Delhi High Court

Ruby Shukla vs Sonil Trivedi & Ors on 8 February, 2016

$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
          +     CRL.M.C. 516/2016 & Crl.M.A. No.2135/2016

                                       Date of Decision: February 08, 2016

     RUBY SHUKLA                                    ..... PETITIONER
                            Through     Ms.Smriti Sinha, Adv. with
                                        Ms.Vidhi Gupta, Adv. &
                                        Ms.Vasundhara, Adv.

                            versus

     SONIL TRIVEDI & ORS                              ..... RESPONDENTS
                   Through              Nemo.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

                                      ORDER

P.S.TEJI, J (Oral)

Crl.M.A. No.2135/2016

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CRL.M.C. 516/2016

2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner

under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, seeking inter alia quashing of the order dated 10th

December, 2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge/Special Judge (CBI) and the order dated 25th July, 2014

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are within the

narrow compass and to the extent necessary, noted hereinafter.

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 was

solemnized on 1st December, 2009 as per Hindu rites and customs.

According to the petitioner, all marriage functions were held in a

five star hotel of Kanpur and a large amount of money was spent

not only on gifts and jewellery but also in fulfilling the other

demands of respondents, by the parents of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that despite fulfilling all

demands, the petitioner was misbehaved and insulted by the

respondents for not bringing sufficient dowry.

4. Aggrieved by the domestic violence alleged to have been

perpetrated on the petitioner by her husband and other family

members who are arrayed as respondent nos.2 to 4 herein, the

petitioner filed a complained registered as CC No.273/2/2014

dated 22nd July, 2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against them before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate. As per the petitioner, the reply

stated to have been filed by the respondents, was vague and not

tenable in the eyes of law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated 25th July,

2014 without taking into consideration the procedure established

by law and only issued process against the husband (respondent

no.1 herein) holding that no domestic relationship existed between

the petitioner and other family members who were arrayed as

respondents.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 27th September,

2014 under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, challenging the order dated 25th

July, 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, to the

extent of issuance of process against the respondent/husband only

for committing an assortment of domestic violence, as according to

the petitioner, she was subjected to cruelty and violence by all the

respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

in order to further aggravate the agony of petitioner, the

respondents had filed a petition being WP (Crl.) No.812/2015

before this Court seeking quashing of FIR No.18/2015 registered at

the behest of petitioner under Sections 498-A/406/120B of the

Indian Penal Code, wherein the respondents had alleged that the

petitioner is in a live-in relationship with the husband of

respondent no.2 herein and that the said allegation had also been

used by respondent nos.2 & 3 in civil suit which is pending

adjudication.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that vide impugned order dated

10th December, 2015, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has

erroneously dismissed the appeal of the petitioner without taking

into consideration the pleas raised by the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sou. Sandhya Manoj

Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. in Crl.Appal

No.271/2011 on 31st January, 2011 to the extent that an

interpretation of Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005,

shows that the female relatives of the husband or male partner are

not excluded from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under

the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In support of

his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on paras 11

to 15 of the judgment, which read as under:-

"11. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decisions, both of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, in relation to the interpretation of the expression "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference, Section 2(q) of the above- said Act is extracted hereinbelow :-

"2(q). "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner."

12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.

13. It is true that the expression "female" has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression "relative", nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.

14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

15. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression "respondent" in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act."

10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. I

have carefully gone through each and every allegation levelled by

the petitioner in her petition against the respondents and perused

the available records. I have also the judgment Sou. Sandhya

Manoj Wankhade (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

11. It transpires from the record that there are no specific

allegations against the other respondents. It is also an admitted

fact that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent

no.1 was solemnized on 1st December, 2009 and as the respondent

no.1 was residing in United States even prior to their marriage, on

12th December, 2009, they left for United States. During that

interlude of ten days, the petitioner resided only for a period of

seven days at her in-laws home at Kanpur with respondent nos.2 to

4. It was also alleged that the petitioner also visited Tirupati

Temple and stayed in a hotel and also went for Pagphere Rasam at

her parental house and stayed there which clearly establishes that

petitioner's stay at her matrimonial home was temporary, which

would not establish domestic relationship in shared household.

Thus, the matrimonial home/shared house of the petitioner and

respondent no.1 was in the United States. Hence, as per the

provision of Section 2(f) of Domestic Violence Act, 2004, there

was no sharing of domestic relationship between the petitioner and

respondent nos.2 to 4. Section 2(f) of Domestic Violence Act,

2005 reads thus:-

"2(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or any family members living together as a joint family."

13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated

10th December, 2015, has rightly held that there is nothing on

record to show that the appellant ever intended to share the

domestic relationship either with the respondent no.2 Manju

Trivedi or respondent no.3 Geetika Trivedi and respondent no.4

Monika Trivedi, as the husband was settled in USA and the

petitioner was aware that she also had to stay at USA after

marriage and not at Kanpur. The learned ASJ has further rightly

held that stay of the petitioner at Kanpur was for a very limited

period and from the said stay itself, it could not be inferred that the

petitioner had shared domestic relationship with the respondent

no.2-Ms.Manju Trivedi and similarly stay of the petitioner with