AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar appearing for the applicants has submitted that he would not be pressing this application so far as applicant No.1 viz. Mukeshkumar Sitaram Patel, is concerned.
The present application has been filed for quashing of the Criminal Complaint No. 567 of 2013 filed by respondent No. 2 against the applicants under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat through the Protection Officer, Surat.
Learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar has submitted that the marriage of Ketnaben was solemnized with the applicant No.1 on 9. 05.2004. The fact is that earlier marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with one Sangita, cousin sister of the original applicant - Ketnaben. Unfortunately, Sangitaben died because of failure of kidney. Sangita left behind her two kids - Smith and Sonam.
Learned advocate Mr.Bhavsar for the applicants has submitted that the impugned complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law since vague allegations are made against applicants No. 2 to 4. He has submitted that the entire application is bereft of any material against applicants No.2 to 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively. He has submitted that right from the beginning, applicants No.2 to 4 were staying separately from applicant No.1. It is further submitted that the impugned complaint is filed with an oblique motive to harass the applicants and, they are unnecessarily roped in the criminal offence. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned advocate Ms.Varsha Brahmbhatt appearing for respondent No.2-complainant has submitted that there are specific roles played by applicants No.2 to 4 in harassing the complainant. She has submitted that due to instigation of applicant nos.2 to 4, applicant no.1-husband used to assault the complainant. She has submitted that applicant No.3, mother-in-law, had refused to handover the custody of daughter-Sonam. She has submitted that in the complaint, it is specifically narrated by the complainant that all the applicants used to harass her and she was staying at her matrimonial home from 30.10.2006. She has further submitted that there are specific allegations against the mother-in-law. Thus, she has submitted that at this stage, the impugned complaint may not be quashed and set aside.
I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and I have also perused the contents of the impugned complaint.
A close scrutiny of the complaint would reveal that there are vague and general allegations made against applicants No.2 to 3 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law, except that they used to instigate applicant no.1 - husband of the complainant.
A perusal of the complaint would reveal that in paragraph No.2, the complainant has stated that at the relevant time of marriage, the ornaments and fixed deposit worth of Rs.1,00,000/-were made lying with applicant No.1. In paragraph No.3, she has referred to about the earlier marriage of the applicant No.1 and vague allegations are leveled against applicant no.3, mother-in-law. However, no specific date or period of occurrence has been referred to in the complaint. In paragraph No.7, the details of business and ownership of the property of applicant No.1 are mentioned. Thereafter, she has narrated that the present applicants No.2 to 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were subjecting her to cruelty. The entire application is bereft of any material particulars alleging cruelty by applicants No.2 to 4 .
Thus, it appears that the other family members of the applicant no.1 are unnecessary roped in by the respondent no.2-complainant and there are casual references made by her without allegations of active involvement and no specific instances are narrated by the complainant. No specific details are stated in the complaint. The allegations against the applicant nos.2 to 4, who are who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, are also general and vague and are bereft of specific instances. There is no active involvement established of the entire family members of the applicant no.1 in making out cruelty from the contents of the complaint.
It is also not disputed by the complainant that the applicant No. 2 - father-in-law and applicant No.3 - mother-in-law were staying separately from applicant No.1 with his daughter - Sonam, who was borne from earlier marriage. Hence, even if the impugned complaint is read in its entirety, the same only reveals casual allegations against the applicants.
It is not in dispute that when the marriage of the applicant no.1 was solemnized with the complainant, he was already married and having two children. The complainant was well aware about the same. In her complaint, she has specifically stated that she was driven out from her matrimonial home on 30.10.2006, and since then she is living at her parental home. The impugned complaint has been filed on 28.5.2013, under the priovsion of D.V act, after a period of 7 years after she was living at her parental home alleging domestic violence. No plausible explanation for delay in filing the proceedings has been tendered by the respondent no.2. A wife having domestic relationship can certainly file a complaint for domestic violence when such relationship ceases, but such complaint has to be filed within a reasonable time for claiming the reliefs under the D.V Act. She had filed an application claiming maintenance under section 125 of the Cr.PC in the year 2008 which was disposed vide order dated 18.3.2011.
Thereafter, she kept silent for two years, and the impugned compliant is filed in the year 2013. Hence, in wake of the fact the such delay remains unexplained, the same is fatal for the impugned complainant. As a sequel the complaint cannot be sustained.
Thus, the impugned Criminal Complaint No. 567 of 2013 filed by respondent No.2 against the applicant nos.2 to 4, who are who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, under Section 12 of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat as regards the complicity of applicants No.2 to 4, fails and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolutely. Direct service is permitted.