Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 271 (JHR)

Bhanumati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2023-03-01

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by learned SDJM, Dhanbad in complaint case/petition No. 1858/2005, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint petition on the ground of jurisdiction. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the O.P. No. 2 on 21.5.2001 and at the time of marriage the parent of the petitioner had paid Rs.50,000/- cash to the O.P. No. 3 and 4 on their demand. After three months of marriage petitioner was sent back to her parental house for demand of Rs.50000/- and was compelled to live there for one year. When the petitioner came back to her sasural with Rs.10000/- she was assaulted for balance amount. When the fact was informed to her father he came and admitted her in Jharia Hospital. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner reported the matter to the police but no action was taken and as such the complaint petition was filed. 4. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order and submits that the only ground for rejecting the complaint petition is that the alleged act of atrocities including demand of dowry were committed at village Pansabdda, district Azamgarh (U.P.) as such the court below lack jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. Learned court below has also referred to the judgment reported in 2005 (1) JCR 15 (SC) in support of his finding. Ms. Swati Shalini further contended that recently in 2019 the constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A IPC. 5. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court intimating about the date of hearing, a report has been received which shows that the notice was validly served to the petitioner. Further report has been received indicating therein that O.P. No. 4 has died and O.P. Nos. 5. At this stage it is relevant to mention here that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court intimating about the date of hearing, a report has been received which shows that the notice was validly served to the petitioner. Further report has been received indicating therein that O.P. No. 4 has died and O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have received notice, however inspite of service of notice issued by this Court none appears on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 nor any fresh Vakalatnama has been filed. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the Court is deciding the matter on the basis of documents available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP and after going through the impugned judgment, it appears that now the law is no more res-integra, inasmuch as, where the offence regarding wife atrocity as enshrine under Section 498A IPC will be committed; the concerned courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by her husband or his relatives, would have jurisdiction to entertain the case. Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2019) 5 SCC 384 relevant paragraphs No. 15 and 16 are quoted as under: 15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The definition of “domestic violence” in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanations (a) & (b) to Section 498-A of the Penal Code which define “cruelty”. The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. The provisions contained in Section 498-A of the Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompass both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C. which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised. 16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. 7. In view of the settled position of law the order rejecting the complaint petition passed by the learned trial court suffers from infirmity and as such the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. As a result, the instant application is allowed. The case is remitted back to the court below to proceed in accordance with law and decide the complaint petition accordingly. It goes without saying that since the matter is very old and the cause of action is of the year 2004, the court below shall conduct the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of Nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.