Rehana Parveen W/O. Shaikh Rahim ... vs Humaira Firdos W/O. Quazi Javed
2022 Latest Caselaw 8239 Bom

                                                                       APPLN-130-19.odt




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 130 OF 2019

1. Rehana Parveen Shaikh Rahim
   Age: 47 years, Occu.: Household,
   R/o Bismillah Colony, Aurangabad
   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

2. Nasrin Begum Wahajoddin Siddiqui
   Age: 42 years, Occu.: Teacher,
   R/o Mustafa Park, Vaijapur,
   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

3. Razia Begum Sharifuddin
   Age: 67 years, Occu.: Household,
   R/o Aref Colony, Aurangabad,
   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

4. Mohammad Javed Mohammad Sharifuddin
   Age: 44 years, Occu.: Nil,
   R/o Aref Colony, Aurangabad,
   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

5. Mohammed Mujahid Sharifuddin
   Age: 40 years, Occu.: Nil,
   R/o Aref Colony, Aurangabad,
   Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad                               ..APPLICANTS

      VERSUS

Humaira Firdos Quazi Javed
Age: 38 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o Bhadkal Gate, Near I.T.I. College,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad                      ..RESPONDENT

                                     ....
Mr. R.H. Wagh, Advocate for applicants
Mr. M.N. Shaikh, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent
                                     ....



                                      1 / 6



       ::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2022               ::: Downloaded on - 25/08/2022 10:02:08 :::
                                                                           APPLN-130-19.odt



                                      CORAM        : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
                                      RESERVED ON  : 01st MARCH, 2022
                                      PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd AUGUST, 2022


ORDER :

1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. It has been filed with following prayer :-

"B. The proceeding PWDVA No. 05/2018 filed by respondent against present applicants before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class at Aurangabad under sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against all applicants may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice."

2. The respondent is the wife of Applicant No.4 - Mohammad

Javed. Their marriage took place way back in 2005. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2

are the married sisters-in-law of the respondent. Their marriages took place

before respondent married Applicant No.4. Both these applicants reside at

their respective marital houses. Applicant No.3 is said to be the age old

mother-in-law of the respondent. Applicant No.5 is her disabled brother-in-

law.

3. The respondent has filed a proceeding (PWDVA No. 5 of 2018)

against the applicants herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

2 / 6

APPLN-130-19.odt

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('PWDV Act'). Prayers in the said

proceeding are as under :-

"B) The non-applicant may kindly be directed to produce the minor children before this Hon'ble Court and the Court may kindly hand over the custody of minor children to the applicant, otherwise the City Chowk Police may kindly be directed to receive the custody of minor children of applicant and hand over them to the applicant.

C) The non-applicant may kindly be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- per month to applicant no.1 and her three children from the date of 17/10/2017.

D) Non-applicant no.1 be further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant towards marriage expenses. E) Non-applicant no.1 may kindly be further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to applicant as a compensation for spoiling the life of the applicant and abused her physically, mentally, economically and sexually.

F) The respondent no.1 may kindly be further directed to provide separate residential house in shared house or to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent."

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that a false and

concocted proceeding has been initiated by the respondent. The documents

on record would indicate that all was not well between the respondent and

her husband. The respondent made number of complaints with various

authorities. On 2-3 occasions, the matter was settled between the two.

Applicant No.4 had brought the respondent back to her matrimonial home.

3 / 6

APPLN-130-19.odt

He had also agreed to allow her to stay at her parental house with a view to

maintain her and keep conjugal rights. The respondent has also filed

proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against all the

applicants. According to learned counsel, the submissions made by the

respondent in her complaint applications to various authorities are grossly

inconsistent with each other. According to him, if proceeding under the

PWDV Act is allowed to continue against the present applicants, it would be

an abuse of process of Court. He, therefore, urged for grant of application.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent adverted this Court's

attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent. All the allegations

in the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been denied.

According to learned counsel, the averments made in the complaint are only

to be seen. Veracity thereof would be subject of trial of the case. He has

relied on judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bhaskar Lal Sharma and

Another Vs. Monica and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 383. According to

learned counsel, the averments in the proceeding under the PWDV Act are of

questions of fact. Such proceedings cannot be quashed in exercise of

inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel

took this Court through the complaint/PWDVA No.5 of 2018 to ultimately

urge for rejection of the application.

4 / 6

APPLN-130-19.odt

6. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the complaint

and the related admitted documents. The respondent married Applicant

No.4 way back in 2005. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are the married sisters-in-law

of the respondent. Applicant No.1's marriage took place way back in 1995.

She has been residing at her matrimonial home. Applicant No.2 got married

in 2005 and has been residing at Vaijapur. She has been serving as a teacher

in a Urdu school. Applicant No.3 is sixty-seven years old mother-in-law of the

respondent. Applicant No.5, the brother-in-law, is physically disabled. The

documents on record indicate it is a case of long standing marital discord

between Applicant No.4 and the respondent. Way back in 2009, the

respondent had made a complaint against her husband to Imam of Jama

Masjid, Aurangabad. A compromise was worked out. The terms of settlement

were inked. From the recitals thereof it doesn't appear that the respondent

had any grievance against her in-laws. Even after the settlement, that took

place in August 2009, again dispute arose. Again the settlement was arrived

at in June 2012. A copy of the settlement is on record. From the recitals

thereof it appears that the respondent did not have grievance against any of

her in-laws.

7. This Court is basically concerned with the averments in PWDVA

NO. 5 of 2018. A close reading thereof would indicate that general and

omnibus allegations are levied against all the applicants. It has not been

specified therein as to when Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had come to their

5 / 6

APPLN-130-19.odt

parental home and harassed the respondent. True, all the possible allegations

made against all the applicants herein without any details thereof. Had the

respondent any grievance against her in-laws, all of them would have been

privy to the terms of settlement/s. True, the respondent has a prima facie

justifiable grievance against her husband - Applicant No.4. A prayer has also

been made against him for payment of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance of

respondent and minor children. For want of specific averments attributing to

Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 with particular overt act and details thereof, this

Court finds that continuing the proceeding of PWDV Act against these

applicants would be an abuse of process of Court. There can be no dispute

over what has been observed by the Apex Court in case of Bhaskar Lal

Sharma (supra). The facts of the said case would indicate that a detailed

recital of the manner in which the appellants and Respondent No.2 therein

had allegedly ill-treated the respondent - complainant after the marriage had

been set out. Same is not the case herein.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Court is inclined to allow

the application so far as Applicant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are concerned in terms of

prayer clause (B). Application stands dismissed so far as Applicant No.4 is

concerned.

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD

6 / 6