RAM LAKHAN SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is the father -in -law of the 2nd respondent, has approached this Court seeking two reliefs - one is to declare Section 27(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ,,the DV Act), as ultra vires Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and secondly to quash the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, in complaint No. 22487/2008 pending in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar M.M. New Delhi.

(2.) THE specific case of the petitioner is that his son was married to the 2nd respondent in a ceremony that took place at Mumbai on 05.12.2007. After the marriage, both of them resided in the matrimonial house at Dahisar, Mumbai. She stayed at the matrimonial house for a very limited time, as disputes arose between the parties, she left for her parents house. It is alleged that on 13.12.2007, she lodged a false and fabricated complaint at Mumbai vide FIR No.386/07 under Sections 498 -A and 406 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., against the petitioner and his son, who were arrested and The 2nd respondent filed an application seeking later released on bail. cancellation of bail, which was dismissed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on 27.12.2007. After dismissal of that application, the respondent preferred the present complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act before the learned ACMM New Delhi on 01.03.2008. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the 2nd respondents parents are permanent residents of Noida, U.P., she has filed the complaint at Delhi on the ground that she enrolled herself at Bharatiya Vidhya Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, in a part -time diploma course of four months duration in French language. Incidentally, this part time course ended on 30.05.2008. Initially, the learned ACMM did not entertain the complaint as the entire cause of action had taken place at Mumbai, but finally complaint was taken on file by the Magistrate on 31.03.2008. On 13.05.2008, the complaint given by the complainant under Sections 498 -A and 406 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. was dismissed.

(3.) HENCE , the petitioner contended that even though no cause of action had taken place at Delhi and when the whole cause of action had taken place at Mumbai, the respondent only with an intention to harass the petitioner has filed the complaint at Delhi taking advantage of "temporary residence", as specified in Section 27(1)(a) of the D.V. Act, which is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law, contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the constitution.