Smt. Rashi Saxena v. Gaurav Bhatnagar & others), under Section

Applicant :- Smt Madhu Bhatnagar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to O.P. No. 2.

3. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 11.08.2022 and further proceedings of Complaint Case No.CMC 53445 of 2022 (Smt. Rashi Saxena Vs. Gaurav Bhatnagar & others), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'Act) P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.1 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.2 is the husband, applicant no.3 is the Nanad and applicant no.4 is the Nandoi. He has further submitted that the marriage of the applicant no.2 stood solemenzied with the opposite party no.2 on 2.12.2020, however, the opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial house on 20.12.2020. It is also submitted that the allegations sought to be levelled upon the applicants that any domestic violence has been committed at the instance of the applicants upon the opposite party no.2 is totally incorrect and false and the proceedings itself is not maintainable particularly against the applicants no. 3 and 4, who are the Nanad and Nandoi itself.

5. Submission is that proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stood initiated by the applicant No.1 against the opposite party no.2 on 23.12.2021 and after receiving the notices in the said case now the impugned proceedings under Section 12 of the Act has been initiated. Further submission is that on 11.8.2022, the court of Additional Civil Judge/F.T.C. No.1 Agra in the proceedings in Case No.CMC 53445 of 2022 (Smt. Rashi Saxena Vs. Gaurav Bhatnagar & others) has sought for the report of the DPO and issued notice to the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention towards the Court the order sheet, dated 29.12.2024 so as to contend that in the said proceedings in so far as the respondents in the complaint being respondent nos.1 and 3 are concerned, notice has been made sufficient and for rest of the respondents in the said complaint, notices have been issued. He has further invited attention towards the proceedings in Transfer Application (Civil) No.733 of 2022 with regard to the Case No.3253 of 2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has also relied upon the judgement of this Court in Virendra Kumar Kushwaha and others vs. State of U.P. and another 2024 (126) ACC 592 so as to contend that unnecessarily the entire family has been roped in and made respondents in the complaint just in order to give colour.

7. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that there is no order passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and thus it may not be a case wherein this Court may interfere at this stage particularly when once an order is passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act then the parties shall have right to avail the remedy as provided in the 2005 Act either way of appeal under Section 29 or proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

8. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

9. Apparently, a complaint was lodged under the provisions of the Section 12 of the Act on 17.8.2021 against the applicants herein, with relation to the fact that the marriage of the applicant no.2 and the opposite party no.2 stood solemenzied on 2.12.2020 however, allegation is that the applicants herein had thrown out the opposite party no.2 from the matrimonial house on 20.12.2020 and the domestic violence has been committed. Though the learned counsel for the applicants submits that proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stood initiated by the applicant no.2 against the opposite party no.2 which became a motivating factor and acted as a catalyst in lodging of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. This Court at this stage is not required to go into the factual aspects and adjudicate upon the counter allegations so made that the complaint was an outcome of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. What the Court is concerned at this stage is the fact as to whether the proceedings are to be continued so sought to be initiated by the opposite party no.2 wife or not. For the very purposes the allegations have to be seen just to have a prima facie view.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants has though submitted that under Section 2(f) of the Act, the respondents who have been arrayed in the complaint would not be come within the ambit of domestic relationship particularly when on the date when the complaint was filed the admitted case of opposite party no.2 was that she was not residing in the matrimonial house.

11. The said argument may not be convincible particularly when the words implied in Section 2(f) of the Act itself shows that 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.

12. So far as the argument raised under Section 2(q) of the Act is concerned with regard to the persons who have to be made respondents is concerned, the same depends upon the allegations, thus, it is also a matter of the proceedings before the court below.

13. As regards the judgement in the case of Viredra Kumar Kushwaha (supra) is concerned the same would apply at the stage during continuance of the proceedings and in the said case there was an ex parte interim order of maintenance passed.

14. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that once the applicants have been put to notice when the applicant should appear and contest the said proceedings while file their response and take all legal and factual defences which are available including the issue relatable to Section 2(f) & 2(q) of the Act so as to contend that they are not the respondents in the said proceedings and there is no domestic relationship.

15. Even otherwise, the Court finds that it is not a fit case for interfering in view of the judgment in the case of Smt. Suman Misra vs. State of U.P. Application U/S 482 No.6975 of 2013 decided on 31.7.2024.

16. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicants on instruction from his client submits that the applicants shall be filing their response in contesting the matter, however, interim protection be accorded. In the opinion of the Court since only notices have been issued and no order has been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act. Thus, it is for the applicants to contest the matter and the Court has no reason to disbelieve their contentions shall be considered in correct perspective and in case any order is passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act then the applicants would always be free to avail remedy under Section 29 of the Act. Even otherwise the Court has no reason to disbelieve that all the factual and legal contentions so sought to be raised shall be considered by the court below in correct perspective and the orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.

17. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 piyush

Applicant :- Smt Madhu Bhatnagar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to O.P. No. 2.

3. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 11.08.2022 and further proceedings of Complaint Case No.CMC 53445 of 2022 (Smt. Rashi Saxena Vs. Gaurav Bhatnagar & others), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'Act) P.S. Mahila Thana, District Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicant no.1 is the mother-in-law, applicant no.2 is the husband, applicant no.3 is the Nanad and applicant no.4 is the Nandoi. He has further submitted that the marriage of the applicant no.2 stood solemenzied with the opposite party no.2 on 2.12.2020, however, the opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial house on 20.12.2020. It is also submitted that the allegations sought to be levelled upon the applicants that any domestic violence has been committed at the instance of the applicants upon the opposite party no.2 is totally incorrect and false and the proceedings itself is not maintainable particularly against the applicants no. 3 and 4, who are the Nanad and Nandoi itself.

5. Submission is that proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stood initiated by the applicant No.1 against the opposite party no.2 on 23.12.2021 and after receiving the notices in the said case now the impugned proceedings under Section 12 of the Act has been initiated. Further submission is that on 11.8.2022, the court of Additional Civil Judge/F.T.C. No.1 Agra in the proceedings in Case No.CMC 53445 of 2022 (Smt. Rashi Saxena Vs. Gaurav Bhatnagar & others) has sought for the report of the DPO and issued notice to the applicants.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention towards the Court the order sheet, dated 29.12.2024 so as to contend that in the said proceedings in so far as the respondents in the complaint being respondent nos.1 and 3 are concerned, notice has been made sufficient and for rest of the respondents in the said complaint, notices have been issued. He has further invited attention towards the proceedings in Transfer Application (Civil) No.733 of 2022 with regard to the Case No.3253 of 2021 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has also relied upon the judgement of this Court in Virendra Kumar Kushwaha and others vs. State of U.P. and another 2024 (126) ACC 592 so as to contend that unnecessarily the entire family has been roped in and made respondents in the complaint just in order to give colour.

7. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that there is no order passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and thus it may not be a case wherein this Court may interfere at this stage particularly when once an order is passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act then the parties shall have right to avail the remedy as provided in the 2005 Act either way of appeal under Section 29 or proceedings under Section 25 of the Act.

8. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

9. Apparently, a complaint was lodged under the provisions of the Section 12 of the Act on 17.8.2021 against the applicants herein, with relation to the fact that the marriage of the applicant no.2 and the opposite party no.2 stood solemenzied on 2.12.2020 however, allegation is that the applicants herein had thrown out the opposite party no.2 from the matrimonial house on 20.12.2020 and the domestic violence has been committed. Though the learned counsel for the applicants submits that proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stood initiated by the applicant no.2 against the opposite party no.2 which became a motivating factor and acted as a catalyst in lodging of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. This Court at this stage is not required to go into the factual aspects and adjudicate upon the counter allegations so made that the complaint was an outcome of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. What the Court is concerned at this stage is the fact as to whether the proceedings are to be continued so sought to be initiated by the opposite party no.2 wife or not. For the very purposes the allegations have to be seen just to have a prima facie view.

10. Learned counsel for the applicants has though submitted that under Section 2(f) of the Act, the respondents who have been arrayed in the complaint would not be come within the ambit of domestic relationship particularly when on the date when the complaint was filed the admitted case of opposite party no.2 was that she was not residing in the matrimonial house.

11. The said argument may not be convincible particularly when the words implied in Section 2(f) of the Act itself shows that 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.

12. So far as the argument raised under Section 2(q) of the Act is concerned with regard to the persons who have to be made respondents is concerned, the same depends upon the allegations, thus, it is also a matter of the proceedings before the court below.

13. As regards the judgement in the case of Viredra Kumar Kushwaha (supra) is concerned the same would apply at the stage during continuance of the proceedings and in the said case there was an ex parte interim order of maintenance passed.

14. Considering the submissions so made across the bar and after perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that once the applicants have been put to notice when the applicant should appear and contest the said proceedings while file their response and take all legal and factual defences which are available including the issue relatable to Section 2(f) & 2(q) of the Act so as to contend that they are not the respondents in the said proceedings and there is no domestic relationship.

15. Even otherwise, the Court finds that it is not a fit case for interfering in view of the judgment in the case of Smt. Suman Misra vs. State of U.P. Application U/S 482 No.6975 of 2013 decided on 31.7.2024.

16. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the applicants on instruction from his client submits that the applicants shall be filing their response in contesting the matter, however, interim protection be accorded. In the opinion of the Court since only notices have been issued and no order has been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act. Thus, it is for the applicants to contest the matter and the Court has no reason to disbelieve their contentions shall be considered in correct perspective and in case any order is passed under Chapter IV of 2005 Act then the applicants would always be free to avail remedy under Section 29 of the Act. Even otherwise the Court has no reason to disbelieve that all the factual and legal contentions so sought to be raised shall be considered by the court below in correct perspective and the orders shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.

17. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 piyush