Dismissed

Vipin Babanrao Kamble v. Payal W/O Vipin Kamble and Others

Bombay HC4 Oct 2024CONP/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed of a contempt petition filed by a husband against his wife, her lawyer, and the Magistrate. The court held allegations regarding false affidavits under the Domestic Violence Act did not warrant contempt action, quashing, or criminal reference. The petition was dismissed as meritless.

What did the court decide?

Relief claims including contempt proceedings, quashing of DV Act proceedings, and initiation of action under Section 195 CrPC rejected.

Vipin Babanrao Kamble Vs Payal W/O Vipin Kamble and Others — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11252-DB

¶2

1 907.cont.01.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.01/2024

¶5

Vipin s/o. Babanrao Kamble

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mrs. Payal w/o. Vipin Kamble and Ors.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

¶11

Petitioner-in-Person.

¶12

CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 04/10/2024.

¶13

. Heard the petitioner in person.

¶14

At the inception, we asked him whether he is inclined to avail the services from Legal Aid, to which he flatly denied. The petitioner-in-person submitted that he is a graduate in Engineering and has also studied the provisions of law. He declined to avail legal aid and submitted that he is capable to make the submissions at his own.

¶15

The petitioner made threefold prayers. Firstly, he urged to initiate proceedings of contempt of Court under Sections 10, 15 and 16 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is submitted that the respondent No.1, who is his wife has filed some false affidavits and made false statements in the pending proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 i.e. Case No.265/2022 and, therefore, she is liable for contempt. The petitioner has also made respondent No.2 a practicing Advocate representing his wife as a contemnor. It is alleged that before filing the affidavit, lawyer has not ensured the correctness of the

¶16

2 907.cont.01.24

¶17

information supplied by the client and thus, he also falls in the arena of contempt. The petitioner also seeks the order of contempt against the learned Magistrate, who is ceased with the proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act. It is alleged that the Magistrate knows the real facts as well as the petitioner has explained the facts, however, the Magistrate has rejected his application.

¶18

To the next, the petitioner seeks for quashing the pending proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act on account of prima facie material and lastly, the petitioner prayed for initiation of preliminary enquiry for the offence falling under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. for contempt of lawful authority. The respondent wife has filed a proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, which is pending. In said proceedings, the petitioner has filed some applications, which are rejected. If it is a case of contempt, the Magistrate has to verify and make a reference to the Court.

¶19

As regards to the quashing of the Domestic Violence proceedings, the petitioner may avail the remedy before appropriate forum. As regards the action under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has to apply to the concerned Magistrate for initiation of the action. Obviously, it is the discretion of the Magistrate to see whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to take action in that case, the proceedings would be initiated. Moreover, if such an application is rejected, it is amenable for challenges. By and large, we see no justifying reason to initiate the action, which is sought.

¶20

3 907.cont.01.24

¶21

The petition is meritless hence disposed of.

¶22

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)

¶23

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

¶24

RGurnule

Vipin Babanrao Kamble v. Payal W/O Vipin Kamble and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Babanrao Kamble v. Payal W/O Vipin Kamble and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra S/O Shivaji Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Deulgaon Raja Dist.Buldhana and Another

Vrushabhh @ Vrushikesh @Jabba Umeshrao Wankhede vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Home Dept. (Spl) Mantralaya,Mumbai and Another

Ashok S/O Panjumal Chelani vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Additional Chief Secretary Home Dep. (Spl). and 2 Others

Kishore Yadavrao Ruikar and Another Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Dattapur Tq.Dhamangaon Railway Dist.Amravati and Another

Krushna S/O. Chandrakant Ghule and 3 Others Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Pso, Ps Malkapur City, Tah. Malkapur Dist. Buldhana and Another.

Dashrath Dharmaji Debur Vs Sepecial Police Inspector General Prison ( East Region), Nagpur and Another