Oral Order:
The first proceeding is filed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of Criminal Misc.Application No.176/2011 which is pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. The said proceeding is filed for some reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by respondent no.1.
2. The second proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing and setting aside the proceeding of R.C.C.No.107/11 which is pending before JMFC, Bhusawal and which is filed by police for offence punishable u/s 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC. After investigation of the crime u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on private complaint filed by respondent no.1, charge sheet is filed by police. Both sides are heard.
3. In respect of first proceeding, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that as per the record, respondent no.1 was living separate from her husband for more than 4 years and so, learned JMFC ought not to have entertained the proceeding. He placed reliance on some observations made by this Court in the case reported as (Sejal Dharmesh Ved V/s State of Maharashtra and Others). This Court has carefully gone through facts of this reported case and observations made. The marriage between the parties had taken place in the year 1999 and wife had returned to India in the year 2009. She filed application under aforesaid Act in the year 2010 and in view of facts of that case, the Court held that such proceeding ought to have been filed within reasonable time and Court held that the application was not tenable. The facts of the present case are not that similar. There are allegations in respect of ill treatment given to respondent in Surat and there are allegations that the husband that he had left respondent no.1 to her parents house as he wanted to desert her. It is her case that no provision was made for her maintenance and she has no source of income. It is her case that ill treatment was given to her as the husband and his relatives were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and the husband wanted Rs.2 lakh more. She could not conceive even after 10 years of marriage and so, husband wanted to marry second wife. Husband has filed proceeding for divorce against respondent no.1 under the provisions of Section 13(1)(1a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Police have filed criminal case against husband for offence u/s 498-A of IPC after making investigation of the complaint dated 14/6/10. Specific incident dated 13/6/10 is mentioned in the complaint. Thus, facts of the case in hand are altogether different.
4. Definition of "aggrieved person" is given in Section 2(a) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is as under:
"2(a) "aggrieved person" - means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
5. In Section 2(f) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, definition of "Domestic Relationship" is given as under :
"2(f) "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."
The definition of "Domestic Violence" is given in Section 3 of the said Act as under :
"3) Definition of domestic violence - For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it -
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well being whether mental or physical of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I - For the purposes of this section -
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman ;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes -
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) "economic abuse" includes -
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person in entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II - For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration."
6. Part (iv) regarding economic abuse of this definition can be used in the instant case. The wording of Section 12 of aforesaid Act under which the procedure for obtaining orders or reliefs under the Act is given shows that no time limit is fixed for filing of such proceeding and what is required is to show that the applicant is aggrieved person as defined under the Act.
7. Thus in strict sense, no time limit is fixed for filing of the proceeding if aforesaid things are made out by wife. For consideration of such proceeding, the purpose behind provisions of Act need to be kept in mind and particularly when definition of domestic relationship shows that a person like respondent is required to show only that there was relationship between her and the husband at any point of time as described in the definition. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that observations made in the case cited supra are of no help to the petitioners.
8. One more ground was argued in respect of this proceeding. It was submitted that the same allegations are made by respondent in the complaint which was filed by her for offence u/s 498-A of IPC. It was submitted that either of the 2 proceedings need to be stayed in view of the nature of contents of the 2 proceedings. This Court holds that this proposition is misconceived. The purpose behind the 2 proceedings is altogether different and the 2 proceedings need to be heard and decided separately in view of the nature of the proceedings and the final order which can be made in the proceedings. Thus, on second ground also, the petitioners have no case in Writ Petition No.631/11.
9. In Writ Petition No.815/11 it was submitted for the petitioners that the private complaint was filed after more than 4 years of separate residence and it can be said that it was filed after more than 4 years of alleged ill treatment given to the complainant. It was submitted that as most of the period cohabitation was at Surat and as the complaint is filed in Bhusawal, JMFC ought not to have entertained the complaint. These submissions are also not acceptable. There is some record. In the complaint, specific incident dated 13/6/10 is mentioned and in respect of this incident, there are allegations against the accused that on that day he had come to Bhusawal and he had committed offence described in para no.3 of the complaint. Police of Bhusawal made investigation and the charge sheet is now filed against the petitioners. There is also record like the applications made to police authority by respondent no.1 prior to filing of the complaint. This record also shows that the wife was interested in returning to the matrimonial house and she was taking all possible steps for the same. Much was argued in respect of circumstance that there is mention in the say filed by respondent Ritesh that due to illness, wife was living with her parents. It is the defence of Ritesh but the wife has contended that she was left to her parents house by husband and he deserted her. There are allegations made by her that the husband was demanding Rs.2 lakhs from her. Thus, there is sufficient material to make out prima facie case for the offences for which charge sheet has been filed. In view of these circumstances this Court holds that it is not possible to quash and set aside proceedings of criminal case also.
10. The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2010 (2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 523, Nagpur Bench (Satish @ Rajendra Harbans Tiward and Ors V/s State of Maharashtra and another). In this case, in view of the facts of the case, the Court held that the complaint was not filed within 3 years from the date of offence and so, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence u/s 498-A of IPC. As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 2762 (Japani Sahoo V/s Chandra Sekhar Mohantry) period of limitation needs to be counted from the date of complaint. There cannot be dispute over this proposition. This Court has gone through the relevant material, and the complaint which show that the cognizance of the offence could have been taken in view of the date of last incident dated 13/6/2007.
11. In the result, both petitions stand dismissed. The Sessions Court is to see that both matters are brought in one Court of JMFC and the JMFC is to see that for convenience of both sides, both matters are kept on the same date, though cases are to be decided separately.