IMTIYAZ AHMED GOVE Vs. GULNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in respect of Crl. Misc. No. 128/2013 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Court, Dharwad filed by the respondent herein under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'D.V. Act' for brevity). The learned counsel for petitioners in support of petition averments has submitted that the respondent has deserted her husband i.e., petitioner No. 1 and started living separately. He further contends that she has executed a "Khulanama" (divorce without intervention of Court). Further it is submitted that even if the entire petition averments are translated into evidence there are no allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 in the Crl. Misc. No. 128/2013 filed under Section 12 of D.V. Act. Thirdly, he has submitted that though the petitioner No. 1 was not residing in the address given before trial Court i.e., resident at C/o. Gafarsab, Opp. Safa Hall, Mallapur, Dharwad, it is urged that only for the purpose of filing the petition the said false address has been given.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that whatever the factual aspects submitted by either side has to be proved before the trial Court by leading evidence. At this stage when the matter requires evidence, the Court cannot give any finding on any factual aspects and quash the entire proceedings.

(3.) AT this stage, in my opinion, whether the respondent -complainant has been residing at opposite to Safa Hall, Malapur, Dharwad or only for the purpose of lodging petition before the trial Court she has chosen the said place in order to harass or cause inconvenience to the petitioners, has to be thrashed out by the Court only on the basis of the evidence to be led by the parties to the proceedings. There are materials against the petitioners with regard to work load put on the complainant and also not providing proper food to her. All these things have to be looked into by the trial Court in order to ascertain whether the complaint is maintainable against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 or not. Before filing any objections to the petition, in my opinion, all these allegations cannot be considered and appreciated by this Court for the first time, if it is done it amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Hence, I refrain from doing that.