High Court

Legal Reasoning

2752.2023APPLN-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2752 OF 20231.Monica Santosh JadhavAge : 68 years, Occ : Pensioner, (Mother in law of Resp.) R/o Swapnil Mahale, B-304, Saptagiri, CHSL, Sanghavi Hills Complex, village Kavesar, Behind D-Mart, near Kasarwadavali Police Station, G.B. Road, Thane West 400 615. 2.Sheetal Shimon Angarkar (Sister in law of Resp.)Age: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o Flat No.C-106, Aravali Hill CHSL, Sanghavi Hills Complex, village Kavesar, Behind D-Mart, Next to Kasarwadavali Police Station, G.B. Road, Thane West 400 615. 3.Shimon Yeshudas Angarkar (Brother in law of Resp.)Age : 42 years, Occ : Business, R/o Flat No.C-106, Aravali Hill CHSL, Sanghavi Hills complex, village Kavesar, Behind D-Mart, Next to Kasarwadavali Police Station, G.B. Road, Thane West 400 615.4.Komal Parag Padale (Sister in law of Resp.)Age: 39 years, Occ : Service, R/o Flat No.32, Floor No.5, Gulab Vishwa Apartment, Saket Nagar, Pethe Nagar, Aurangabad. 5.Parag Tanaji Padale (Brother in law of Resp.)Age : 42 years, Occ : Business, R/o Flat No.32, Floor No.5, Gulab Vishwa Apartment, Saket Nagar, Pethe Nagar, Aurangabad. ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS-1.The State of Maharashtra2.Ketki Vikrant Jahdav (Daughter in law ofAge : 36 years, Occ : Service, Applicant no.1) R/o Flat No.30, Building No.C, 2752.2023APPLN-2- Gulab Vishwa Apartment, Saket Nagar, Pethe Nagar, Aurangabad. 3.Myrah Vikrant JadhavAge : 5 years, Occ : Education. R/o --- As above ----Under guardianship of Resp. No.2 ..RESPONDENTS ...Advocate for Applicants : Mr.S.N. Pagare APP for the respondent/State : Mr.Mukesh K. Goyanka Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 : Mr.M.S. Randhave ..… CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.RESERVED ON : 10th May, 2024. PRONOUNCED ON : 11th June, 2024. ORDER :- 1.This is an application under section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), for quashing and settingaside the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal M.A. No.735 of 2022,which is pending before the learned 20th Judicial Magistrate, FirstClass, Aurangabad under section 12 of the Protection From WomenDomestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short, “D.V. Act”).2.The complaint is filed by the daughter-in-law ofrespondent no.2 and her daughter i.e. respondent no.3.3.It is admitted fact that applicant no.1 is mother-in-law andapplicant nos.2 and 4 are sister-in-laws of the applicant. Applicant 2752.2023APPLN-3- nos.3 and 5 are the husbands of applicant nos.2 and 4.4.The learned advocate for the applicants submitted andpointed out that the applicants were not residing with respondentno.2, however, they are falsely implicated in the case. There is noany substance in the allegations made against these applicants in theapplication. Applicant nos.2 to 5 never resided with respondent no.2but she was staying with her deceased husband independently.Respondent no.2 is taking disadvantage of D.V. Act, which amountsto abuse of the process of Court. There is no any specific incidentinspite of alleged domestic violence on the part of the applicants.5.The learned advocate for the applicants further pointedout the application filed by applicant no.1 under section 25 of theGuardian and Wards Act before the Family Court, Aurangabad, inwhich it is alleged that respondent no.2 had illicit relationship with oneRohan Vaidya and when her husband was alive that relationship wascontinued, and therefore, she prayed for custody of the child by filingthe application dated 25.02.2023. The learned advocate for theapplicants lastly prayed to allow the application by quashing andsetting aside the said proceedings.6.The learned advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 2752.2023APPLN-4- strongly opposed the application and submitted that respondent no.2was not treated properly. Husband of respondent no.2 died on14.03.2021. She resided with the applicants at Malkhare Awas,Aurangabad. Thereafter they started to reside at Thane with applicantnos.1 and 3 and stayed there for long period. In the year 2018,husband of respondent no.2 purchased Flat no.30 at Saket Nagar,Pethe Nagar, Aurangabad and she was residing there. They wereasking her to pay the rent. Once applicant no.1, who is Nurse gaveadditional two tablets to respondent no.3. On that count, quarrel tookplace between them. That time they insisted her to perform secondmarriage and give the custody of respondent no.3 Mayara to them.Applicant no.2 slapped her and threatened to eliminate her. Theyalleged that because of respondent no.2, their brother died. Applicantnos.4 and 5 were insisting to respondent no.2 to give respondentno.3 in adoption to them. Therefore, also she was slapped. Theybeaten her. They also told to respondent no.2 that character ofrespondent no.2 is not good. She was not in love with her husband,and therefore, he died. She questioned as to why they misled herdaughter respondent no.2, therefore, she was harassed. Theydoubted her character and questioned her as to why she is talkingwith some unknown male persons. Applicant no.2 slapped her for 2-3times and threatened that if she is not leaving house, she has to facethe consequences of it. On 13.08.2022, she came to know that her 2752.2023APPLN-5- flat at Malkhare Awas was given on rent by applicant no.2. Thelearned advocate therefore pointed out that the respondents haveprayed for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as well as prohibitory orderthat the applicants shall not cause obstructions to her possession ofhouse and also not to transfer the flat no.30 of Saket Nagar, PetheNagar, Aurangabad. It is also pointed out that respondents haveprayed for getting rent of Flat No.7 situated in plot nos.146 and 147 ofMalkhare Awas. It is lastly prayed to pay compensation ofRs.5,00,000/-.7.Perused the application filed by respondent nos.2 and 3.As far as prayer for maintenance is concerned, admittedly theapplicants are not legally liable to pay the maintenance to therespondents. The prayer nos.5 to 8 in the said application are againstapplicant nos.1 to 3 and prayer no.9 is against all the applicants forclaiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.8.There are certain allegations against all the applicants,which can be perceived from the application itself. However, theapplicants cannot be held liable to pay maintenance. Therefore,except the prayer in prayer clause (2) of the application under theDomestic Violence Act regarding directions to pay maintenance, theentire proceedings cannot be quashed. It is a matter of evidence. The 2752.2023APPLN-6- application deserves to be partly allowed in respect of prayer clause(2) of the application filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Hencethe following order :-ORDER (i)The application is partly allowed.(ii)The proceedings to the extent of prayer clause (2) of theapplication bearing Criminal M.A. No.735 of 2022 filed under theDomestic Violence Act is quashed and set aside. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) sga/