Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2448 (PNJ)

Mandeep Kaur v. Nirmaljeet Kaur

2019-09-03

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J. (Oral):-Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint No.74 dated 02.07.2018 filed byrespondent No.1 under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity”the D.V. Act”), titled as “Nirmaljeet Kaur Versus Satish Kumar and others”, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ferozepur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondentNo.1 has filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18,19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act, and the petitioner has also been made as anaccused in the case. The marriage between respondent No.1-NirmaljeetKaur/complainant and Satish Kumar was solemnized on 16.02.2014 andthey lived together as husband and wife, however, out of this wedlock, nochild was born to them. In the complaint filed by the complainant,respondent Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are brothersin-law of the complainant. Respondent No.6-Poonam is sister-in-law ofcomplainant (wife of Sandeep Kumar). The petitioner Mandeep Kaur whohas been arrayed as respondent No.7 in the application so filed byrespondent No.1 is none else but a friend of Satish Kumar, husband ofcomplainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is noallegation against the petitioner, so as to invoke the proceedings against herunder the D.V. Act. Merely because the petitioner is a friend of SatishKumar, husband of respondent No.1 and has been visiting the family inroutine manner does not give any cause to respondent No.1 to proceedagainst her through the complaint. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has arguedthat the petitioner is instrumental in harassing her and it is on her instigationthe husband is harassing her(respondent No.1/complainant). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The precise question in this petition is as to whether friend ofthe husband against whom there are allegations of harassment can beproceeded under the D.V. Act? 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has arguedthat the petitioner is instrumental in harassing her and it is on her instigationthe husband is harassing her(respondent No.1/complainant). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The precise question in this petition is as to whether friend ofthe husband against whom there are allegations of harassment can beproceeded under the D.V. Act? 7. The relevant provisions to deal such case under the D.V. Acti.e. Section 2(f) and (q) are reproduced as under:- Section 2(f) in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 “2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; Section 2(q)-The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 “2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.” 8. Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act provides that only that person canbe arrayed as a respondent who is or has been in a domestic relationship,any adult male person who is in domestic relationship with the aggrievedperson can be arrayed as a respondent. 9. Similarly, the word “domestic relationship” has also beendefined in Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. 10. The Apex Court in case of U. Suvetha Versus State, 2009-LAWS(SC)-5-221 has held that a girl friend of the husband does not strictlyfalls within the ambit of Section 2(q) of D.V. Act, and such complaint filedby complainant against the friend of husband is liable to be quashed. 11. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. T.Meenakshi @ Latha Versus Smt. Pushpa has quashed the proceedingsunder the D.V. Act qua the girl friend of husband on the ground that theword ‘respondent’ does not include girl friend of the husband of aggrievedperson. Therefore, the proceedings as relating to petitioner therein are notmaintainable. 12. 11. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. T.Meenakshi @ Latha Versus Smt. Pushpa has quashed the proceedingsunder the D.V. Act qua the girl friend of husband on the ground that theword ‘respondent’ does not include girl friend of the husband of aggrievedperson. Therefore, the proceedings as relating to petitioner therein are notmaintainable. 12. Admittedly, there is no relationship between the petitioner andrespondent No.1 as at no point of time they lived together in a sharedhousehold. Thus, the petitioner and respondent No.1 being not inrelationship in the nature of marriage, dependent or family member livingtogether as a joint family, this Court finds that the application filed byrespondent No.1 against the petitioner is not maintainable. Therefore, thisCourt is of the considered view that filing of complaint by respondent No.1is nothing but a glaring instance of abuse of process of law. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the complaintfiled by respondent No.1 qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.