Tag Archives: DV quash

Brother, father inlaw asking to have relations! DV case 13 yrs after marriage & 3 yrs after husband’s death! P&H HC quash

Sad tale of how Domestic violence act is rampantly misused and seven people including 4 women are harassed to for one woman’s greed !!

A woman has filed a false domestic violence case on her mother-in-law, father- in-law, three married sisters-in-law and their husbands. This is 13 years after the marriage and 3 years after the death of the husband. Accused, married sisters-in-law along with their husbands were residing separately (complainant was living at Chandigarh while accused 1 to 6 were living in various districts of Haryana !!) . The complainant pleads that she had been denied a right in the property (which is a civil matter not connected to any violence). The Trial court takes the case and also issues notice to distant relatives asking them to appear

The relatives approach P & H HC and seek a quash

The Hon P & H HC notes and orders as follows “….9. In the present complaint, the complainant had implead the in-laws and the distant relatives. The trial Court had summoned all the respondents without even waiting for the report of the Protection Officer. The trial Court should have applied its mind and should have examined the contents of the complaint before issuing notice to the distant relatives who were residing separately. There was no averment in the complaint that they had at any point of time lived together. The complaint had been filed three years after the death of the husband of the complainant. No specific instance of domestic violence had been mentioned. As regards the share in the property there is a civil remedy and can not be gone into in these proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. There is also the bar of limitation in the present fact situation. I have no hesitation in holding that continuation of the proceedings under the Act against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. 10. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the aforementioned complaint as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed….”


In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Misc. No. M-24081 of 2015

Date of Decision: 23.05.2016

Rajbala and others ……Petitioners

Versus

Seema Gupta …..Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present: Mr. Anshul Mangla, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the respondent.


ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)

 

  1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint bearing No. RBT-03-2 dated 6.6.2003 filed under Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 6.6.2013 and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same.
  2. The petitioners have been summoned in the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). The petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the complainant. The husband of the complainant had died on 21.4.2010 in a road accident. The complaint was filed against the mother-in-law, father- in-law, three married sisters-in-law and their husbands. It has been filed 13 years after the marriage and three years after the death of the husband. The petitioners have pleaded that false allegations had been levelled and they had never claimed custody of the minor children and the married sisters-in-law along with their husbands were residing separately and the petition has been filed only to harass them. The complainant was seeking maintenance and a separate residence as well as damages and a restraint order against any domestic violence. The complainant as per her allegations had left the matrimonial home on 1.11.2012. It was pleaded that she had been denied a right in the property.
  3. The trial Magistrate issued notice to the respondents heard both the sides on the application claiming interim maintenance as well as interim order qua residence in the shared household. The trial Court recorded a finding that the respondent had failed to show that her husband had any right in the house, the property was in the name of the mother-in-law and relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in ‘S.R.Batra and another versus Smt. Taruna Batra 2007(1) DMC 1(SC)’ interim maintenance and relief of residence was denied. The case was thereafter fixed for the presence of the remaining respondents.
  4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the documents placed on record.
  5. Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the petitioners are the close relatives of the husband and were living separately and there was no single instance of domestic violence and the complaint had been filed three years after the death. It was urged that the trial Magistrate without even ascertaining the correctness of the allegations and without ascertaining whether all of them were living together, had issued notice. It was urged that no specific instance has been given in the complaint and vague allegations of taunts and beatings and wild allegations that the brothers-in-law and father-in-law pressurized her to maintain relations with them have been levelled. It was urged that the complainant and her husband were living in Chandigarh and petitioners No. 1 to 6 are living in different districts of Haryana, the sisters-in-law were living with her husbands in separate residence and the proceedings were only an abuse of the process of law. Reliance was placed upon Suo Motu versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 421, Om Parkash Syngal and others versus Aditi Garg 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 12, Chandrawati Devi and others versus State of Bihar and another 2014(4) ECrC 53, Inderjit Singh Grewal versus State of Punjab and another 2011(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1, Ashish Dixit and others versus State of U.P. and another 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 340, Devanand Baliram Wankhade and others versus State of Maharashtra and others 2015 All MR (Crl.) 3618, Anoop and others versus Vani Shree 2015(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 989, Smt. Geeta and others versus State of U.P. and another 2014(5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 577 and Nandan Singh Manrai versus State and others 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 271.
