Court had passed an order against her. Such incidents, though in relatively insignificant numbers, are definitely a matter of concern. The court was right in holding the application of the Respondent as an abuse of process of law.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
