IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8362 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT BENNAPPANAPALYA (V) MAGADI(T), RAMANAGARA DIST-562131 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL FOR JEETHU R S, ADVOCATE) AND MUNIRATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT BENNAPPANAPALYA (V), MAGADI (T), RAMANAGARA DIST-561231 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: B N MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 FOR MAINTENANCE IN CRL. MISC. NO.506/2013 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MAGADI AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC. NO.506/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MAGADI.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent is absent. Perused the records.
2. Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint filed under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘D.V. Act’) pending on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Magadi, Ramanagara District in C.Misc.No.506/2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averments made in the complaint do not make out the grounds for proceeding against the petitioner under section 12 of D.V. Act. At the earlier instance, respondent herein filed a criminal case against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under sections 376, 417 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and after trial, petitioner was acquitted of the said charge by order dated 01.03.2006. This order clearly reveals that there was no relationship in the nature of marriage between the petitioner and respondent. Under the said circumstances, presentation of the complaint under section 12 of D.V. Act is malicious and ulteriorly motivated only to harass the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. VELUSAMY vs. D. PATCHAIAMMAL reported in (2010) 10 SCC 469 and INDRA SARMA vs. V.K.S. SARMA reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
4. In the application, it is specifically stated that the petitioner herein has accepted the respondent as his natural wife. Their marriage had taken place in a temple and both were living together for almost a year. Out of their physical relationship, a male child by name Renuka Kumar B.R. was born to them. These averments, in my view, clearly attract the ingredients of section 2(f) of the D.V. Act On the same point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarma has held that sexual relationship and the birth of children is one of the strong indication to determine the domestic relation between the parties. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments made in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of provisions of section 12 of D.V. Act, cannot be accepted. The contention urged by the petitioner is a matter of evidence which require to be substantiated only during trial. Said contention cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. As a result, I do not find any justifiable reason to accept the prayer made in the petition.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-