  6. The submission on the other hand was that the remedy was available and the petitioners could approach the Magistrate and when a specific remedy is provided, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act provide for a remedy under the civil law and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not have been resorted to.
  7. A Division bench of the Gujrat High Court was faced with a similar objection. The Division Bench in ‘Suo Motu versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 421’ examined the provisions of the Act and the judgments referred before it concluded as under:-
    • “27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the following conclusions:
    • (i) The provisions of the Act provide for remedial measures for civil rights of women but the machinery provided is through criminal court.
    • (ii) Initiation of proceedings under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 of the Act would begin only when the Magistrate has passed any judicial order including of issuance of notice for hearing.
    • (iii) Any person affected by any proceedings under the Act, prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 12 of the Act may prefer Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution if as per him, the proceedings are beyond the scope and ambit of the Act or without any authority in law. But this Court, while entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution may decline entertainment of the petition by way of self-imposed restriction in exercise of the judicial powers or may decline entertainment of the petition in exercise of its sound judicial discretion.
    • (iv) Once proceedings are initiated under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 either independently or jointly on account of any judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate including issuance of notice, such proceedings shall be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure coupled with the power of the Court under Section 28(2) to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under sub-section (2) of Section 23of the Act.
    • (v) Once the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure has started on account of any judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate including issuance of notice either under Section 12 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 31 of the Act independently or jointly, remedial measures to the aggrieved person as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be said as available. But the higher forum under the Code of Criminal Procedure, may be the Court of Session or the High Court, may decline entertainment of such proceedings considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the settled principles of law and in accordance with law.
    • (vi) The aforesaid remedial measures provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure would also include the powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, but the Court may, in a given case, decline entertainment of the petition when there is express remedy provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or no case is made out to prevent the abuse of process of any Court, or no case is made out to secure the ends of justice.”
    • This Court in ‘Om Parkash Syngal and others versus Aditi Garg reported in 2016(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 12 had held that the violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can only constitute domestic violence and other acts of violence when one is living separate may be punishable under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the other penal laws but cannot be covered under the Domestic Violence Act.
  8. In Chandrawati Devi’s case (supra), the complainant had never lived with the brother-in-law and the mother-in-law and had claimed a share in the property and money of the deceased husband. It was held that the matter could not be decided in a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act and the matter could be taken up in a partition suit and the proceedings were quashed. The issue of maintainability was also decided therein and it was held that the extra ordinary remedy and the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked when it was to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure justice.
  9. In the present complaint, the complainant had implead the in-laws and the distant relatives. The trial Court had summoned all the respondents without even waiting for the report of the Protection Officer. The trial Court should have applied its mind and should have examined the contents of the complaint before issuing notice to the distant relatives who were residing separately. There was no averment in the complaint that they had at any point of time lived together. The complaint had been filed three years after the death of the husband of the complainant. No specific instance of domestic violence had been mentioned. As regards the share in the property there is a civil remedy and can not be gone into in these proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. There is also the bar of limitation in the present fact situation. I have no hesitation in holding that continuation of the proceedings under the Act against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law.
  10. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the aforementioned complaint as well as the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

