Partly allowed

Rushikesh Madhukarrao Ajabe and Others v. Swati W/O Rushikesh Ajabe and Another

Bombay HC5 Jul 2023APPLN/1244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed Criminal Misc Application No. 675/2019 filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against applicants Nos. 4 to 9, holding that the complaint did not specifically allege a domestic relationship or shared household with them.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc Application No. 675/2019 is quashed and set aside qua applicants Nos. 4 to 9.

Rushikesh Madhukarrao Ajabe and Others Vs Swati W/O Rushikesh Ajabe and Another — Bombay HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

criappln1244.22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1244 OF 2022

¶5

Rushikesh s/o Madhukarrao Ajabe & others

¶6

Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Swati w/o Rushikesh Ajabe & another Respondents

¶9

Mr. B. K. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. R. U. Hanwate, Advocate for the applicants.

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 5^th JULY, 2023.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

At the outset, when this Court has shown disinclination to grant relief to applicants No. 1 to 3, learned counsel for the applicants on instructions seeks leave to withdraw application to the extent of these applicants.

¶13

Applicants have preferred this application seeking quashment of Criminal Misc Application No. 675/2019 fled by respondent/wife against them under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶14

¶15

criappln1244.22.odt

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that complaint lodged under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by respondent herein does not make specifc allegation against the applicants and prima facie, no case is made out by her about causing domestic violence to her.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents states that there are allegations against respondents No. 8 and 9 which indicate that they were staying together with the respondents herein.

¶18

For the purpose of attracting provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the person should be in domestic relationship in order to fle complaint against him. Perusal of the application fled by respondent/wife before the Magistrate does not show specifcally that respondents No. 4 to 9 were staying along with the applicant/respondent herein and that they shared household with her. Unless such averment is made, there is no propriety in going into the other allegations levelled by the respondent against them. In view of this, case is made out for quashment of the proceedings against respondents No. 4 to 9.

¶19

criappln1244.22.odt

¶20

¶21

In view of above, Criminal M. A. No. 675/2019 stands

¶22

quashed and set aside qua applicants No. 4 to 9 only.

¶23

Application stands disposed of in above terms.

¶24

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶25

dyb

Rushikesh Madhukarrao Ajabe and Others v. Swati W/O Rushikesh Ajabe and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rushikesh Madhukarrao Ajabe and Others v. Swati W/O Rushikesh Ajabe and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikrushna Rajendra Kolhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Janardhan Kakde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ajinath Gorakh Jagdale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gayabai Wd/O. Sadhurao Kotambe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Nityanand Jayant Bhogle Vs Sachin Uttamrao Gaikwad

Mohammed Dilshad Kaleem S/O. Mohammed Peer Pasha Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another