SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS versus PARIMALA on 22 January 2020

SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS

v.

PARIMALA

(Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2020)

JANUARY 22, 2020

[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND

HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –ss.27(1)(a) & 18-20 – Marriage of respondent-wife and appellantno.14-husband was solemnized in Rajasthan – Respondent wasresiding with appellant no.14 and his parents (appellant nos.1 & 2)in her matrimonial house at Chennai – Appellant no.14 andrespondent went to Bengaluru to attend respondent’s sister’s wedding– Respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home andinter alia sought protection order u/s.18, 2005 Act against appellantnos.1, 2, 14 and their other relatives (appellant nos.3-13) who werein Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat – Magistrate, Bengaluru issuednotice to the appellants – Appellants sought quashing of theproceedings – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When acts of domesticviolence are alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be primafacie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence– Admittedly, the matrimonial house was at Chennai – Respondentmade allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants–Against appellant nos.1, 2 & 14, the averments of alleged domesticviolence were that they took away the jewellery of the respondentgifted by her father during marriage and the alleged acts ofharassment to the respondent – There are no specific allegations asto how other relatives of appellant no.14 caused the acts of domesticviolence – High Court not right in saying that there was prima faciecase against appellant nos.3-13 – Criminal case of domesticviolence against them is quashed – Further, petition under the 2005Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved”permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or isemployed – Respondent is residing with her parents within theterritorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and

125

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Ain view of s.27(1)(a), the said Court has jurisdiction to takecognizance of the offence – Criminal case of domestic violenceagainst appellants nos.1, 2 & 14 be proceeded with and disposedof in accordance with law – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 –Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.

BPartly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005relates to protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act,intention of the legislature is to provide more protection towoman. Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order forCmonetary relief to the “aggrieved party”. When acts of domesticviolence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to beprima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domesticviolence. The respondent made allegations of domestic violenceagainst fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband andappellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent.DAll other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of therespondent. Admittedly, the matrimonial house has been atChennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondentand appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are avermentsof alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken awayEthe jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father duringmarriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent.There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives ofappellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It isalso not known as to how other relatives who are residents ofGujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award ofFmonetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not rightin saying that there was prima facie case against the otherappellants No.3 to 13. The criminal case of domestic violenceagainst them is quashed. The petition under the DomesticViolence Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved”Gpermanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or isemployed. In the present case, the respondent is residing withher parents within the territorial limits of Metropolitan MagistrateCourt, Bengaluru. In view of Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, theMetropolitan Magistrate court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction H

to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence.There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to thejurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellants No.3 to 13is quashed. The VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate atBengaluru shall proceed with Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 againstappellants No.1, 2 and 14 and dispose the same in accordancewith law. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed onthe merits of the matter. [Paras 8, 9 and 11] [129-D-H; 130-A-B;G-H; 131-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 141 of 2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2019 of the HighCourt of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 5959 of 2015.

Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Lakshmi R. Rao, Ms. Pallavi Sen Gupta,Advs. for the Appellants.

Ms. Nidhi, Vaisal Dathan, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated18.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru inCriminal Petition No.5959 of 2015 in and by which the High Court hasdismissed the petition filed by the appellants stating that the MetropolitanMagistrate, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filedby the respondent under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection ofWomen from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short “Domestic ViolenceAct”).