 

(ANITA CHAUDHRY)

JUDGE

May 23, 2016

Gurpreet

Advertisements

Wife tries 2 get retrospective rent under DV though she lived @ UK during that time! Guj HC disallows!

Women are smart, ingenious and meticulous. Except that some times, yes “some” times great judges like the Honorable PARDIWALA J see thru their plans.

In this case a wife seeks retrospective rent even though that was NOT ordered by the Hon Magistrate. Only the appellate court orders rent approx 19 months later. She happily claims arrears and matter reaches Gujarat HC, where Honorable PARDIWALA J see thru this and disallows the woman’s fake claim

“….It is only in appeal that the Sessions Court fixed the amount of Rs. 6,000/- to be paid by the husband towards rent of the premises and that is how the liability in that regard was fixed from 30th October, 2009. Besides this, I am told that during the interregnum period i.e. almost for a period of 19 months, the wife was in U.K. Therefore, there was no question of bearing the burden of paying rent of the premises……”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2715 of 2015

MUKHTARAHEMAD MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN CHUNAWALA….Applicant(s)
Versus
NAIMABANU EX-WIFE OF MUKHTARAHEMAD MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN CHUNAWALA & 1….Respondent(s)

Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KHALID G SHAIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. J.K. SHAH, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 2

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 03/02/2016

ORAL ORDER

  1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order passed by the 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2014, filed by the respondent No.1 herein, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge quashed the order passed by the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad dated 8.8.2014, on an application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  2. The facts of this case may be summarised as under:-
    • 2.1 The respondent No.1 is the divorced wife of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 8.1.1970. It is very unfortunate that at the age of 80, both the husband and wife are fighting against each other.
    • 2.2    To put it briefly, the respondent-wife preferred an application, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 554/12, under Section 125(3) of the Cr. P.C with respect to recovery of the maintenance amount. While issuing notice, the following order was passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur:- “Notice of this application to be served on opponent by protection official under Rule 10(e) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. Protection Officer should recover the amount as per this application and pay to applicant and thereafter inform this Court. Protection Officer is at liberty to take help of concerned Police Station.” http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3. The issue before me is with regard to the payment of the arrears towards the amount of rent to be paid by the husband to his divorced wife. The main issue is the date from which the arrears towards the amount of rent is to be calculated. The Additional Senior Civil Judge took the view that the amount of rent of Rs. 6,000/- was due and payable from 30th October, 2009 and not 17th March, 2008, as asserted by the wife.
  4. The wife being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court below, preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The appellate Court quashed the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, holding that the amount was due and payable from 1.3.2008.
  5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the appellate Court committed any error in passing the impugned order. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge while taking the view that the amount towards rent was due and payable from 30th October, 2009, and not from 17.3.2008, observed as under:-
    • “But if the case put forward by the opponent is looked into it, firstly it has been categorically stated in the order for payment of the maintenance amount that the amount of Rs.5,000=00 per month is to be paid regularly from 17/3/08. No order has been passed to pay the amount towards the rent in this order. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred, wherein the Sessions Court, vide order dated 30/10/09, has ordered to pay the amount of Rs.6,000=00 towards the rent in addition to the amount of maintenance. In the said order, in addition to staying the order on condition of depositing the total amount of the maintenance, it was ordered to pay, beginning from today upto one month, a sum of Rs.11,000=00. Thereafter, after taking the evidence, this Court has ordered to pay the due amount of maintenance as well as the amount of rent every month regularly. Thus, it is believed by this Court that as per the said order, the applicant is entitled to get from the opponent an amount towards the maintenance from 17/3/08 till today and an amount towards the rent from 30/10/09 till today. Further, an appeal is pending in the High Court against the said order and the applicant will be entitled to receive the said amount as per the said order after the disposal of the said appeal. In such circumstances, at present, the applicant, upon producing before this Court the computation of the amount of maintenance and the amount of rent which she is entitled to, would be entitled to receive the due amount from the opponent. It is ordered that the opponent should immediately pay the due amount to the applicant, no sooner the applicant produces the calculation as per the assessment.”
  6. On the other hand, the appellate Court while quashing the order referred to above in appeal, observed as under:-
    • “As discussed above, the trial Court has passed a common order below Exh.12 and Exh.24, wherein it has been ordered that the opponent has to make arrangement for the residence of the applicant. Being dissatisfied, the opponent filed a Criminal Appeal No.23/08 in the Sessions Court. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, the defendant has to make arrangement for the residential accommodation, and if he is unable to do so, then an order can be passed for reimbursement towards the rent. For the present case, the defendant has not made arrangement towards the residential accommodation and, therefore, the order to make payment of Rs.6,000=00 towards the rent, which has been ordered in pursuance to the main matter, in my view, can be counted from the date of the institution of the main application. Therefore, the order which has been passed below Exh.1 in Criminal Misc. Application No.554/12 by the trial Court dated 8/8/14 is not tenable in law and, therefore, by interfering into it, I intend to reject the said order as per the prayer of the applicant and agree to grant relief as per the prayer of the applicant.”
  7. In my view, the Appellate Court committed an error in upsetting the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. The view taken by the Additional Senior Civil Judge appears to be correct. It appears that the order was very clear that the amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards the maintenance be paid from 17.3.2008, whereas so far as the amount of rent of the premises in which the wife was residing, no particular date was fixed. It is only in appeal that the Sessions Court fixed the amount of Rs. 6,000/- to be paid by the husband towards rent of the premises and that is how the liability in that regard was fixed from 30th October, 2009. Besides this, I am told that during the interregnum period i.e. almost for a period of 19 months, the wife was in U.K. Therefore, there was no question of bearing the burden of paying rent of the premises. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  8. In my view, the Appellate Court should not have disturbed the order. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is hereby quashed and that of the 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is confirmed. The liability of the husband to pay the arrears towards the amount of rent of the premises shall be calculated from 30th October, 2009 and not from 17.3.2008. Rule is made absolute.

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)

Mohandas

 

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

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

London wife files DV on Indian sis in law & looses completely !!

People who never had a shared household with the wife cannot be dragged into a DV / matrimonial case just for being relatives ! Delhi HC, Dec’15

Sister in law (husband’s sister) and her husband who live in India are dragged into a DV case by the wife who lived with her NRI hubby @ London !! She claims that they called over phone and intervened in her life !!

The court appreciates the facts and notices that “….Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K…. …On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. “

Noticing that there is NO basis for charging the relatives, the Hon HC clearly orders “….The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects …..”

Names of sister in law and her husband, already dropped by the Honourable MM court remain so !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 03, 2015

CRL.REV.P. 553/2015

SWATI MISHRA ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocate.

versus

LEENA GUPTA & ANR ….. Respondents
Through : None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

(1) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court) whereby names of respondents were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the petitioner was married to Dr.Anurag Gupta. She has filed petition under Section 12 of DV Act against him and her father-in-law (Sita Ram Prasad Gupta). Respondent No.1 is her elder sister-in-law and was married to respondent No.2. Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K. It is stated that there is ancestral house of her husband at Patna and the respondents did not allow her to enter the ancestral house. On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects and needs no intervention. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(3) The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed in limini. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

DECEMBER 03, 2015

sa

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