Smt. Raj Kapur & Anr. vs State & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3793 Del

          * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of Reserve: July 27, 2010
                                            Date of Order: 13th August, 2010

+ Crl.M.C.No. 3290/2009 & Crl.M.A.No. 11179/2009
%                                            13.08.2010

       Smt. Raj Kapur & Anr.                  .. Petitioners
                      Through:Mr. Gaurav Puri, Mr. R.K.Mishra &
                      Ms. Gayatri Puri, Advocates

              Versus


       State & Anr.                           ... Respondents
                             Through:Mr. O.P.Saxena, APP for the State
                             Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Advocate for R-2


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners,

who are father-in-law and mother-in-law, for quashing a complaint

under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 qua them, made by respondent No.2. It is stated by the

petitioners that respondent no.2 was married about 27 years ago.

She was employed and was earning Rs. 40,000/- pm and was owner

of a new car and was working in a store viz. M/s. Atmosphere. She

had leveled various allegations against her husband and the only

allegations against the petitioners were that the jewellery gifted to

her by her family was in custody of petitioners. It is stated that the

jewellery was gifted to her 27 years ago and was in her exclusive

possession, she herself owned a locker in New Friends Colony being

locker No. NFC D-1097 NFCGF), where she had kept her valuable

items. She had a daughter who is 25 years old, unmarried and living

with her in the same house. She was not having harmonial relations

with her husband and was living separate from her husband for the

last 10 years in the same house at first floor. She was not having

any conjugal relations with her husband. There was no domestic

relationship or shared household between petitioners and

respondent no.2. Petitioner No.1 was heart patient and petitioner

no.2 was suffering from eye sight problem and they had been

unnecessary made parties to the application under Domestic

Violence Act and therefore application qua them should be quashed.

2. I consider that it would not be proper for this Court to

enter into an inquiry in respect of the application at this stage. It is

the duty of Metropolitan Magistrate, where the application has been

made, to ensure whether a domestic relationship existed between

the applicant and the petitioners in view of judgment of this Court in

Criminal M.C.No. 3878/2009 titled as Vijay Verma v. State NCT of

Delhi & Anr. decided today i.e on 13th August, 2010.

3. I, therefore consider that the learned MM where the

application is pending shall consider all facts and decide the

existence of domestic relationship between the parties and the

orders under the Act should be passed only after considering

whether any domestic relationship existed between the petitioner

and the respondent. With these directions the petition is disposed

of.

It is also directed that unless the petitioners' personal

appearance was very essential, the petitioners shall not be asked to

appear in person and they shall be allowed to be represented before

the Court by an Advocate.

August 13, 2010                     SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn