Bombay High Court
Rajnibai Madhukarrao Tarale And 3 ... vs Leena Vijay Tarale on 4 July, 2022
Bench: V. G. Joshi
Judgment apl1234.21
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APL] No. 1234/2021.
1.Rajnibai Madhukarrao Tarale,
Aged 72 years, Occupation
Household,
2.Gajanan Madhukarrao Tarale,
Aged 53 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist,
3.Sau.Radhika Gajanan Tarale,
Aged 47 years, Occupation
Household.
Nos.1 to 3 resident of Civil Lines,
Near B & C Office, Daryapur,
Tq.Daryapur, District Amravati.
4.Sau.Madhuri Rajendra Kadam,
Aged 49 years, Occupation -
Household, resident of Shinde Nagar,
Weekly Market, Yavatmal,
District Yavatmal. ... APPLICANTS.
VERSUS
Leena Vijay Tarale,
Aged 39 years, Occupation -
Housewife, resident of Pravin Nichal,
Parvati No.1, Ekvira Villa,
Flat No.402, Amravati. ... NON-APPLICANT.
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
2
---------------------------------
Mr. V.B.Bhise, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr.K. Rao, Advocate h/f. Mr.P.S.Patil, Advocate for the
Non-applicant.
----------------------------------
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 22.06.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07.2022.
JUDGMENT :
Heard. Admit. Considering the controversy involved in the
matter and by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,
Criminal Application is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission.
2. By this application, applicants have prayed to quash the
proceedings i.e. application filed by the non-applicant - wife, in
terms of Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter
referred to as "the D.V.Act" for short). Applicant No.1 is mother-in-
law, applicant no.2 is brother-in-law, applicant no.3 is wife of
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
applicant no.2 and applicant no.4 is sister-in-law of the non-
applicant.
3. It is contended that the provisions of the D.V. Act could
not have been invoked against applicants in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The very maintainability of the
application has been questioned on the ground that the application
[filed under DV Act], no where discloses that there was domestic
violence or the parties were living in domestic relationship.
4. The learned Counsel for applicants would submit that the
non-applicant - lady has made general, vague and omnibus
allegations against applicants. Neither specific instances are quoted,
nor dates about the alleged harassment are set out in the application.
On the other hand the non-applicant has supported the order of
issuance of notice by contending that the non-applicant - wife has
made out a prima facie case constituting that the parties lived in a
shared household and there has been domestic violence.
5. With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
parties, the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was
perused. The husband of the non-applicant - lady who is original
non-applicant no.1 in the application under D.V. Act, is not party to
this application. In other words the husband has not challenged the
maintainability of the proceedings under D.V. Act. The facts are such
that the marriage between the couple took place in 21.07.2003.
After marriage the non-applicant resumed cohabitation at the house
of her husband where his relatives were residing. The non-
applicant / lady gave birth to a male child on 27.08.2004. The
aggrieved lady has stated that since inception she was subjected to
mental and physical harassment. Soon after the birth of the child,
applicants did not allow her to remain with the child. On the
contrary, three year old child was sent for residence at the house of
applicant no.4 - Madhuri [sister-in-law] for educational purpose.
Time and again the non-applicant / lady expressed her desire to
meet the child, but, she was not allowed.
6. The non-applicant / lady averred that applicants used to
abuse and threaten her. She was humiliated by saying that no dowry
was paid in the marriage. She has stated various instances of
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
harassment occurred in the year 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2020. She
stated about her physical, mental and emotional harassment at the
hands of applicants. As regards to applicant no.4, Madhuri [sister-
in-law], it is stated that she had also visited at her matrimonial house
and harassed her. As and when the non-applicant / lady went to
the house of Madhuri, she was humiliated and abused. On the
premise of such allegations, the non-applicant/lady has filed
application under the D.V. Act claiming multiple reliefs.
7. Section 2[g] of the D.V.Act defines the term "Domestic
Violence" as having the same meaning as assigned in Section 3 of the
D.V.Act. The said provision elaborately defines physical, mental,
physiological, sexual and economic abuse faced by the women in
domestic relationship. Prima facie, the non-applicant/ lady has
made allegations about her mental, physiological and emotional
abuse, therefore, at the threshold it cannot be said that the
application filed under D.V. Act does not spell out the instances of
domestic violence.
8. The case of applicant no.4 Madhuri [sister-in-law] stands
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
on different footing. Admittedly since inception she was residing
separately at Yavatmal with her husband. Her casual visits at the
house of the non-applicant cannot be termed that she was living in
shared house. There are no specific allegations against her to
constitute domestic violence. It is informed that son of the couple is
staying with Madhuri and taking education at Junior College, for
which there is no dispute. In absence of any specific instances of
domestic violence against Madhuri, it would be an abuse of the
process of Court in continuing the proceedings against her.
9. The learned Counsel for applicants by placing reliance on
the decision of this Court in case of Prabhakar Mohite and
another .vrs. State of Maharashtra and another - 2018 [6] Mh.L.J.
[Cri]. 478, would submit that in absence of specific allegation, the
action under the D.V.Act would not lie merely on the basis of vague
and general contentions. There can be no dispute about said
proposition, however, on the basis of facts of each case the material
is to be examined to find out whether there exits sufficient material
to constitute the action initiated under the D.V.Act. However, as
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
Judgment apl1234.21
discussed above, the non-applicant has placed sufficient material on
record against the rest to prima facie constitute domestic violence at
their hands.
10. In view of above, Criminal Application is partly allowed.
Criminal Application No.165/2021 filed by the non-applicant wife
stands quashed as against applicant no.4 Madhuri [sister-in-law] /
only. The Criminal Application shall continue against the rest.
JUDGE
Rgd. RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA
05.07.2022 10:45
