Criminal Writ Petition No. 631 of 2011. Case: Ritesh Ratilal Jain and Ors Vs Sandhya W/o. Ritesh Jain and Anr. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition No. 631 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: Uday Malte, Adv. and For Respondents: A. M. Gholap, D. R. Korde, APP. |
| Judges | T. V. Nalawade, J. |
| Issue | Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005) - Sections 3, 12; Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 498A; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 3909 |
| Judgement Date | June 26, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
The first proceeding is filed for quashing and setting aside the proceeding of Criminal Misc. Application No.176/2011 which is pending in the Court of JMFC, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. The said proceeding is filed for some reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by respondent No.1.
-
The second proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing and setting aside the proceeding of R.C.C.No.107/11 which is pending before JMFC, Bhusawal and which is filed by police for offence punishable u/Ss. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of IPC. After investigation of the crime u/S. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on private complaint filed by respondent No. 1, charge-sheet is filed by police. Both sides are heard.
-
In respect of first proceeding, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that as per the record, respondent No.1 was living separate from her husband for more than 4 years and so, learned JMFC ought not to have entertained the proceeding. He placed reliance on some observations made by this Court in the case reported as 2013 (5) LJ SOFT 48 [Sejal Dharmesh Ved v. State of Maharashtra and others]. This Court has carefully gone through facts of this reported case and observations made. The marriage between the parties had taken place in the year 1999 and wife had returned to India in the year 2009. She filed application under aforesaid Act in the year 2010 and in view of facts of that case, the Court held that such proceeding ought to have been filed within reasonable time and Court held that the application was not tenable. The facts of the present case are not that similar. There are allegations in respect of ill treatment given to respondent in Surat and there are allegations that the husband that he had left respondent No. 1 to her parents house as he wanted to desert her. It is her case that no provision was made for her maintenance and she has no source of income. It is her case that ill treatment was given to her as the husband and his relatives were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and the husband wanted Rs.2 lakh more. She could not conceive even after 10 years of marriage and so, husband wanted to marry second wife. Husband has filed proceeding for divorce against respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Section 13(1)(1a) of Hindu Marriage Act. Police have filed criminal case against husband for offence u/S. 498-A of IPC after making investigation of the complaint dated 14/6/10...
To continue reading
Request your trial