Sri Rajanikanth H.V. vs Smt. Sunttha K.

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 462 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in C. Mis. No. 1942/2010 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts Bangalore.

It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent is the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner, It is also an undisputed fact that the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the Petitioner herein for decree of divorce has been pending before the II Addl. family Judge, Bangalore in M.C. No. 465/2009. During the pendency of the said matrimonial case, the Respondent herein filed petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking relief''s as provided under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the said. Act, On receipt of the petition, learned Magistrate directed issue of notice to the Petitioner herein and others, who have been arrayed as Respondents. On receipt of the notice of the said petition, Petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate, When the matter was listed for filing objections, the Petitioner presented this petition seeking to quash the proceedings. However, it appears subsequently the Petitioner has filed his objections to the petition filed before the learned Magistrate,

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondent.

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the petition filed herein is as a counterblast for the matrimonial case filed by the Petitioner herein and two parallel proceedings are not permissible under law and the relief''s sought in this petition with regard to payment of maintenance could as well be sought by filing an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the matrimonial case and that the relief (a) sought in the petition with regard to providing right to the Complainant to reside in the schedule household. of the Petitioner herein as provided u/s 12 of the Act cannot be ordered since even according to the averments made in the petition, the Petitioner and the Respondent were, for some time, residing in the house belonging to his brother. Therefore, the relief as sought by the Respondent in the petition cannot be granted. As noticed supra, the Petitioner herein has already filed his objections before the learned Magistrate, refuting the allegations made in the petition. The learned Magistrate is required to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.

In this petition filed u/s 462 Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot go into all those objections raised by way of defence. The pleas raised in the objection are required to be considered by the learned Magistrate after holding enquiry as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, on this ground, this Court cannot quash the proceedings in exercise of power under Section. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Therefore, without expressing any opinion on these contentions, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, there are no ground to entertain this petition filed for quashing the proceedings. It is open to the Petitioner to pursue his objections filed before the learned Magistrate and call upon the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders thereon,

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.