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:- The marriage of respondent-wife and appellant No.14-ManojKumar was solemnized on 01.05.2006, as per Hindu rites and customsin Rajasthan. After marriage, the respondent was residing with appellantNo.14 in her matrimonial house at Chennai along with appellants No.1and 2 who are the parents of the appellant No.14. In April, 2014, appellantNo.14 and respondent-wife went to Bengaluru from Chennai to attendrespondent’s sister wedding. After the said wedding, the respondentexpressed her desire to remain at Bengaluru for some time; which was AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aacceded to by appellant No.14 with the understanding that the respondentwould stay in her parent’s house for short time. According to theappellants, the respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial homeor cohabit with appellant No.14. Appellant No.14 filed O.P. No.11355of 2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution ofconjugal rights before the Family Court, Chennai. Thereafter, respondentBclaiming herself to be a victim of domestic violence seeking protectionorder under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 andmonetary relief under Section 20 of the Act filed Crl. Misc. No.53 of2015 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru againsther husband- appellant No.14, her in-laws-appellant Nos.1 and 2 andCother relatives of her husband who are in Chennai, Rajasthan and also inGujarat. The learned Magistrate, Bengaluru vide order dated 16.04.2015issued notice to the appellants by holding that the Court has the jurisdictionto entertain the petition filed by the respondent under Section 27 of theDomestic Violence Act.

D4. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in Crl. Misc. No.53 of2015, the appellants have filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. beforethe High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crl. Misc.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the MMTC-VI at Bengaluru. Vide theimpugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition by holdingthat in the complaint filed by the respondent, various instances of domesticEviolence at different places viz. Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat arenarrated by the respondent and therefore, the complaint filed in Bengaluruis maintainable under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Beingaggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for theFappellants contended that neither the marriage of the parties wassolemnized at Bengaluru nor the matrimonial house was at Bengaluruand therefore, the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru has no jurisdiction toentertain the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Learnedcounsel submitted that vague allegations have been levelled against theGfamily members of the husband-appellant No.14 which are not at allsubstantiated. Learned counsel further submitted that with a view toharass the family members of her husband, the respondent has arraignedall the family members of her husband including those who are residentsin the State of Rajasthan, Gujarat and other relatives in Chennai and thecomplaint is an abuse of the process of the Court.H

6. Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent hascontended that by virtue of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act,the place where the complainant permanently or temporarily resides orcarries on business, Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaintand grant protection order and other orders under the Domestic ViolenceAct. It was submitted that the respondent is currently residing within theterritorial limit of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Bengaluru City andthat the High Court rightly held that the Metropolitan Magistrate atBengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Taking us throughthe averments in the complaint, learned counsel for the respondent hassubmitted that there are several instances of domestic violence againstthe husband-appellant No.14 and other relatives particularly, appellantNos.1 and 2-father-in-law and mother-in-law who have been harassingthe respondent who have taken away respondent’s jewellery and insistingupon her to buy properties. The learned counsel submitted that the HighCourt rightly refused to quash the order of taking cognizance.

7. We have carefully considered the contentions and perused theimpugned judgment and other materials on record.

8. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protectionorder. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature is toprovide more protection to woman. Section 20 of the Act empowers thecourt to order for monetary relief to the “aggrieved party”. When actsof domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to beprima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations ofdomestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is thehusband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of therespondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of therespondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives ofappellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are theparents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents ofChennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthanand appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat.Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of therespondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there areaverments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaway the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father duringmarriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. Thereare no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as tohow other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can beheld responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. TheBHigh Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie caseagainst the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specificallegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domesticviolence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

10. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Court, as pointedCout by the High Court, Section 27 of the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 covers the situation. Section 27 of the Actreads as under:-

27. Jurisdiction –

D(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or theMetropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limitsof which –

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides orcarries on business or is employed; or E(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed;or

(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court togrant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to tryoffences under this ActF

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughoutIndia.

A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that thepetition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court wherethe “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or carries onGbusiness or is employed. In the present case, the respondent is residingwith her parents within the territorial limits of Metropolitan MagistrateCourt, Bengaluru. In view of Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, the MetropolitanMagistrate court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaintand take cognizance of the offence. There is no merit in the contention H

raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan MagistrateCourt at Bengaluru.

11. In the result, Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellantsNo.3 to 13 is quashed and this appeal is partly allowed. The learned VIAdditional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru shall proceed with Crl.Misc. No.53 of 2015 against appellants No.1, 2 and 14 and dispose thesame in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have notexpressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Divya Pandey

Appeal partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H