MD. MONIRUL ISLAM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S C Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2

(2.) The petitioners herein namely 1. Md. Monirul islam, 2. Hamida Begum 3. Nazrul Islam and Semina Parbin have been arrayed as a party respondent in the CR Case No. 489/2016 filed by the respondent No. 2 Rejina Ahmed, which is pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Barpeta and the said Court has issued notice to the present petitioners vide order dated 22.4.2016 to appear before the Court in connection with the aforesaid case filed under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Challenging the impugned order of issuance of notice, and the entire proceeding, the present petition under section 482 of CrPC, 1973 read with Sec. 397/401 of Crimial P.C. has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid proceeding on the 3 (three) grounds. Firstly, that there was no any valid married between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2. Secondly, that there was no specific allegation as against the rest of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 towards such domestic violence. Thirdly, that the party i.e. the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 resided in a rented house so that can't any sort of act of domestic violence on the part of the other in-laws of the respondent No. 2.

(3.) Merit in the facts, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although there was a marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 as on 26.04.2013 before the Notary but they neither solemnized any social marriage nor cohabited in the house of the petitioner as a husband and wife. According to the petitioner No. 1 although he was ready to solemnize social marriage with the respondent No. 2 but being an unemployed youth, he was unable to marry her despite his willingness in the compelling circumstances. The respondent No. 2 with a view to compel to social marriage filed criminal case against him under section 498(A) of Penal Code vide Barpeta PS case No. 300/2016, which was however compromised and thereafter petitioner No. 1 on 02.07.2015 took her to rented premises and begin to reside there but according to the petitioner on the ground above, there can't be any case of domestic violence against the petitioners more particularly, against the in laws i.e the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. But all of them have been robed in the said proceeding and the learned trial Court has issued notice to them to appear before the Court.