Dismissed¶167

Fahad Nizamuddin Kadri and Anr. v. Shaheen Fahad Kadri and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal to quash DV complaint; Section 482 CrPC inherent power; Section 12 PWDVA proceedings before JMFC Thane; breadth of “domestic violence” under Sections 2(g) and 3 PWDVA — physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, economic abuse; delay in filing domestic violence complaint not mala fide; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal seven categories inapplicable; dowry and Streedhan demand of Rs.15 lakhs; triple talaq threats; NRI spouse in Hong Kong; passport/Aadhaar/HK ID documents taken; visa cancelled; non-maintenance since 12.08.2018; EWS contract teacher appointment post-complaint; costs Rs.10,000 to wife; Bombay High Court, Madhav J. Jamdar, J., 07.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to Respondent No.1 (wife); DV proceedings not quashed. ¶167

Fahad Nizamuddin Kadri and Anr. vs Shaheen Fahad Kadri and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to Respondent No.1 (wife); DV proceedings not quashed.

¶167

Issue for consideration

Whether a case is made out for quashing of the complaint filed under Section 12 of the PWDVA (PWDVA Application No.157 of 2024) under the Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. +2 more

¶133

Court's answer

None of the categories/criterias laid down by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal for exercise of the quashing power is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶154

Ratio / Principle

The contention that Respondent No.1 left the petitioners' house in 2015 and that DV proceedings were filed suddenly after 10 years is totally incorrect and contrary to the record: the complaint states she stayed with Petitioner No.1 till 2018-2019, and the writ petition itself says till 2019.

¶26

Key takeaways

“Domestic violence” under the DV Act is very broad and inter alia includes physical assault, physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; economic abuse includes deprivation of economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled or which she requires out of necessity.ratio¶117
Examined on the touchstone of Section 3, the averments in the DV complaint show a case that Respondent No.1 was subjected to physical assault, physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse (including allegedly being taken to Hong Kong to work as a maid-servant, forcible take-away of her salary, dowry demand of Rs.15,00,000 and threats of triple talaq).ratio¶121

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), Madhav J. Jamdar, J. — Writ Petition No.426 of 2025, decided 07 August 2025 (modified per Speaking to Minutes Order dated 16.09.2025). Husband and his family sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of DV proceedings under Section 12 PWDVA (Application No.157 of 2024, JMFC Thane) filed by the wife (Respondent No.1), contending she left the matrimonial home in 2015 and complained only after 10 years, and that the DV complaint alleged incidents absent from FIR No.1287/2024 and the Women Cell complaint. Held: (i) the 2015 contention is contrary to the record — the complaint and the writ petition show cohabitation till 2018-2019/2019; (ii) “domestic violence” under Sections 2(g)/3 PWDVA is very broad, covering physical, verbal and emotional and economic abuse, and the complaint's averments — dowry/'Streedhan' demand of Rs.15,00,000, forcible taking of eight-tola gold, removal to Hong Kong to work as a maid-servant, surrender of Rs.1,00,000 monthly salary, threats of triple talaq, expulsion from the Taloja flat, cancellation of her visa, and non-payment since 12.08.2018 — disclose such abuse; (iii) delay in filing does not establish mala fides and none of the seven Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) categories applies; (iv) the plea that the husband earns only Rs.16,000 p.m. as a contract teacher (appointed 08.08.2024, post-complaint, EWS category) does not assist the petitioners and indicates economic abuse. Writ petition dismissed with Rs.10,000/- costs to Respondent No.1-wife.

¶1

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.426 OF 2025

¶4

Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN VITTHAL VITTHAL KUDHEKAR KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.09.19 15:51:03 +0530

¶5

Fahad Nizamuddin Kadri & Ors. …Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shaheen Fahad Kadri & Anr. …Respondents

¶8

Ms. Beerta H. Bajwa a/w Ms. Kokila Kalre a/w Mr. Ramesh Bhide & Ms. Amisha Patil, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Mohammad Ibraheem K.M., for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

Ms. P. P. Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 07 AUGUST 2025

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

Heard Ms. Bajwa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners,

¶14

Mr. Ibraheem K. M., learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Bhosale, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

¶15

The relief sought in this Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶16

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“ CrPC ”) is the quashing of proceedings filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“ PWDVA Act ”) bearing PWDVA Application No.157 of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane (“ JMFC ”).

