Bombay High Court
Raju Purushottam Satpute ( ... vs Sushma Raju Satpute And Another on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 wp 323-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No. 323 of 2020
Raju Purshottam Satpute and Others
Vs.
Sau. Sushma Raju Satpute and Another
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.A. Dhawas, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for the respondents
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 18, 2021
By this Writ Petition, the petitioners
challenged judgment and order dated 12/02/2020,
passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chandrapur,
whereby an appeal filed by the respondents was
partly allowed. In the order dated 26/07/2021, this
Court recorded the statement made on instructions
by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that insofar as the petitioner No.1 (husband of
respondent No.1) was concerned, the Petition was
being withdrawn. Accordingly, the Petition stood
withdrawn insofar as petitioner No.1 was concerned,
but, it was specifically stated that he had instructions
to press the Petition insofar as respondents No.2 to 6
were concerned. Thereafter, the learned counsel for
the petitioners sought time to place on record the
2 wp 323-2020.odt
depositions of the witnesses in order to support his
contention that the Sessions Court had erred in
holding that the petitioners No.2 to 4 had indulged in
domestic violence against the respondent No.1 and
that they had been erroneously directed to stop
indulging in such domestic violence.
2. Thereafter, the depositions of witnesses
were placed on record along with pursis. Today, the
Petition was taken up for final disposal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners No.2 to 4 invited attention of this Court to
the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of
respondent No.1, recorded before the Magistrate. It
was submitted that the allegations made by the
respondent No.1 were vague and general in nature,
thereby indicating that the Sessions Court had erred
in reversing the order of the Magistrate and holding
that the petitioners No.2 to 4 had inflicted domestic
violence on the respondent No.1.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that the oral
and documentary evidence on record was correctly
appreciated by the Sessions Court, while passing the
impugned order.
3 wp 323-2020.odt
5. This Court has perused the evidence of
respondent No.1. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondents No.2 to 4 took this Court into minute
details of the examination-in-chief and statements
made in the cross-examination by the respondent
No.1. A perusal of the same would show that not
only did the respondent No.1 give specific statements
about the mental and physical harassment, leading to
domestic violence inflicted by the husband, but also,
by the petitioners No.2 to 4. A perusal of paragraph
2 of the affidavit-in-evidence of the petitioner would
show that specific incidents of mental and physical
harassment were narrated. It was specifically stated
that the petitioners No.2 to 4, not only themselves
indulged in such activities of mental and physical
harassment but they also provoked the husband of
respondent No.1 to harass her. In the cross-
examination, nothing material has being brought out
to disbelieve the statements made against petitioners
No.2 to 4. The Sessions Court has been careful in
appreciating the evidence on record because the non-
applicants No. 5 and 6 before the Magistrate have
been absolved of any role insofar as domestic
violence is concerned, while petitioners No.1 to 4 i.e.
husband, mother-in-law, aunt of husband and cousin
sister living in the same matrimonial house, have
been found to have indulged in domestic violence, as
defined under the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Hence,
4 wp 323-2020.odt
this Court is of the opinion that no case is made for
interfering in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
