Honorable HC observed ” For Petitioners 3 to 7 there is no allegation about the domestic violence or how they are amenable to the prayer sought for by wife. Whereas remaining petitioners viz., petitioners 3 to 7 have nothing to do with the prayer sought for in the complaint apart from the fact that there is absolutely no specific allegation as against them in the complaint preferred by wife In view of above circumstances DV Proceeding against petitioners 3 to 7 are liable to Quashed ”
Madras High Court
Mumtaj Begum vs Sultana Hussain on 24 January, 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN
Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.8162 of 2010
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010
5.Javid @ Ibrahim
7.Rafia Begum …. Petitioners
Sultana Hussain … Respondent
Prayer: Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for records on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy in STC No.1301 of 2010 and quash the same.
!For Petitioners : Mr.M.Siddharthan
^For Respondents : No Appearance
1. This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records in STC No.1301 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy and quash the same.
2.It is averred in the petition that as per the complaint filed by the respondent before the Social Welfare Officer, there was no allegation as against A1 and A3 to A9 and that the respondent is not entitled to relief under Section 18 and 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, as she voluntarily deserted from the marital abode. The report of the Social Welfare Officer is contradictory to the complaint given by the respondent and in fact, the respondent had stated in her complaint that her mother-in-law alone had threatened her with dire consequences. The petitioners were no way connected with the alleged domestic violence. A9, who is uncle of A1, had been working in a Ship and he is not at all aware of any of the incident that took place here. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A2 to A8 and that as per the complaint given by the respondent, no domestic violence has been alleged as against the petitioners 2 to 7 herein and that the first petitioner is also aged about 70 years and she being month-in-law has nothing to do with the allegations of domestic violence and therefore, the proceedings as against all the petitioners are to be quashed.
4.There was no representation on the side of the respondent, when the matter was listed as last chance and then for respondent’s side arguments, after hearing the argument of the petitioners.
5.The respondent, through the protection officer, filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate seeking protection order, rights to residence and compensation under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is now well settled that the petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed even against the relatives under the guise of domestic relationship.
6.The petitioners 1 and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the respondent. The other petitioners are sister-in-law, her husband, aunts and brother-in-law. The protection order, residence order and compensation can be asked from the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.
7.With respect to other petitioners, there is no allegation about the domestic violence or how they are amenable to the prayer now sought for by the petitioner. In the complaint preferred by the respondent, the specific allegations as to the domestic violence are only as against the husband and mother-in-law. However, the relief sought for by the petitioner also relates to the father-in-law and he is also necessary party to the proceedings. But, the remaining petitioners viz., petitioners 3 to 7 have nothing to do with the prayer sought for in the complaint apart from the fact that there is absolutely no specific allegation as against them in the complaint preferred by the petitioner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1301 of 2010 as against the petitioners 3 to 7 are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482of Cr.P.C.
9.Accordingly, , this criminal original petition is partly allowed and the proceeding in S.T.C.No.1301 of 2010 as against the petitioners 3 to 7 is quashed. With respect to the petitioners 1 and 2, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.Iv, Trichy .