Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 950 (KAR)

P. R. Suresh Babu v. B. S. Bharathi

2014-10-30

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
ORDER K.N. Phaneendra, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C. Misc. No. 861/2010 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bangalore, which is filed by the respondent herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Respondent was issued with notice by this Court. In spite of service of notice on 25.3.2014, she remained absent before this Court. (served notice perused) 3. I have carefully perused the records. The records disclose that, respondent (wife) filed C. Misc. case No. 91/2009, on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tiptur, under the Domestic Violence Act, seeking several reliefs under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the said Act, making several allegations against the petitioner. That petition was filed on 5.2.2009. For the reasons best known to her, she filed a memo before the said Court on 9.2.2009 and sought for withdrawal of the said case. She has categorically stated in the memo that, the matter was settled between the parties. Therefore, she has sought for dismissal of the complaint. Hence, it appears that the said petition was dismissed as not pressed. The records also disclose that, she also filed another petition in C. Misc. No. 26/2010 before the JMFC (Sr. Dn.), Tiptur, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, on 4.5.2009 and the said case according to the learned counsel is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner with all certainty submitted before this Court that, as on today, he enquired with the petitioner and came to know that the said case in C. Misc. No. 26/ 2010 is still pending before the Tiptur Court. On perusal of the averments made in the petition in C. Misc. No. 26/2010, the respondent herein has filed the said petition under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, for several reliefs, particularly for separate residence, monitory relief etc. 4. When the matter is pending before the Tiptur Court, in C. Misc. No. 26/2010, it appears the respondent has also filed another C. Misc. No. 861/2010 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore again under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 4. When the matter is pending before the Tiptur Court, in C. Misc. No. 26/2010, it appears the respondent has also filed another C. Misc. No. 861/2010 on the file of V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore again under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said application also, she has sought for several remedies under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Bangalore Court, in fact issued summons to the petitioner and immediately he approached this Court for quashing of the said proceedings. 5. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, though the earlier decision in C. Misc. No. 19/2009, got dismissed as withdrawn, as the matter is settled between the parties, there is no bar for the said lady to file another petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for the second time with fresh factual matrix and changed circumstances, that has been done by the respondent by filing C. Misc. No. 26/ 2010. However, when such proceedings are still pending before the Tiptur Court, it is not said, what made her to file another petition before the Bangalore Court. 6. On careful perusal of the petition filed in C. Misc. No. 861/2010, nowhere it is explained that she has earlier filed another petition in C. Misc. No. 19/2009 and withdrawn the same and filing of C. Misc. No. 26/2010 and pendency of the case before the Tiptur Court and it is not explained as to why and how she filed another petition before the Bangalore Court, when for similar relief a petition is already pending before the Tiptur Court in C. Misc. No. 26/ 2010. When the petition is already pending in C. Misc. No. 26/2010, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, for the same reliefs, another petition is not maintainable before the V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore. The respondent never appeared before this Court, in spite of service of notice in order to explain this case. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, when a petition in C. Misc. No. 26/2010 is still pending, proceedings in C. Misc. No. 861/2010 cannot be continued, it will amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, when a petition in C. Misc. No. 26/2010 is still pending, proceedings in C. Misc. No. 861/2010 cannot be continued, it will amount to abuse of process of the Court. If at all the petition is not filed before the Tiptur Court, she could have filed the petition under the Domestic Violence Act, at the place wherever she resides. These are the factual aspects ought to have been explained by the respondent, but the respondent never appeared before the Court to explain the case. Therefore, I have no hesitation to quash the proceedings in C. Misc. No. 861/2010. The petition is allowed. The proceedings pending before the V Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C. Misc. No. 861/2010 is hereby quashed. Respondent is at liberty to prosecute the petition in C. Misc. No. 26/2010. If necessary she can seek the transfer of the said petition according to her convenience wherever she resides by making necessary grounds before the competent Court.