SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH Vs. SULOCHANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of Complaint Case No.1/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Akaltara on the ground that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent has been dissolved by decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Daltonganj (Jharkhand); application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') is filed after seven months from the date of grant of decree of divorce by the Court of competent jurisdiction; application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 is barred by limitation under Sec. 468 of CrPC.

(2.) Mr. Kalyaan Kalamkar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 is filed on 7/12/2018 i.e. after seven months of grant of decree of divorce in favour of petitioner No.1; respondent was residing separately since long time as appearing from application filed under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005, hence application itself is barred by limitation, as envisaged under Sec. 468 of CrPC. 'Aggrieved Person' is defined under Sec. 2 (a) of the Act of 2005 and 'domestic violence' is defined under Sec. 2 (f). As the Family Court has passed the order granting decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act of 1955') in favor of petitioner No.1 and in that proceedings respondent appeared through her counsel, therefore, application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 filed by respondent is not maintainable because respondent and petitioner No.1 were not having any domestic relationship on the date of filing of application. In support of his contention, he places reliance on decision of Hon'ble Court in case of Indrajeet Grewal vs. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 12 SCC 588.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that prior to threat given to respondent and her brother, which is specifically pleaded in application filed under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005, respondent was not aware about grant of decree of divorce by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamu at Daltonganj in favour of petitioner No.1. There is no delay in filing of application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 because respondent has also sought for relief of grant of maintenance / monetary relief as envisaged under Sec. 20 of the Act of 2005, which is continuous in nature. In application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 respondent has specifically pleaded that petitioner No.1 had obtained her signatures on some blank papers keeping her in dark that signatures are required for bank purposes. Even a divorced wife is entitled for amount of maintenance under Sec. 125 CrPC, therefore, in view of provision under Sec. 3 (5) and 20 of the Act of 2005, application filed under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005 by respondent is maintainable. It is further argued that in view of language used under the Act of 2005 with regard to status of applicant seeking relief under the Act of 2005, respondent, who lived together in a shared household at any point of time, can file an application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005. Mere dissolution of marriage, as alleged in this petition, would not dis-entitle respondent to seek benefits under the Act of 2005, which has been enacted with an object to protect rights and interest of a woman as also children. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision rendered in Ajay Kumar Reddy and ors vs. State of CG and ors reported in 2017 (4) CGLJ 331; Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and anr reported in (2014) 10 SCC 736;