DURGA Vs. BHAGYASHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision application has been filed against parents-in-law of the respondent challenging order passed by learned Magistrate on 16-11-2019 below Exhibit 08 in Domestic Violence Application No.286 of 2018, thereby refusing to delete / discharge the present applicants from the petition which has been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 by the respondent.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Hemant Surve for revision applicant and learned Advocate Mr. N. L. Choudhari for respondent.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the revision applicants that, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that, there are absolutely no averments about the domestic violence in the matrimonial home or the place where the respondent and her husband i. e. son of the present revision applicants is residing. The present revision applicants are residing at Malkapur Dist. Buldhana, whereas their son original respondent No.1 who is a government servant resides at Washim Dist. Washim in connection with his job. Original respondent No.1 is serving as a Development Ofcer with District Sericulture Ofce. The marriage was performed on 20-12- 2016, and after the marriage the original applicant started residing with respondent No.1 at Washim. Original respondent No.3 was also a government servant, now retired. He along with his wife were residing at Malkapur Dist. Buldhana. Merely because the revision applicants are parents of original respondent No.1, it cannot be stated that they have committed acts of domestic violence on original applicant. Perusal of entire application by the applicant before the learned Magistrate is not clarifying as to how they can be the respondents as defned in Domestic Violence Act as no relief has been claimed against them. Original respondent No.3 has undergone heart surgery and is constantly under medication, so also his wife is under medication. They are of advanced age and, therefore, cannot undertake travelling to Aurangabad. The learned Advocate for the revision applicant relied on the decision in, Ronak Anilbhai Modi and others v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Application No.2242 of 2017, decided by this Court on 21-12-2017, wherein on the basis of the vague contentions as well as the fact that the parties were residing at diferent place since the date of marriage, the proceedings against them were quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further reliance has been placed on the decision in Shamlal Devra and others v. Parimala, reported in 2020 (3) SCC 14, wherein also the relatives of the husband also residing in Chennai, Rajasthan and in Gujarat, they were also added as respondents and, therefore, the proceedings against them were quashed. The learned Advocate for the revision applicant therefore submitted that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court be invoked under Section 397 the of Code of Criminal Procedure and the illegal order be quashed and set aside.