Vishal S/O Bhaskarrao Thakre vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Saoner ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6231 Bom

                                                1               15apl475.22.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 475/2022

1.      Vishal S/o Bhaskarrao Thakre,
        aged about 38 years, Occ. Pvt. Service,

2.      Bhaskarrao Laxmanrao Thakre,
        Aged about 66 years, Occ. Retired,

3.      Smt. Pushpa Bhaskarrao Thakre,
        aged 60 years, Occ. Household,

        All R/o. Bhojapur, Bhandara,
        Tah. & Dist. Bhandara,

                                                                       ....APPLICANTS

                                          VERSUS

1.      State of Maharashtra,
        through Police Station Officer,
        Police Station Saoner,
        Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.

2.      Sau. Mrunali Vishal Thakre,
        aged 36 years, Occ. Service,
        R/o. C/o. Dattatray Naik,
        Bajar Chowk, Ram Mandir Road,
        Saoner, Tah. Saoner, Dist. Nagpur.


                                                                 ....NON-APPLICANTS/
                                                                   RESPONDENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. M. Patwardhan, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. H. D. Dubey, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. D.R. Upadhay, Advocate for non-applicant No. 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2            15apl475.22.odt

                    CORAM                      : VINAY JOSHI, J.

                    CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT :         01.07.2022.
                    DATE OF JUDGMENT    :         04.07.2022.


JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. Admit. By consent of learned counsel appearing for

the parties, this application is taken up for final disposal.

3. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in Miscellaneous

Criminal Application No. 403/2018, the applicants have filed this

application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking quashing of the entire proceeding filed by non-applicant

No.2/wife in terms of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act ('D.V. Act'). The challenge is raised on two

counts, that is the parties have not lived in "shared household"

and secondly there are no specific allegations about the domestic

violence.

4. The non-applicant No.2/wife married with the applicant

No.1/husband on 12.04.2014. After marriage, they lived together

and blessed with a male child. In the month of November 2016, the

couple separated due to differences. Therefore, the non-applicant 3 15apl475.22.odt

No.2/wife alleging instances of domestic violence, has applied to the

Magistrate claiming multiple reliefs as available under the provisions

of D. V. Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would

submit that in absence of specific instances of domestic violence, the

Magistrate could not have invoked the provisions of the D. V. Act. It

is argued that soon-after the marriage, the couple started to reside

separately at Wardhan and then at Bhuwaneshwar in the State of

Orissa which were the working places of husband. It is submitted

that the non-applicant No.2/wife has not lived with her parents-in-

law at any point of time. After delivery of a child, non-applicant No.

2/wife never returned for cohabitation. She has secured job of

Teacher and thus, declined to stay at her matrimonial house. More

emphasis is laid on the point that the application is bereft of specific

instances of domestic violence.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non-

applicant No. 2/wife resisted application by contending that the

application gives a detail account of several instances about her

mental as well as physical harassment. Time and again, she has

been harassed to meet unlawful demands. She was frequently 4 15apl475.22.odt

humiliated and thus, she was harassed mentally as well as physically.

Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2/wife by placing

reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Shyamlal

Devda and others Vs. Parimala, AIR 2020 SC 762 would submit that

at this stage, prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate about the

instances of domestic violence are sufficient for issuance of

summons.

7. It is the case of non-applicant No.2/lady that she got

married with the applicant No.1 on 12.04.2014 and resumed

cohabitation at Bhandara which was her matrimonial house. She

has delivered a child from the wedlock. She reiterated that since

beginning, she has been persistently harassed to meet various

demands. Non-applicant No. 2/wife stated that from the very next

day of the marriage, she has been humiliated by the applicants. It is

her case that her mother-in-law used to quarrel and her husband

used to abuse and beat her at the instance of his parents. She has

given detail account about instances of demand of various articles

namely air conditioner, motorcycle, furniture, cooking gas etc. Non-

applicant No. 2/wife further stated that in the month of August

2014, when she was to shift at Wardha, the applicants did not allow

to take her household articles. During her stay at Wardha, she was 5 15apl475.22.odt

harassed and neglected by applicant No.1/husband. Non-applicant

No.2/wife has specifically stated that after delivering a child, she

resumed her matrimonial duties at the house of her husband. The

things were repeated as she has been harassed at the instance of

applicants.

8. Certainly, it cannot be said that the application is bereft

of instances of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the

D. V. Act. Though specific dates have not been mentioned, however

the application gives elaborate account as to how on particular

occasion non-applicant No. 2/wife has been harassed physically and

mentally. The applicants contended that the non-applicant No.

2/wife never lived at her matrimonial house, however it is a matter

of defence. The application itself discloses that soon-after the

marriage, she resumed her cohabitation at her matrimonial house

and lived with all applicants. The scrutiny at this stage is quite

limited to the extent of prima facie satisfaction. It is evident from

the application that the parties lived in "shared household". The

non-applicant No.2/wife has stated various instances and the

manner in which she has been harassed. Learned counsel for the

applicants though places reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in case of Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Smt Anushree Halder, 2003 6 15apl475.22.odt

CRI. L.J. 4470, however, he is unable to satisfy as to how the ratio

laid down in the said case would apply to the facts of this case. The

entire reading of application reflects commission of domestic

violence at the instance of applicants, and therefore, no case of

quashing is made out.

9. In view of above, the application is devoid of merits and

same stands dismissed.

10. Non-applicant No. 2 - Sau. Mrunali Vishal Thakre is

permitted to withdraw the amount which has been deposited in this

Court by the applicants.

JUDGE

Gohane

Digitally signed by JITENDRA JITENDRA BHARAT BHARAT GOHANE Date:

GOHANE     2022.07.05
           10:25:19 +0530