Partly allowed

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others v. Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali

Bombay HC13 Oct 2023WP/337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners lacked averments establishing a domestic relationship and domestic violence. Consequently, the writ petition invoking quashment powers to protect the petitioners from the proceedings was partly allowed, quashing the complaint qua specific petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Writ Petition was partly allowed and the pending proceedings PWDVA No.14 of 2018 were quashed qua petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9.

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others Vs Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

920 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2023

¶3

Sachin Hanumant Mali Age: 31 years, Occu: Private Job, R/o. Ramnagar, Kakade Plot, In front of Tukaram Mandir, D.I.C. Road, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad At Present :- Swaraj, Somnath Nagar, Wadgaon Sheri, Pune, Dist. Pune

¶4

Hanumant Bhagwan Mali Age: 62 years, Occu: Retired, R/o. Ramnagar, Kakade Plot, In front of Tukaram Mandir D.I.C. Road, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

¶5

Anita Hanumant Mali Age: 56 years, Occu: Household, R/o. As above.

¶6

Sunil Hanumant Mali Age: 32 years, Occu: Private Job, R/o. As above

¶7

Sujata Mahesh Kore Age: 32 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Nanaj, Tq. & Dist. Solapur.

¶8

Mahesh Shankar Kore Age: 36 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Nanaj, Tq. & Dist. Solapur

¶9

Mahesh s/o. Baburao Mali Age : 45 years, Occu : Teacher,

¶10

1/6

¶11

R/o. Mali Coaching Classes, Near Shivaji Maharaj Statue, New Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna

¶12

Manohar Ramchandra Mali (deceased)

¶13

Amol Pandurang Mali Age : 35 years, Occu : Agri, R/o. Kakade Plot, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad .. Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

Sow. Manisha Sachin Mali Age : 24 years, Occu : Engineer, C/o. Bhagwat Baburao Kale, R/o. Borda, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad Under Guardianship of Father Bhagwat Baburao Kale R/o. Borda, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondent

¶16

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kishor R. Doke Advocate for Respondent : Mr. D. A. Madake

¶17

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2023

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

. Considering the approach of respondent, mediation

¶20

proceeding stands discontinued.

¶21

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not wish to press petition in respect of petitioner no.1 / husband and seeks leave to withdraw petition to his extent.

¶22

2/6

¶23

Leave granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of petitioner no.1.

¶24

Petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9 are parents-in-law and

¶25

relatives of respondent. Marriage of respondent and petitioner no.1 was performed on 28.02.2016. It is the contention of the respondent that after the marriage she was harassed by the petitioners. Averments are made in the complaint before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act stating that at the instigation of petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9 respondent was harassed by her husband.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no avernment in the complaint that respondent shared domestic relationship with petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true, no case is made out against the petitioners causing any domestic violence to the respondent. In such circumstances, according to him, proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class is not maintainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said

¶28

3/6

¶29

submissions by contending that the husband of the respondent and his relatives have made attempts to prove the respondent as mentally unfit and the said fact has been taken cognizance in the order passed by the Family Court dismissing petition of the divorce filed by the petitioner no.1. It is his further submission that petitioner no.1 has performed second marriage and thereby causing harassment to the respondent.

¶30

7. In the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan

¶31

Lal and Others , reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, in para 102, the Supreme Court has given the categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such quashing power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of the categories mentioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no.102 of its judgment is as under:

¶32

“(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;”

¶33

Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the

¶34

4/6

¶35

respondent that the divorce petition filed by petitioner no.1 was dismissed by the competent Court and that it is alleged that he performed second marriage, however in order to maintain the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act the complaint must disclose that the other petitioners were sharing domestic relationship with respondent and also that they have caused any domestic violence against her. Perusal of the complaint filed before the Magistrate does not show any avernment to the extent that petitioners no. 2 to 7 and 9 have ever shared domestic relationship with respondent. Apart from this, even if the contentions of the respondent in the said complaint are accepted to be true, no domestic violence can be said to have been committed by these petitioners against respondent. Thus, on both counts basic ingredients required for filing a valid complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against those petitioners are absent in the present case. As a result of this, petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9 have made out the case for quashment of the proceedings. Hence the following order:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶38

5/6

¶39

(ii) PWDVA No.14 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalamb stands quashed qua petitioners no.2 to 7 and 9.

¶40

[ R. M. JOSHI ] JUDGE

¶41

GGP

¶42

6/6

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others v. Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Hanumant Mali and Others v. Manisha W/O. Sachin Mali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Pandurang Kamble and Others Vs Sunaina W/O. Dilip Kamble / Jamdade

Gaurav Vitthalrao Sonwane and Others Vs Maya @ Mrunali Gaurav Sonwane

Arunkumar Gyanobarao Shinde Vs Smita W/O. Arunkumar Shinde and Others

Ganesh Anil Kusumude and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Purushottam Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vishnu Namdeo Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another