Bhagwan Dass vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 14980 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 218/2019

1. Bhagwan Dass S/o Sh. Maganmal @ Maganlal, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Vaishay, R/o Near Ghanerav Ki Haweli And Charbhuja Mandir, Opposite Laxmi Pustak Bhandar, Inside Sojati Gate, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Smt. Veena W/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Aged About 59 Years, B/c Vaishay, R/o Near Ghanerav Ki Haweli And Charbhuja Mandir, Opposite Laxmi Pustak Bhandar, Inside Sojati Gate, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State, Through P.P.

2. Manish S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Vaishay, R/o Panchi Pulia, 8/146 Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

3. Bharti W/o Sh. Manish, B/c Vaishay, R/o Panchi Pulia, 8/146 Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

4. Narendra S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, B/c Vaishay, R/o Near Ghanerav Ki Haweli And Charbhuja Mandir, Opposite Laxmi Pustak Bhandar, Inside Sojati Gate, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

5. Shankar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass, B/c Vaishay, R/o Near Ghanerav Ki Haweli And Charbhuja Mandir, Opposite Laxmi Pustak Bhandar, Inside Sojati Gate, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi For Respondents : Mr. SK Bhati, P.P.

Mr. Manish Dadhich Mr. Nagraj Goswami

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 13/12/2022 Pronounced on 20/12/2022

1. This Criminal Writ Petition has been preferred claiming the

following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:

                                            (2 of 7)                [CRLW-218/2019]

      (i)   that   compromise      award       dated      22-04-2018   and   the

consequential orders dated 22-04-2018 and 23-04-2018 passed by the learned National Lok Adalat and Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in spirit of Lok Adalat may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioners are that the complainant-respondent

no.3-wife ("wife") filed applications under Sections 12 and 23 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the

Act of 2005"), at Annx-1, stating therein that her marriage was

solemnized on 16.02.2010, with the respondent no. 2-husband

("husband") as per Hindu rites and rituals. That of the wedlock,

two daughters were born to the couple. It was further averred that

after the marriage, the present petitioners ("in-laws") and the

husband, respondents no. 4 and 5 began harassing her with

demands for dowry, while compelling her to leave her matrimonial

home. That on 25.02.2017, she left her matrimonial home with

her two minor daughters. It was also averred that she was

subsequently residing in her parental home, and on requesting the

dowry articles to be returned to her, the same were denied to her.

2.1 That vide order dated 09.02.2018, at Annx-2, the learned

Court below partly allowed the application under Section 23 of the

Act of 2005, and directed the respondent No.2-husband to pay an

amount of Rs.1,500/- per month, towards maintenance to the

wife, from the date of filing application.

(3 of 7) [CRLW-218/2019]

2.2 That the wife preferred an appeal, at Annx-3, against the

aforesaid order before the learned Sessions Court, Jodhpur

Metropolitan for enhancement of the maintenance amount, which

came to be transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1,

Jodhpur Metropolitan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the

appeal preferred by the wife, neither the petitioners nor the

respondents no. 4 and 5, were impleaded as parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that

the wife and husband are residing together, and in collusion

submitted a joint compromise application, at Annx-4, before the

learned Appellate Court on 22.04.2018. Thereafter they appeared

before the National Lok Adalat and the compromise was verified

and accepted vide award dated 22.04.2018, and accordingly vide

order dated 23.04.2018, at and Annex-6, the appeal was disposed

of, in light of the said compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the

entire exercise, as aforementioned, was conducted behind the

back of the present petitioners, despite the fact that the petitioner

no. 1 is the sole owner of the property, where the wife and

husband agreed to reside together by way of the aforementioned

compromise award. That the petitioner no. 1 has already preferred

an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

Senior Citizens Act, 2007, at Annx-8, before the Sub Divisional

Officer to vacate the premises of the property in question, from

which the husband ousted his parents and locked the premises.

