Kasimsab vs Salma

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

This petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 217/2014 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bailhongal.

The respondents herein have filed Crl. Misc. No. 217/2014 against the petitioner herein u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnised in the year 2010. After the marriage petitioner started to reside in Poona and he used to come to Sankeshwar, Hukkeri taluk, Belgaum district, where his wife i.e., respondent No. 1 was residing. Therefore, the question of causing domestic violence to respondent No. 1 by petitioner does not arise.

I have carefully perused the records. There is no dispute with regard to marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The respondents are not present residing with petitioner. It appears that there is some matrimonial dispute between them and the same might be the case for respondent No. 1 to leave the conjugal relationship with petitioner. After marriage petitioner has started ill-treating and harassing respondent No. 1 in demand of dowry. The document produced before this Court also shows that respondents have also filed a petition u/s 125, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crl. Misc. No. 120/2014 claiming maintenance from petitioner. It appears that the Court has passed some interim maintenance in favour of the respondents herein. It appears that respondent No. 1 has filed a petition before Domestic Violence Court and a report has also been submitted by Protection Officer. On the basis of such report the trial Court has taken cognizance of the allegations made against the petitioner and has issued summons to the petitioner to appear before the Court. At this juncture, the present petition is filed before this Court.

On careful perusal of petition averments, it clearly shows that allegations have been made against the petitioner for the domestic violence committed by him, and for that reason respondent No. 1 was forced to leave the conjugal company of petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 1 had sought for several reliefs in the said petition. There are specific allegations against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any fault with the trial Court in issuing notice to the petitioner to appear before the Court. With these observations, petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A. No. 1/2014 for grant of stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1/2014 is disposed of.