Siddartha B Mundasad vs Smt Asha V M
2022 Latest Caselaw 8200 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3315 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1.   SIDDARTHA B MUNDASAD
     S/O BASAVARAJ V MUNDASAD
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2.   BASAVARAJ V MUNDASAD
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

3.   SMT. ANNAPOORNA B MUNDASAD
     W/O BASAVARAJ V MUNDASAD
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     NO.F2, GURUPRASAD APARTMENT
     MASTIVENKATESH IYENGAR ROAD
     GAVIPURAM EXTENSION
     BANGALORE-560 018.
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

     SMT. ASHA V M
     W/O SIDDARATHA B MUNDASAD,
     D/O VIRUPAKSHA H M ,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                                  2



    R/O NO.1311A, 17TH 'A' CROSS
    SURYA CITY PHASE-I, CHANDAPURA
    ANEKAL TALUK
    BANGALORE-560 099.
                                                 ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE   ENTIRE   CRIMINAL   PROCEEDINGS    AGAINST   THE
PETITIONERS IN CRL.MISC.NO.858/2015 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL   CIVIL  JUDGE   AND     JMFC,  ANEKAL  AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET THE PETITIONERS AT THEIR LIBRTY.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON               FOR    FINAL
HEARING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The respondent has filed a petition under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 read

with Section 4 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging

that the 1st petitioner is her husband and petitioners No.2 and 3

are the parents-in-law and she was subjected to cruelty by the

petitioners and also there was a demand to bring money from

her parental home.

2. The learned Magistrate registered the case against

the petitioners and issued summons to the petitioners. Taking

exception to the same, this petition is filed.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent is legally

wedded wife of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner instituted a

petition in MC No.179/2012 for dissolution of his marriage with

the respondent on the ground of cruelty. When such being the

case, the respondent after entering appearance in the

matrimonial case filed the petition under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which

clearly implies that the petition is filed only as an after thought

so as to circumvent the matrimonial case filed by the

1st petitioner against the respondent. The judgment passed by

the Family Court, Bengaluru in MC No.179/2012 indicates that

the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent has been

dissolved and the 1st petitioner herein has been directed to pay a

sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent towards her permanent

alimony, and the same has attained finality. The Family Court

having held that the 1st petitioner was subjected to cruelty by

the respondent, the proceeding initiated by the respondent on

the alleged ground of cruelty cannot be allowed to be continued

to prevent the abuse of process of law.

5. In view of the preceding analysis, the petition filed

under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent is with an ulterior motive

to harass the petitioners and also the circumvent the proceeding

initiated by the 1st petitioner to dissolve the marriage with the

respondent. The dispute between the parties arises out of

marital discord, however, given criminal texture and the

continuation of the proceedings will be an abuse of process of

law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned proceeding in Crl.Misc. No.858/2015

pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, is

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkm