Ankit Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 132 MP

                                1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020
     Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated:04-01-2022

      Shri Sankalp Sharma, Advocate for applicants.

      Shri APS Tomar, Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for

quashing of complaint filed by respondent no.2 under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short "the DV

Act"), which is pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior in MJCR

No.593/2020.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in

short are that the respondent no.2 and the applicant no.1 are husband

and wife having got married on 28/11/2017 at Gwalior in accordance

with Hindu rites and rituals. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that

as per the demand of the applicants, cash amount of Rs.15,00,000/-,

diamond necklace, diamond ring, three gold chains, a set of bangles,

four gold rings, Mangalsutra, anklets, necklace etc., ornaments of

worth Rs.15,00,000/- were also given. It was alleged that an amount

of Rs.25,00,000/- was also spent by the parents of the respondent

no.2 in making arrangements for marriage and clothes worth

Rs.5,00,000/- were also given. At the time when the articles were

being given, the applicants had assured that since the articles are

Stridhan of respondent no.2, therefore, the applicants would remain

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

in possession of the same as a trustee and whenever the Stridhan is

demanded by respondent no.2, the same shall be returned, but the

applicants are not returning the Stridhan of respondent no.2 and have

utilized the same for their own personal use with dishonest intention.

It is further alleged that immediately after the marriage, the applicant

no.1 demanded money for going to New Zealand for honeymoon

purposes and accordingly, the air fare was paid by the father of

respondent no.2. Although the respondent no.2 is a vegetarian, but

the applicant no.1 was compelling her to consume liquor as well as

non-vegetarian food. When the respondent no.2 refused to do so, then

the applicant no.1 got annoyed and made a demand that the

respondent no.2 should ask her father to give an additional amount of

Rs.40,00,000/-. When the respondent no.2 came to her matrimonial

home at Gwalior, then the applicants again made a demand of

Rs.40,00,000/-. When the father of the respondent no.2 could not

fulfill the demand of Rs.40,00,000/-, then the applicants abused

respondent no.2 and her parents and also quarreled with them. The

applicant no.1 was not interested that the respondent no.2 should

continue with her job and, therefore, the applicant no.1 has not taken

the respondent no.2 with him so far. The respondent no.2 was in job

at Rudrapur and during holidays she used to visit her matrimonial

house at Moradabad. On one day when the applicants no.2, 3 and 4

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

found that the respondent no.2 has come to her matrimonial house,

then she was stopped at the door itself and they said that in case if

she has brought Rs.40,00,000/-, only then she will be allowed to

enter inside her matrimonial house and accordingly, she was thrown

out of the matrimonial house and was not allowed to enter inside the

same. The applicants were harassing her physically and mentally for

demand of Rs.40,00,000/- and they were saying that only after the

amount is paid, she would be allowed to reside with her husband. On

15/4/2018 the the applicant no.1 came to India and the respondent

no.2 went to Delhi Airport to receive him. Both of them stayed in a

hotel where the applicant no.1 again made a demand of

Rs.40,00,000/- and abused her as well as also gave a beating to her,

as a result, hotel staff etc. came there. The police was also summoned

and thereafter, the applicant no.1 ran away from the hotel. The

respondent no.2 with an intention to save her matrimonial life did

not lodge the report and left the hotel in the morning after making

payment of all the dues and informed her parents. The applicants are

sending E-mails that now the respondent no.2 has been relieved from

her relationship. The applicant no.1 is also creating all sorts of

obstructions in the job of the respondent no.2. Neither the applicants

are making arrangements for maintenance of the respondent no.2 nor

they are allowing her to enter inside her matrimonial house and even

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

they are not permitting her to stay there. Whenever the respondent

no.2 goes to her matrimonial house, then she is never allowed to

enter inside and the applicants are not making arrangements for the

basic needs of respondent no.2. They are harassing respondent no.2

physically as well as mentally for demand of money. The applicants

no.2 to 4 are out and out to get the applicant no.1 remarried. The

applicant no.1 is a high paid person having sufficient means and he is

in the habit of living a luxurious life. As the respondent no.2 was fed

up with the domestic violence, which was being meted out to her,

therefore, she made a written complaint on 24/10/2019 to the Women

and Child Welfare Officer, City Center, Gwalior and accordingly, the

application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act was filed for the following reliefs:-

i- To pass an order of protection under Section 18 of the DV

Act.

ii- To pass an order for providing residence under Section 19

of the DV Act.

iii- To pass an order of monetary relief under Section 20 of

the DV Act, i.e., Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses,

Rs.10,00,000/- by way of damages on account of use of

Stridhan by respondent no.2, Rs.5,00,000/- towards

physical and mental harassment, Rs.30,000/- towards

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

food, medicines, clothes etc., Rs.50,000/- towards house

rent, Rs.10,000/- towards other expenses and basic needs.

iv- To pass an order of compensation or damages under

Section 22 of the DV Act to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.

v- To pass an order under Section 23 of the DV Act and any

other order which may be appropriate under the facts and

circumstances of the case.

