High Court

Domestic Violence Act.) Asha Vs. Sri Krishna @ Lakhan and others Pending before Civil Judge, Atarra, District-Banda.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants herein are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law, cousin father-in-law, sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 3, 17 years ago from the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 on

20.09.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that even prior to lodging of the present complaint, a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 3 on 09.03.2018 and constant demands were being raised for fulfillment of the dowry and when the same was not satisfied then the opposite party no. 2, wife subjected to domestic violence. The said complaint was registered as Case No. 869/ix/15 which came to be decided on 05.02.2016 by virtue of a compromise so entered into between the parties wherein it was settled that the parties would be living with each other peacefully. Allegation is that without there being any cause now the impugned complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been lodged, creating a new cause of action on 10.09.2024, pursuant whereto the notices have been issued. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations are nothing but bundle of lies just in order to set up the case and to harass the applicants as according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the applicant no. 3 who happens to be the husband is working as contract labour in an air conditioner company in Haryana and the opposite party no. 2 is a housewife who is living separately in village- Barehanda, Police Station Atarra, District Banda. It is also contended that no domestic violence was committed. Further submission is that in the month of December, 2015 on the basis of the mutual consent of the family members, there was a separation of the household and the properties which took place in the presence of well-wishers/ relatives.

4. Contention is that with respect to interference in the peaceful possession and property which belonged to the applicants, applicant no. 3 preferred a original suit in the year 2024 on

26.05.2024. With an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 is intending to sell the property in collusion with her parent. Submission is that no cause of action or incident took place so as to give any cause of action to the opposite party no. 2 to lodge the complaint and further no incident took place on 10.09.2024.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and only notices have been issued and it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and once an order is passed then it is amenable to challenge under Section 25 or by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the relationship between the applicant no. 3 and the opposite party no. 2 is of husband-wife and other applicants are the in-laws at the stage of issuance of a notice, post filing of a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations as they are the subject matter of proceedings. What is to be seen is whether the complainant happens to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act, there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act, the respondents in the complaint answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q) and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act.

8. As a matter of fact, a complaint was lodged in the year 2015 under Domestic Violence Act which on compromise came to be decide, however, the present complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act alleges disposal of the earlier complaint. The opposite party no. 2/ wife is alleging that the applicants have committed domestic violence. The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegation is not a question which is to be seen at this stage. The allegations and the counter allegations between the parties are to be thrashed out once the proceedings commences. The extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. in the matter of the challenge raised to the complaint under Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on

19.05.2025, the following was observed: "35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated. 39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

9. Cumulatively analyzing the case from four corners of law, this Court finds that once the relationship of the opposite party no. 2 with the applicant no. 3 is of the husband and wife and the applicants are in-laws and looking into the nature of the allegations including the allegation that there is a shared household and the allegations who are respondent in the complaint, answer the description of respondent, this Court does not find the present case as an exceptional warranting interference, accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit taking all legal and factual grounds while contesting the application and, in case, such grounds are taken then this court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 A. Prajapati

Domestic Violence Act.) Asha Vs. Sri Krishna @ Lakhan and others Pending before Civil Judge, Atarra, District-Banda.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants herein are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, brother-in-law, cousin father-in-law, sister-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. The marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 3, 17 years ago from the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005 on

20.09.2024. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that even prior to lodging of the present complaint, a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 3 on 09.03.2018 and constant demands were being raised for fulfillment of the dowry and when the same was not satisfied then the opposite party no. 2, wife subjected to domestic violence. The said complaint was registered as Case No. 869/ix/15 which came to be decided on 05.02.2016 by virtue of a compromise so entered into between the parties wherein it was settled that the parties would be living with each other peacefully. Allegation is that without there being any cause now the impugned complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been lodged, creating a new cause of action on 10.09.2024, pursuant whereto the notices have been issued. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire allegations are nothing but bundle of lies just in order to set up the case and to harass the applicants as according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the applicant no. 3 who happens to be the husband is working as contract labour in an air conditioner company in Haryana and the opposite party no. 2 is a housewife who is living separately in village- Barehanda, Police Station Atarra, District Banda. It is also contended that no domestic violence was committed. Further submission is that in the month of December, 2015 on the basis of the mutual consent of the family members, there was a separation of the household and the properties which took place in the presence of well-wishers/ relatives.

4. Contention is that with respect to interference in the peaceful possession and property which belonged to the applicants, applicant no. 3 preferred a original suit in the year 2024 on

26.05.2024. With an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 is intending to sell the property in collusion with her parent. Submission is that no cause of action or incident took place so as to give any cause of action to the opposite party no. 2 to lodge the complaint and further no incident took place on 10.09.2024.

5. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be no orders have been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and only notices have been issued and it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings and once an order is passed then it is amenable to challenge under Section 25 or by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. The sole question which arises for determination in the present proceedings is to the extent of judicial intervention. Apparently, the relationship between the applicant no. 3 and the opposite party no. 2 is of husband-wife and other applicants are the in-laws at the stage of issuance of a notice, post filing of a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations as they are the subject matter of proceedings. What is to be seen is whether the complainant happens to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act, there is any domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act, the respondents in the complaint answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q) and there is a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act.

8. As a matter of fact, a complaint was lodged in the year 2015 under Domestic Violence Act which on compromise came to be decide, however, the present complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act alleges disposal of the earlier complaint. The opposite party no. 2/ wife is alleging that the applicants have committed domestic violence. The question as to whether there is any merit in the allegation is not a question which is to be seen at this stage. The allegations and the counter allegations between the parties are to be thrashed out once the proceedings commences. The extent of judicial intervention in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 B.N.S.S. in the matter of the challenge raised to the complaint under Domestic Violence Act came up for consideration in Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 decided on

19.05.2025, the following was observed: "35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated. 39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

9. Cumulatively analyzing the case from four corners of law, this Court finds that once the relationship of the opposite party no. 2 with the applicant no. 3 is of the husband and wife and the applicants are in-laws and looking into the nature of the allegations including the allegation that there is a shared household and the allegations who are respondent in the complaint, answer the description of respondent, this Court does not find the present case as an exceptional warranting interference, accordingly, interference is declined, the application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicants to contest the proceedings on merit taking all legal and factual grounds while contesting the application and, in case, such grounds are taken then this court has no reason to disbelieve then the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 A. Prajapati