1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 976 of 2014
1. Arjun Singh Banjare S/o Dr. N.L. Banjare Aged About 28 Years
2. Dr. N.L. Banjare S/o Late Shri Ramratan Banjare Aged About 52 Years
3. Smt. Ahilyabai W/o Dr. N.L. Banjare Aged About 47 Years
4. Bheem Singh S/o Dr. N.L. Banjare Aged About 30 Years
5. Vijay Banjare S/o Dr. N.L. Banjare Aged About 34 Years
6. Thansingh Banjare S/o Shri Ramratan Banjare Aged About 50 Years
All scheduled caste - Satnami, R/o Village- Pulgaon, P.S. - Pulgaon,
Post _ Borsibhatha, Ward No. 50 (Bhilai), Rev Tah and Dist Durg
(C.G.) R/o Village Pulgaon, Ps Pulgaon, Post Borsibhatha Ward No.
50bhilai Rev., Tah., And Distt. Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
• Smt. Archana Banjare W/o Shri Arjun Singh Banjare Aged About 27
Years C/o Shri D.R. Kurrey, Quarter No. 638 - 640/2a/4 Balco Nagar,
Korba C.G., Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 27/04/2022
1. The challenge in this petition is to the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence 2 Act, 2005 (for short 'Act of 2005').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife filed an application before the JMFC, Korba under the Act of 2005, however she never resided at Korba. He further submits that she was married to Petitioner No. 1 and only stayed for 10-15 days at Durg (her maternal house). He further refers to two orders passed during the pendency of this petition and the complaint made by the wife under section 498A of IPC, which was decided and the trial was completed on 02.03.2021, wherein all the petitioners herein were acquitted with a specific finding that no cruelty was proved under Section 498A of the IPC. He further submits that appeal having been filed against such acquittal the Sessions Court of Durg by order dated 22.10.2021 has dismissed the appeal. He further refers to certain findings recorded by the Sessions court and would submit that the wife only resided for 8 to 10 days at Durg, thereafter, she started residing at Katghora wherein she was working. Therefore, this finding would go to dislodge the claim filed under Act of 2005. He further referred to the judgment and the ground of appeal and would submit that the cause of action at Korba never arose.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent refers to the application filed under section 12 (1) of the Act of 2005 and the attention of the Court was invited to Para 3, wherein allegations were attributed in respect to petitioner No. 1 which was further extended to petitioners No. 1 to 3. It is stated that since the wife was assaulted and she was forced to stay at her paternal home as she was thrown away from the matrimonial house. He further refers to the decision rendered by the 3 Supreme Court in the cases of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others. reported in AIR 2019 SCC 1790 and in case of Ruhi Vs. Annes Ahmad and Ors. ( Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2020) decided on 06.01.2020.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. The primary ground which has been urged before this Court is on the point of jurisdiction, that cause of action at JMFC Korba did not arose, as the wife matrimonial house was at Durg.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi (supra) has observed that the provisions contained in Section 498 A of IPC undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. It further observed that even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. It further observed that her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The supreme Court at para 13 to 16 has observed. For the sake of brevity para 15 is reproduced herein under :-
" The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or 4 wellbeing, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised."
7. The object of the Act of 2005 is to cover those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. Therefore, the same analogy has been laid down by the Supreme Court which would be applicable in the case in hand in as much as the nucleus of issue of harassment . The averments in the petition and the complaints also speak loud about the fact that because of the behavior of the husband she was forced to take shelter at her paternal house. At this stage, since the challenge is only made to the jurisdiction issue, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the 5 case. Further following the principle laid down in the case of Rupali Devi (supra) and Ruhi (supra), the application filed by the respondent before the JMFC, Korba under the Act of 2005 is maintainable, therefore no case is made out in favour of the petitioners.
8. In view of this, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Jyoti 6 CRMP No. 976 of 2014 The petition of wife for domestic violence would be maintainable at place of parental home when in consequences of cruelty if she is forced to stay there.
;fn dzwjrk ds dkj.k iRuh vius ek;ds esa jgus dks etcwj gks tk,] ,slh fLFkfr esa ?kjsyw fgalk ds laca/k esa iRuh dh ;kfpdk ml LFkku ij tgkW mldk ek;dk gS] iks"k.kh; gksxkA