Crl.
Misc.
not M-22751 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-22751 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:
4. 3.2013.
Nirmal Dass and another ........Petitioners versus Amandeep Kaur @ Rubi ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent....SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No.9 of 2009 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 had got married to the respondent in August 2003.
Thereafter, respondent left the matrimonial home.
Petitioner No.1 had moved a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights.
The said petition was decreed in ex parte.
However, the respondent failed to join the company of petitioner No.1.
Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed by petitioner No.1 and a decree of divorce has been passed on 28.3.2009.
Thus, no offence under the Protection Crl.
Misc.
not M-22751 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is made out.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service.
In the present case, petitioner No.1 had got married to the respondent in August 2003.
They lived together as husband and wife.
Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) seeking a decree for restitution of Conjugal Rights.
The Copy of the judgment passed in the said proceedings has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.
A perusal of the said judgment reveals that respondent had failed to appear in the said proceedings.
The case of the petitioner was that the respondent had left the matrimonial home in May 2005 but had failed to return back to the matrimonial home thereafter.
Hence, decree for restitution of Conjugal Rights was passed in favour of the petitioner on 28.2.2007.
Thereafter, petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce.
In the said proceedings also respondent failed to appear and ex parte decree of divorce was passed in favour of petitioner No.1 on 28.3.2009 (Annexure P-2).The complaint in question has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners and others under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A perusal of the complaint Annexure P-3 reveals that case of the respondent is that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home in August 2008.
However, the said fact is belied by the judgments passed in proceedings under Section 9 and 13 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the couRs.Crl.
Misc.
not M-22751 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - of arguments, has submitted that till date respondent has not so far challenged the ex parte decree of divorce passed in favour of petitioner No.1.
The factum of passing of the decrees under Section 9 and 13 of the Act was noticed by the Trial Court while passing the order of maintenance.
Thus, the said decrees are within the knowledge of the respondent.
In these circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Complaint No.9 of 2009 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 04, 2013 Gurpreet