Basanagouda Patil and Others vs Shashikala

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 455/2014 pending on the file of the JMFC, Yadgiri.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent. I have carefully perused the materials on record.

It is seen from the record that, respondent herein Smt. Shashikala wife of respondent No. 1/Sri Channareddy before the JMFC, Yadgiri, filed a petition under Section 12 r/w Sections 9, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After getting the report on the basis of the said petition the Court has issued the notice to the petitioners herein and immediately they approached this Court. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that they are father and mother of respondent No. 1/Sri Channareddy before the JMFC, Yadgiri, because of the relationship without any allegations or grounds under any of the provisions under the Domestic Violence Act, they were made as parties unnecessarily to harass them. Therefore, the said petition is not maintainable against them, it virtually amounts to misusing the provision of Domestic Violence Act, by the petitioner before the JMFC, Yadgin.

For easy understanding and convenience the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court is retained.

These petitioners are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial Court. The petition filed under Section 12 r/w Sections 9, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is carefully perused by me. It is throughout the petition, the allegations are made against the respondent No. 1/Channareddy, except mentioning that these two respondents are the father and mother no substantial allegations are made in. order to attract any of the provision of Domestic Violence Act. At paragraph No. 2 of the petition, it is narrated that after marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, both of them started living at Katharki Village for about 5 to 6 months and thereafter, they have shifted themselves to Bangalore, wherein the respondent No. 1 was working in Garment Factory and for a period of three years they stayed there. At paragraph No. 3, she again made the allegations against the respondent No. 1, that he developed illicit intimacy with a lady by name Rajeshwan and thereafter started harassing the petitioner herein and he neglected and refused her from looking after her with all love and affection and failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner. In a passing remarks in the said paragraph it is stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the father and mother, they did not advised respondent No. 1 and not taken any steps to convince the respondent No. 1, but they have supported the respondent No. 1, but in what manner they supported respondent No. 1 is not at all spoken to. Perhaps the petitioner was frustrated with regard to the activity of respondent No. 1, who has developed illicit intimacy with some other lady that may be the reason that his father and mother have also been made as a party, by stating in one sentence that they did not advise their son to give up the said relationship, in my opinion, that itself is not sufficient to attract any of the provision of the Domestic Violence Act.

At paragraph No. 4, it is stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 1, in the year 2008 thrown her out from his house and thereafter she came and started residing with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, for some time, they also ill-treated and harassed the petitioner. Therefore, she went to her parents house at Gunjanoor village. In this particular paragraph also nothing has been stated what ill-treatment or harassment that has been given by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is not the allegation that they voluntarily thrown her out from her matrimonial house. It is stated that she went to her parents house at Gunjanoor village, because of ill-treatment and harassment, the nature of harassment should be of such a nature that she was forced to leave the said house no such allegations are there in the said paragraphs. Even, otherwise it is no where stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are responsible for the purpose of making any separate residential accommodation to the petitioner herein. It is the responsibility of respondent No. 1 to take care of his wife. At paragraph No. 6 also nothing has been stated and at paragraph No. 8, it is only stated that in spite of reconciliation there was no response by the respondents to take back the petitioner. Therefore, the Protection Officer has filed the report. At paragraph No. 6, it is only made allegations against the respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 is gamingfull employed as a salaried person not made any arrangements towards maintenance and respondent No. 1 to 3 have also got sufficient income from other sources. Therefore, they are liable to maintain the petitioner. It is fundamental and prime responsibility of respondent No. 1/husband to maintain his wife and children, in the absence of respondent No. 1 the responsibility of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 comes into picture.

Looking from the above said averments made in the petition except stating that the petitioners herein have not advised their son to give up his illicit relationship nothing more has been spelt out in order to attract any of the provision of the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the respondent has made these two persons as a parties may be with an intention to see that if they are made as parties the matter may be compromised, but such an attitude should not be encouraged by the judicial Courts unless there are certain foundation in the petition in order to attract the provision of Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners herein should not be called upon to answer the allegations in the petition which do not constitute any of the ingredients of the Domestic Violence Act. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, the petitioners herein have made out a substantial grounds to quash the proceedings against them. However, it is made clear that the entire allegations are made against respondent No. 1/husband the petition shall continue against the said person.

With these observations, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 401/2013 pending on the file of the JMFC Yadgir, so far it relates to the petitioners herein (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the trial Court) is hereby quashed. The trial Court can continue with the proceedings so far it relates to the respondent No. 1 before it is concerned.