42yr old wife files DV on 52yr husbnd 8yrs later! Huge maint.& residnce sought ! Kar HC DV quash

A 42 year old wife files DV on a 52 year old husband approx 8 years after separtion. Pertinent to note that she ALREADY has won a maintenance of Rs 1000, p.m. which she wishes to enhance to Rs. 10,000 p.m. !! now. She also wants residence rights in his OWN house etc etc !! Hon KARNATAKA HC quashes the case quoting Sec 468 CrPC

**************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11476/2013

BETWEEN:

1. GURUDEV S/O. HANAMANT GURAV
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MALALI VILLAGE, TQ:MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT

2. BASAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA GURAV
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MALALI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PAVAN B DODDATTI, ADV.)

AND

JAYASHREE W/O. GURUDEV GURAV
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.MALALI VILLAGE,
TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S C HIREMATH, ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.110/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDHOL, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both the Counsels, the matter is heard o n merits.

2. It is seen from the records that the respondent-Jayashree W/o the first petitioner-Gurudev S/o Hana mant Gurvar lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for several reliefs. That is to say restraining the petitioners from dispossessing from the house and also for awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance etc. and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages. It is also alleged in the petition that the applicant therein has a right to share the house at Bagalkot with opponent No.1. The op ponents ill-treated and tortured her, thereafter about 8 y ears back by beating his wife and daughter drove her out from the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that since t hen the petitioner is staying in the adjacent house of the opponent and opponent has neglected and even now harassing her under one or other pretext. Therefore, she is comp elled to file petition under Domestic Violence Act.

3. In the petition it is not specified as to what is the nature of harassment that has been given by the pet itioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners st renuously contended that the petition is barred by limitatio n. The petition is filed alleging the incident taken plac e about 8 years back. Therefore, he contends that the petiti on under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – wife submits that, she has filed a suit for partiti on and separate possession and the said suit was decreed i n respect of landed property and now she is residing in the house situated adjacent to the house of the petitio ners herein. It is also submitted that the first petiti oner filed a petition for divorce and the same is pending. There fore, the petition under Domestic Violence Act is maintainabl e before the trial Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the order passed by this Court in a similar matter in Crl.P.No.2419/2009 on 05.04.2013 and submits that t he said order passed by this court is applicable to th e facts and circumstances of this case. For the purpose of bet ter understanding whether the said order passed by this Court is applicable to the present case or not, it is jus t and necessary to look into the orders passed in that ca se.

“In the said case also, the wife alleged that she lived with her
husband in the matrimonial home up to November 2004 and she was
pregnant by then. She was treated cruelly by the petitioner and his
parents during that time. The wife left the matrimonial home as she
could not tolerate the torture of her husband and she was compelled
to eat certain substance in order to abort pregnancy. Making such
allegations she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court has taken
cognizance of an offence which has taken place in the year 2005 and
issued summons to the petitioners. The learned judge of this Court
has observed the cause of action in the said case was 4 years prior
to the filing of the complaint. Under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the
complaint could have been filed within one year. If the allegations
made in the complaint are proved, the punishment is one year. On
these grounds, this Court allowed the petition under Section 485 of
Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings.”

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Divorce petition, an amount of Rs.1,000/- has already been awarded. It is admitted fact that the respondent has claimed maintenance in the divorce petition filed by her husband. She can workout her remedy so far as maintenance in the said Divorce Petition.

7. With these observations, I am of the opinion that, this petition under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed which was filed after lapse of 8 years. In view of the same and in view of the observations made by this Court in similar matters noted above, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

Hence, I Pass the following order:

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent herein in Crl.Misc.110/2003 before the P rl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby quashed. Further th e respondent is at liberty to agitate all these grou nds in the Divorce Petition.

(SD/-)

JUDGE

Rms

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s