High Court
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) crwp826.19IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD51 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 826 OF 2019BALASAHEB S/O NAGNATH KHARADEVERSUSUSHA @ LALITA W/O BALASAHEB KHARADEMr. V.M. Maney, Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Krushna N. Bhosale h/f. Mr. A.T. Kanawade, Advocate for therespondent.CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:30.07.2025PC :-01.Heard learned Advocates for the parties. This petition istaken up for final disposal at the stage of admission by the consent of theparties.02.The petitioner No.1 happens to be husband of therespondent. Petitioner No.2 is father of petitioner No.1. The petitionershave come to this Court challenging judgment and order passed by thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dated 12.03.2019, passed inPWDV Appeal No. 46 of 2015, thereby partly allowing the appeal filed byrespondent-wife and setting aside the judgment and order passed by thelearned JMFC, Ausa, Dist. Latur dated 04.11.2015 in Criminal Misc.Application No. 22 of 2013. It is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- ( 2 ) crwp826.19per month towards maintenance, Rs. 500/- per month towards houserent, Rs. 1000/- towards proceeding costs and Rs. 15,000/- towardscompensation to the wife. It is further directed to the petitioner torestrain from committing acts of domestic violence.03.The wife had filed application under section 12 of theDomestic Violence Act. It is her case that the parties married on05.10.2003. The father of the wife spent huge amount in the marriageand gave Rs.80,000/- and 20 grams gold in dowry with some utensils tothe husband. After one year of the marriage, it is alleged that the in-laws started harassing the wife, saying that they did not get sufficientamount in dowry. It is alleged that she was kept starved. She was givenshock by gas lighter. She was always threatened by showing revolver.She was also given threats that she will be set on fire. It is alleged thaton 13.07.2008 the in-laws assaulted her mercilessly and it was tried toset her on fire. She could escape herself with great difficulties from thein-laws and since then she is living with her parents. There wereattempts to see that the parties co-habit together. However, in thesettlement meetings also there was no response from the in-laws andthey demanded some amount for settlement. She was required to filecomplaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code bearing RCC
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) crwp826.19No.36 of 2009. On such allegations, she prayed for various reliefsincluding share in the property.04.The learned JMFC on recording evidence rejected theapplication. It is held, on the basis of the evidence, that the wife isstaying with her parents since 28.09.2005 and since thereafter they havenever stayed together. There is already divorce given by the husband byfiling HMP No. 47 of 2008. Thus, on the date of filing the HMPproceeding, there was no domestic relationship. On this count thecomplaint came to be rejected. The learned Sessions Judge, however,partly allowed the revision. It is observed by the learned Sessions Judgethat mere admission of wife and her father in the cross-examination isnot sufficient to disbelieve the pleading of wife. The wife would not leavehouse of her husband without any compelling circumstances. He thusallowed the appeal partly.05.Learned Advocate Mr. Maney for the petitioners vehementlyargued that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error byallowing the appeal and by setting aside the well reasoned judgment ofthe learned JMFC. He submits that when there is overwhelming evidenceon record to show that since 28.09.2005, there is no co-habitation and ( 4 ) crwp826.19the parties are admittedly residing separately, there is no question ofgranting any relief. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge areperverse and requires to be set aside.06.Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. Bhosale vehementlyopposes the petition. He submits that the Domestic Violence Act is apiece of welfare legislation. It is aimed at providing relief to women.Learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated that mere admission bywife would not disentitle her from praying for any relief. LearnedAdvocate for the respondent relies upon judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif IqbalManoori and Anr., reported in 2015 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2912 andjudgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sri Krishnendu DasThakur Vs. TheState of West Bengal & Anr. (CRR 3566 of 2018).07.This Court has heard the parties and seen that in thejudgment, the learned JMFC has clearly observed that the parties areresiding separately since 2005, no reason is coming from the wife as towhy she started residing separately. It is further observed that though inher application, she has quoted incident of 13.07.2008, it is admitted factthat on that day she was staying with her parents. The learned JMFC ( 5 ) crwp826.19discussed the evidence wherein wife and her father admitted that she isstaying separate. It is also considered that there is divorce between theparties. Learned Sessions Judge, however, has observed that suchadmission would not affect the case of the wife. He drawn inference thatno wife would leave husband’s house without compelling circumstances.However, no such circumstance is shown by the wife as discussed by thelearned Sessions Judge. On the face of it, it is clear that no act ofdomestic violence is proved. The husband and in-laws are evenacquitted from the offence under section 498-A of the IPC. The learnedSessions Judge has even failed to appreciate in proper perspective thatthe decree of divorce is ex-parte decree and therefore the Court did notgive much importance to the decree. It needs to be seen that ex-partedecree of divorce is not challenged by the wife. As of now it is informedthat the wife has performed second marriage in 2021.08.In the present case it is clearly seen that the wife has utterlyfailed to prove any single incident of domestic violence. It is also amatter of record that since 2005, she is residing separately. In herapplication, she has quoted the incident of the year 2008. In suchcircumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has certainly committedmistake in allowing the appeal.
Decision
( 6 ) crwp826.1909.Therefore, The impugned judgment and order dated12.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur inPWDV Appeal No. 46 of 2015 is set aside.10.The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and isdisposed off with no order as to costs.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]snk/2025/jul25/crwp826.19