Latest Judgement

Court: Karnataka High Court

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

Gurudev S/O. Hanamant Gurav vs Jayashree W/O. Gurudev Gurav on 8 January, 2014

Law Point:
Bar on Filing DV After 1 Year As Per Section 468 CrPC

JUDGEMENT

1. Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both the Counsels, the matter is heard on merits.
2. It is seen from the records that the respondent- Jayashree W/o the first petitioner-Gurudev S/o Hanamant Gurvar lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for several reliefs. That is to say restraining the petitioners from dispossessing from the house and also for awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance etc. and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages. It is also alleged in the petition that the applicant therein has a right to share the house at Bagalkot with opponent No.1. The opponents ill-treated and tortured her, thereafter about 8 years back by beating his wife and daughter drove her out from the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that since then the petitioner is staying in the adjacent house of the opponent and opponent has neglected and even now harassing her under one or other pretext. Therefore, she is compelled to file petition under Domestic Violence Act.
3. In the petition it is not specified as to what is the nature of harassment that has been given by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petition is barred by limitation. The petition is filed alleging the incident taken place about 8 years back. Therefore, he contends that the petition under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – wife submits that, she has filed a suit for partition and separate possession and the said suit was decreed in respect of landed property and now she is residing in the house situated adjacent to the house of the petitioners herein. It is also submitted that the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce and the same is pending. Therefore, the petition under Domestic Violence Act is maintainable before the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the order passed by this Court in a similar matter in Crl.P.No.2419/2009 on 05.04.2013 and submits that the said order passed by this court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. For the purpose of better understanding whether the said order passed by this Court is applicable to the present case or not, it is just and necessary to look into the orders passed in that case.
   “In the said case also, the wife alleged that she lived with her husband in the matrimonial home up to November 2004 and she was pregnant by then. She was treated cruelly by the petitioner and his parents during that time. The wife left the matrimonial home as she could not tolerate the torture of her husband and she was compelled to eat certain substance in order to abort pregnancy. Making such allegations she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court has taken cognizance of an offence which has taken place in the year 2005 and issued summons to the petitioners. The learned judge of this Court has observed the cause of action in the said case was 4 years prior to the filing of the complaint. Under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the complaint could have been filed within one year. If the allegations made in the complaint are proved, the punishment is one year. On these grounds, this Court allowed the petition under Section 485 of Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings.”
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Divorce petition, an amount of Rs.1,000/- has already been awarded. It is admitted fact that the respondent has claimed maintenance in the divorce petition filed by her husband. She can workout her remedy so far as maintenance in the said Divorce Petition.
7. With these observations, I am of the opinion that, this petition under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed which was filed after lapse of 8 years. In view of the same and in view of the observations made by this Court in similar matters noted above, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. Hence, I Pass the following order:Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent herein in Crl.Misc.110/2003 before the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby quashed. Further the respondent is at liberty to agitate all these grounds in the Divorce Petition.