Dismissed

Naseema Khatun and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024A482/21117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a domestic violence complaint filed by a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and grandsons was rejected, the court relying on the Supreme Court decision striking down 'adult male' from the definition of respondent, making proceedings against females maintainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Naseema Khatun and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:192277

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21117 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Naseema Khatun And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Sachan,Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Saurabh Sachan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.03 of 2024 dated 03.01.2024, u/s 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005'), Police StationRawatpur, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned proceeding is not maintainable at the instance of mother-in-law of the applicant no.1. As per the definition of respondent u/s 2(q) of the Act, 2005, only the adult male could be termed as respondent not the female. The second contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned proceeding is in counterblast to the suit for injunction filed by the applicant no.1 against her brother-inlaw as well as opposite party no.2.

¶9

Per contra , learned AGA has submitted that the Apex Court in the year 2016 has already struck down the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned proceeding.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that opposite party no.2 is mother-in-law of applicant no.1 and other applicants are grandsons of opposite party no.2.

¶11

From perusal of Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005, it is clear that till the decision of the Apex Court in Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors reported in 2016 0 Supreme (SC) 832, in the definition of respondent the words 'adult male' person was there but the Apex Court has struck down in the aforesaid judgement in 2016 the 'adult male'. Now, the application u/s 12 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable against the male or female who is in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.

¶12

Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned proceeding is not maintainable at the instance of mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law and her sons is misconceived. So far as the second contention of learned counsel for the applicants, the impugned proceeding is counterblast to the injunction suit filed by the applicant no.1 against her brother-in-law as well as against opposite party no.2 is concerned, this is the defence of the applicants which can be taken by them during the trial of impugned proceeding.

¶13

In view of the above, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding.

¶14

Accordingly, the present application is rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 S.Chaurasia

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naseema Khatun and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Naseema Khatun and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhinay Verama vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Joshi and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohan Lal vs State of Up and Another

Ram Karan vs State of U.P. and Another

Mes Enterprises vs State of Up and Another

Ktr Paneer Proprietor through Tahir vs State of U.P. and Another