(4 of 7) [CRLW-218/2019]

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

counsel for the respondents-husband and wife opposed the

submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that

the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned

orders, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and

circumstances of the instant case and the evidences placed on the

record.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Saraswathy v. Babu (Criminal Appeal No. 1999/2013)

decided on 25.11.2013 and Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha

Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414; the judgment rendered by a Division

Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Sabana @ Chand Bai

v. Mohd. Talib Ali (D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.

362/2011) decided on 30.10.2013.

8. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

9. At the outset, without adverting to the facts and

circumstances of the present case, this Court observes that the

order, dated 09.02.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, with

regard to the applications preferred by the wife under Sections 12

and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005, respectively, the present petitioners and the proforma

respondents, being respondents no. 4 and 5, were impleaded as

parties, by the wife. However, in appeal, the wife impleaded only

the husband, being respondent no. 2, as a party, which was

disposed in light of the compromise arrived at between the wife

(5 of 7) [CRLW-218/2019]

and the husband before the National Lok Adalat; the same is

assailed by the present petitioners by way of the present writ

petition.

10. This Court further observes that all the interested parties in

the property in question, including the present petitioners and

proforma respondents, deserved to be granted an opportunity of

hearing before final decision of the appeal. Section 21 sub-Section

(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 states that every

award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all

parties to the dispute, however, as discussed hereinabove, the

present petitioners, being interested parties in the property in

question, were not impleaded as parties to the appeal and

therefore were also not parties to the compromise arrived at

therein.

11. This Court takes note of the sensitivity of the instant matter,

as on one side, the present petitioners are aged senior citizens

who fear dispossession from their house, being the property in

question, while on the other side, the daughter-in-law/wife, being

respondent no. 3, also fears dispossession from her matrimonial

home, a shared household within the definition clause, Section 2

(s) of the Act of 2005, of herself and her two minor daughters.

12. This Court further observes that both the legislations, being

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and

the Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are

welfare and beneficial legislations, being special enactments made

to protect the interests of two vulnerable classes. In the case of a

conflict of interests between the two said legislations, the Hon'ble

(6 of 7) [CRLW-218/2019]

Apex Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) has

made the position crystal clear, that the interests of both such

parties, ought to be balanced and must be decided, in the given

factual matrix and on a case to case basis.

12.1 It is thus a crystallized position of law, that in the case of

acrimony between such vulnerable classes of society, no straight-

jacket formula could be applied, and would in fact requires a

harmonious interpretation of the laws, looking into the overall

facts and circumstances of each case.

13. This Court thus finds that the issue that arises for

adjudication is one, which is based on facts, and not on law.

Therefore, it would be appropriate for the learned Court below to

adjudicate upon the same, after all the interested parties to the

property in question are afforded an opportunity of hearing, and

to place on record all evidences relevant to their case, as advised

and strictly in accordance with law.

14. This Court, looking into the soured relationships between the

parties in the instant case, and the fact that both parties fear

physical assault at the hands of the each other, directs the present

petitioners and the private respondents to appear before the SHO,

Police Station Sadar Bazar, Jodhpur and the SHO, Police Station,

Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur alongwith appropriate

representation regarding their grievance. The SHO(s) of the said

police stations shall in turn hear the grievance of the petitioners,

and after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may

pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection

to the parties. However, it is directed that the status quo, as it

(7 of 7) [CRLW-218/2019]

exists today, in respect of the property in question, shall be

ensured to be maintained by both the parties in the present case.

15. As an upshot of the above discussion, and taking into

consideration the ratio decidendi of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja

(supra), this Court quashes and sets aside the compromise

award dated 22-04-2018 and the consequential orders dated 22-

04-2018 and 23-04-2018 and remands the matter back to the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan

with a direction to decide the matter afresh on merits and stricty

in accordance with law, after taking necessary parties to the

property in question on record, and keeping into consideration the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Satish Chander Ahuja (supra). The learned court below is

hereby directed to decide the matter expeditiously in the interest

of justice, preferably within a period of 6 months from today,

strictly in accordance with law.

16. The present petition stands allowed accordingly. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)