3. Challenging the proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the

DV Act, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the

occasional visit to her matrimonial house would not bring her case

within the definition of "shared household" as defined under Section

2 (s) of the DV Act and, therefore, the application is not

maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

5. It is not out of place to mention here that the application under

Section 12 of the DV Act has not been filed seeking the relief under

Section 19 of the DV Act and it has also been filed seeking the reliefs

under Sections 18, 20, 22 and 23 of the DV Act. Whether the

respondent no.2 is entitled for an order of residence in any portion of

the shared household is the only question which has been raised by

the applicants.

6. Section 2 (f) of the DV Act reads as under:-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

(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 are family members living together as a joint family;

7. Section 2 (s) of the DV Act reads as under:-

(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household."

8. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that she is doing job in

Rudrapura and whenever she visited her matrimonial house, she was

ousted and was not allowed to reside in the same. So far as the

question that whether the visit of the respondent no.2 to her

matrimonial house can be said to be a flying visit with no intention to

conveniently reside there or it can be said to be a shared household is

concerned, undisputedly applicant no.1 is residing abroad, whereas

applicants no.2 and 3 are residing in Muradabad and it is the case of

respondent no.2 that whenever she visited her matrimonial house,

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

domestic violence was committed with her and she was ousted. The

Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha

Ahuja reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414 has held as under:-

57. After noticing the ratio of the above judgments, Section 2(s), which uses both the expressions "means and includes" and looking to the context, we are of the view that the definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition. The first part of definition begins with the expression "means" which is undoubtedly an exhaustive definition and second part of definition, which begins with word "includes" is explanatory of what was meant by the definition. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that even if it is accepted that the definition of Section 2(s) is exhaustive, his case is fully covered in both the parts of the definition.

58. The use of both the expressions "means and includes" in Section 2(s) of the 2005 Act, thus, clearly indicate the legislative intent that the definition is exhaustive and shall cover only those which fall within the purview of definition and no other.

59. Now, reverting back to the definition of Section 2(s), the definition can be divided in two parts, first, which follows the word "means" and second which follows the word "includes". The second part which follows "includes" can be further sub-divided in two parts. The first part reads "shared household means a household where the person aggrieved has lived or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent". Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The second part sub-divided in two parts is-- (a) includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

person and the respondent and owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity, and (b) includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. In the above definition, two expressions, namely, "aggrieved person" and "respondent" have occurred. From the above definition, the following is clear : (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.

68. The words "lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship" have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, the 2005 Act was enacted to give a higher right in favour of women. The 2005 Act has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the 2005 Act grants an entitlement in favour of the woman

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.

70. We are of the view that this Court in S.R.

Batra v. Taruna Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] although noticed the definition of "shared household" as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] that definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of "shared household" is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman, of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of "shared household" as put by this Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.

9. It is not the case of the applicants that respondent no.2 had

never visited her matrimonial house at Muradabad. By referring to

the affidavit filed under Section 23 (2) of the DV Act, which is at

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

page 28, it is submitted that respondent no.2 has stated that she had

stayed with the applicants from 29/11/2017 till February, 2018. It is

submitted that even if the respondent no.2 had stayed in her

matrimonial house at Muradabad for a period of two and half months,

still it cannot be said that there was an element of permanency and

thus, the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act is not

maintainable.

10. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

applicants.

11. The provisions of DV Act are beneficial in nature. Any

interpretation which may lead to frustration of the beneficial

legislation must be avoided. A destitute woman cannot be deprived of

her residence in her matrimonial house. It is not the case of the

applicants that respondent no.2 is not residing in her matrimonial

house at Muradabad on her own. On the contrary, it is the case of the

respondent no.2 that she is working at Rudrapura. Undisputedly, the

applicant no.1 is residing at 6815 Ne Vinings Way Apt 912 Hillsboro,

Or 97124. It is not the case of the applicants that they are making

payment of any maintenance amount. Thus, for the purpose of her

survival if she is working, then it cannot be said that she is not

residing at her matrimonial house at Muradabad voluntarily. In fact,

under the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.12163/2020 Ankit Jain and others Vs. The State of M.P. and another

respondent no.2 is residing at Rudrapura under compulsion to earn

livelihood for her survival and, therefore, it cannot be said that the

visit of respondent no.2 to her matrimonial home is without any

element of permanency.

12. At the cost of repetition, it is once again held that since the

application under Section 12 of the DV Act has not been filed for

solitary relief under Section 19 of the DV Act, therefore, even

otherwise the proceedings cannot be quashed.

13. As a consequence, the application fails and is hereby

dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.01.07 16:39:13 +05'30'