IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P. NO. 776/2014 BETWEEN SRI. S. SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O SIR SANTHOJI RAO R/O NO. 26, 1ST "B" CROSS KAKAIPPA LANE NANJA REDDY COLONY HAL AIRPORT ROAD BENGALURU-560 017 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. G. SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. V. USHA @ BABY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS D/O SRI VENKOBA RAO 2. BABY KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS D/O SRI. S. SRINIVASA RAO & SMT. USHA @ BABY SINCE MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BOTH ARE R/O NO. 47 VENKATASWAMY COLONY ITI LAYOUT, B.NARAYANAPURAM BENGALURU-560 016 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. S. NAGANANDINI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 77/2012 PENDING BEFORE THE MMTC-I BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the action initiated against him by the respondent under Section 12 r/w. Sections 18.
19. 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act.).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Respondents have no cause of action to invoke the provisions of the D.V. Act, as Respondent No.1 herself deserted the petitioner in 2005 and since then, she has been living separately with Respondent No.2 and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to subject the respondents for domestic violence. Further he submits that the averments made in the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of any of the offences under the provisions of the D.V. Act; on the other hand, the statements made by the respondents indicate that the petitioner herein had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(1a) and (1b) of Hindu Marriage Act and the said petition was allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.1 was dissolved by a Decree of Divorce. The respondents have also filed a separate application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance and thus, the respondents having resorted to adequate remedy to indicate their grievance, there was to propriety on the part of the respondent instituting the instant complaint, which in the circumstances of the case, amounts to abuse of process of the court and hence, he seeks to dismiss the proceedings pending on the file of the learned Magistrate in C.Misc. No.77/2012.
3. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, clear averments are found in the petition attracting the ingredients of the offence under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act. The decree obtained by the petitioner in MC No.435/2009 was challenged by respondent No.1 before this court in MFA No.642/2012. By order of this court, the respondents have now filed a Miscellaneous Case praying to set aside the ex-parte decree obtained by the petitioner. The said decree does not preclude the respondents from invoking the provisions of the Act. Likewise, the pendency of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. also does not create a bar to maintain the instant petition. As the averments made in the petition clearly make-out the offence under the provisions of the Act and the matter is under consideration of the competent court, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
4. Upon considering the rival submissions and the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the impugned proceedings. It is seen from the complaint that specific averments are made in the petition to the effect that, after marriage, petitioner subjected Respondent No.1 to ill-treatment provoking her to commit suicide. Necessary averments in this regard find a place in Para-4 of the petition. The very pendency of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. pre-supposes that the petitioner has neglected to maintain and look after the respondents. Pendency of the said petition does not debar the respondents from seeking appropriate relief under the provisions of the D.V. Act, in view of Section 26 of the Act. As the material on record clearly discloses the grounds for relief under the provisions of the Act, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*