IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4722/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Munirathna Reddy, S/o. late Sesha Reddy, Aged about 72 years, 2. Smt. Santha Reddy @ Shanthakumari, Aged about 60 years, W/o. Munirathna Reddy, Both are residing at No.9-79, Panduranganagara Colony, Shanthinagara Post, Hyderabad – 500 018.
3. Smt. Soujanya Reddy, W/o. Narendra Reddy, D/o. Munirathna Reddy, Aged about 42 years, 4. Narendra Reddy, S/o. Doraswamy Reddy, Aged about 48 years, Petitioners 3 and 4 are Residing at No.E-407, SJR Red Wood Apartments, Haralur Road, Bengaluru – 560 102. …Petitioners (By Sri. H.V. Subramanya, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Shilpa G. Reddy, W/o. Pavan Srikant Reddy, Aged about 34 years, C/o. V. Venugopal, # 879, 26th Main Road, 9th Cross, HSR Layout, Bengaluru – 560 102. …Respondent (By Smt. Rohini & N.K.Kamala, Advocates – Absent) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.87/2016 filed under Sections 12 and 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending on the file of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru against the petitioners.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Counsel for respondent is absent. Perused the records.
2. Respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’, for short) claiming reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act.
3. The averments made in the complaint indicate that marriage of respondent was performed on 14.05.2006. Thereafter, she started residing with her husband at Hyderabad. It is alleged that from the inception of her marriage, her life in the matrimonial house was not good and relationship with her husband was not cordial.
4. Respondent has not claimed any relief against the petitioners herein. The reliefs claimed in the petition read as under:
“(i) to grant permanent custody of the complainant 2 and 3 to the complainant 3.
(ii) to direct the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the complainant 1 to 3 for their survival, education and daily needs and medication.
(iii) to direct the first respondent to pay the first complainant a compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) (iv) to pass an order for the protection of the complainants from the respondents by restraining the respondents from harassing complainants and interfering with the life of the Complainants.
(v) To award the cost of the petition.”
5. The only allegation made in the complaint with regard to petitioner No.2 is that she has taken gold jewels given by respondent’s parents at the time of wedding. But, no relief has been claimed in this regard. In the absence of any relief having been claimed in the petition, in my view, joining the petitioners in the petition is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of Court. Thus, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners being an abuse of process of Court, is liable to be quashed.
Consequently, petition is allowed. Prosecution initiated in C.Misc.No.87/2016 on the file of the MMTC – VI, Bengaluru, is quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE SV