Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2064 (HP)

Kanwaldeep Singh Monga v. Simranpreet Kaur

2018-11-22

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the the complaint No.14/3 of 2017 titled Simranpreet Kaur Versus Kanwal Singh Monga & ors., pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’). 2. The main ground for allowing the petition as taken in the petition is that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and settlement whereof was tried by the petitioners, but on account of adamant attitude of respondent, it could not be settled and the respondent had willfully left the company of the petitioner No.1, as is evident from the compromise dated 26th July, 2016, arrived at between the parties before Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, H.P. (Annexure P2), wherein it is recorded that respondent was taken by his father on his own volition, without any pressure and with healthy mind, along with car and gold items and clothes with understanding that she will stay with her parents till the settlement of dispute. It is further case of the petitioners that as the respondent is not living with the petitioners and has left the matrimonial house at her own in July, 2016, hence there is no question of beating or abusing her or neglecting her. It is also submitted that respondent has herself proclaimed not to live in the company of the petitioner No.1 or his father and therefore, prayer in her complaint made for providing shared household is also a tactics to create pressure upon the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners have never neglected the respondent and are still ready to take her back to her matrimonial house and are ready to maintain her and therefore, petitioners are not liable to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondent and false allegations of keeping the ‘stridhan’ by the petitioners have also been made in the complaint so as to drag them in unnecessary litigation in order to pressurize them so as to succumb to her illegal demands. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from orders dated 16th October, 2016, 16th November, 2016 and 29th November, 2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, it is evident that during pendency of the bail application of the petitioners as recorded unambiguously in the list of articles prepared by the police during investigation of the said case, that items of ‘stridhan’, handed over by the petitioners to the police, were further handed over to respondent Simranpreet Kaur on supurdari. Therefore, it is pleaded that the trial Court has wrongly taken the cognizance of the case under Section 12 of the Act in the complaint filed by the petitioners. 3. On perusal of the record requisitioned from the trial Court, it transpires that the complaint was filed by the respondent on 14th March, 2017, where after report from Protection Officer was called upon by the trial Court and after receiving the report, notices were issued to the petitioners on 23rd March, 2017 and thereafter petitioners had appeared in the case and had defended themselves through counsel engaged by them. During pendency of the complaint, interim maintenance was also allowed in favour of respondent vide order dated 8th November, 2017. The respondent has also produced her witnesses, who were also cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners and evidence of complainant was closed on 23rd December, 2017, where after case was listed for recording evidence of petitioners on 15th January, 2018, on which date it was further adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioners for recording evidence on 20th March, 2018. On 20th March, 2018, adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioners/respondents, on the ground that they were consulting with the other advocate and case was fixed for recording evidence of the petitioners on 18th April, 2018. 4. The present petition was filed in October, 2017 and during pendency of the petition, it was considered appropriate to call for the record for adjudication of present petition. 5. Certain allegations have been levelled by respondent/complainant in her complaint, which are being refuted by the petitioners (respondents in complaint) on the basis of certain documents. The petitioners have also levelled counter allegations. Claims and counter claims of the parties require to be proved by them in accordance with law as applicable to the proceedings in question. 6. 5. Certain allegations have been levelled by respondent/complainant in her complaint, which are being refuted by the petitioners (respondents in complaint) on the basis of certain documents. The petitioners have also levelled counter allegations. Claims and counter claims of the parties require to be proved by them in accordance with law as applicable to the proceedings in question. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that after the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1, there were certain disputes between the parties resulting into separate living of husband and wife. Lodging of complaint by respondent against the petitioners is also undisputed and returning of articles of ‘stridhan’ by the petitioners as per list placed on record with this petition, has also not been refuted by the respondent/complainant. However, the documents placed on record along with this petition, are yet to be tendered in evidence before the trial Court. It is not a case where it can be said that on the basis of material before the Magistrate, exfacie, no case was made out. There was material before the Magistrate in the shape of the report of the Protection Officer, causing issuance of notice to the petitioners. However, issuance of notice to the petitioners does not mean that allegations levelled by the respondent/complainant have been accepted by the trial Court or the same stands proved. All allegations including report of the Protection Officer are subject to proof and judicial scrutiny before the trial Court in accordance with law, for which the respondent/complainant has already led evidence and now it is turn of the petitioners to lead their evidence to rebut the same. All documents relied upon by the petitioners in present petition are required to be placed on record before the trial Court in the pending proceedings and the trial Court has to decide the case on its own merits on the basis of material produced before it. Therefore, at this stage, I find no ground for interference in the proceedings pending before the trial Court and accordingly, petition is dismissed with direction to the parties to appear before the trial Court on 26th December, 2018, on which date the trial Court shall fix the date for further effective proceedings in the matter. 7. Therefore, at this stage, I find no ground for interference in the proceedings pending before the trial Court and accordingly, petition is dismissed with direction to the parties to appear before the trial Court on 26th December, 2018, on which date the trial Court shall fix the date for further effective proceedings in the matter. 7. This Court has not made any observation on merits of the case and no opinion has been expressed about allegations and counter allegations levelled by the parties against each other. Any observation made with respect to any fact in present petition shall be confined only to the adjudication of present petition and the matter shall be decided by the trial Court without influencing with any such observation made hereinbefore. The Registry is directed to return the record to the trial Court along with copy of the order immediately. Copy of order also be sent to the trial Court fax/email. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.