Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 617 (JK)

Swaran Lata v. Renu Kumari

2021-11-24

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJNESH OSWAL, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings of the application titled 'Renu Kumari vs. Vikram Vikas and Ors.' filed by the respondent under section 12 along with application filed under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2010 pending before the court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), R.S. Pura (hereinafter to be referred as trial court). 2. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law, the petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent respectively. The respondent has preferred an application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2010 before the trial court. In the said application, the respondent had sought the protection order, maintenance order, residence order and also return of her articles. It is further stated that the petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and they have preferred the present petition for quashing the proceedings before the trial court on the following grounds:- (i) That the petitioner No. 1 has disinherited her son, who happens to be the husband of the respondent. (ii) That the petitioner No. 3 has been residing in West Bengal all along the period during which the respondent was residing with her husband. (iii) That there is no domestic relationship between the parties. 3. Response has not been filed. 4. Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no allegation has been leveled against the petitioners and cause of action if any available to the respondent is only qua her husband. 5. Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate submits that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners in the application. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had disinherited her son ten months prior to the solemnization of the marriage between her son and the respondent is a disputed question of fact and on this account, no indulgence can be shown by this Court. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had disinherited her son ten months prior to the solemnization of the marriage between her son and the respondent is a disputed question of fact and on this account, no indulgence can be shown by this Court. However, perusal of the application preferred by the respondent reveals that all the allegations have been leveled by the respondent are against her husband only and only general allegations have been leveled against the petitioners without there being any specific details only passing reference has been made with regard to the petitioners in Para 2 of the application. 8. In case titled, 'Shyamlal Devda and others vs. Parimala, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 14 , the Supreme Court while settling aside the proceedings, has observed as under:- "9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant 14 is the husband and Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants 3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants 4, 6 and 10 are the wives of Appellants 3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants 7 and 8 are the parents of Appellant 1. Appellants 1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants 7 to 10 are the residents of the State of Rajasthan and Appellants 11 to 13 are the residents of the State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and Appellant 1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as Appellant 14 husband of the respondent and Appellants 1 and 2 parents-in-law, there are averments of alleged domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of Appellant 14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other Appellants 3 to 13. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other Appellants 3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against Appellants 3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed." 9. In view of this, the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners shall be nothing but will be an abuse of law. As such, the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. However, mere quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners shall not affect any right of the respondent for claiming maintenance, for return of her articles and even seeking residence order vis-a-vis her husband in the shared household. 10. Disposed of.