¶17

It is the main contention of Ms. Bajwa, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondent No.1 has left the house of the Petitioners in the year 2015 and thereafter, suddenly after a period of

¶18

Page No. 1

¶19

Vaibhav

¶20

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶21

10 years, proceedings under the DV Act have been filed. Learned Counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint filed under the DV Act shows that no case is made out and therefore the DV case is required to be quashed. She further submitted that many facts and incidents mentioned in DV case are not part of the FIR No.1287/2024 dated 08/05/2024 filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Mumbra Police Station nor part of the complaint filed before the women cell.

¶22

On the other hand, it is the submission of Mr. Ibraheem, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 that the contention that the Respondent No.1 left the house of the Petitioner in the year 2015 and suddenly complaint is lodged in the year 2025 is totally incorrect. He submitted that the salary earned by the Respondent No.1 while employed in Hong Kong was used to purchase flats, that were registered exclusively in the name of the Petitioner. He further submits that perusal of the DV case clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 has been subjected to Domestic Violence including physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse as well as economic abuse. He submitted that perusal of the DV complaint clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 has been subjected to domestic violence as contemplated under the DV Act and therefore no case is made out for quashing of the complaint under the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

¶23

Page No. 2

¶24

Vaibhav

¶25

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶26

At the outset, it is required to be noted that although Mr. Bajwa, learned Counsel submitted that Respondent No.1 has left the house in the year 2015 and thereafter suddenly after a period of 10 years proceedings under DV Act are filed, the same is totally incorrect. The complaint itself mentions that till 2018-2019, the Respondent No.1 was staying with the Petitioner No.1. In the Writ Petition also it is mentioned by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.1 was staying with the Petitioner No.1 till 2019. Thus, the said contention raised is contrary to the material on record and even contrary to the contention raised in the Writ Petition.

¶27

Before considering rival contentions, it is necessary to set out relevant contentions which the Respondent has raised in DV proceedings. The same are as follows:-

¶28

ß(i) vtZnkj ua- 1 ;kauk lkeusokys ;kauh jDde #i;s - 15]00]000/(jDde #i;s - ia/kjk yk[k ek=) gaqMk ekfxryk- vtZnkj ;kauh lkeusokys ua- 1 ;kapk fookg djrsosGh L=h/ku Eg.kqu jDde #i;s - 15]00]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s - ia/kjk yk[k ek=) fnys gksrs- vktqu dks.krhgh jDde tkgktklkBh nsÅ ‘kdr ukgh vls lkafxrys- ;koj lkeusokys ua-2 rs 3 vtZnkj ;kauk vls Eg.kkY;k dh] tksiZar iSls vk.kr ukgh- rksi;Zar vtZnkj ;kauk nksUgh ?kjkr uksdjkps dke d#u fnys tkbZy] vtZnkj ;kaps lkeusokys ua-2 rs 4 ;kauh vtZnkj ;kaps vkB rksGs lksus] nkfxys rkC;kr ?ksrys] lkeusokys ;kauh vtZnkj ;kauk d/khgh fuV o O;oLFkhr okx.kwd nsr ulr lrr dkghrjh dkj.ks dk<qu vtZnkj ;kapk tk.kqu - cqtqu =kl nsoqu NG djr vlr- rlsp vtZnkjkyk nksu ?kjkrhy /kq.kh HkkaMh] lkQlQkbZ o brj loZ dkes dj.;kl ykoqu vtZnkj ;kauk eksydj.khlkj[kh okx.kqd nsr gksrs-

¶29

(ii) lu - 2015 e/;s lkeusokys ua-1 gkWxdkWxe/;s uksdjh feGkyhlkeusokys ua-1 ;kauk lkeusokys ua-2 rs 4 ;kauh ?kjkrhy gkdyqu fnys- R;kuarj lkeusokys ua-2 rs 4 ;kauh vtZnkj ;kauk vls cksyq ykxys dh] “tj rq>k uojk ulsy rj rq bFks jkgqu dk; dj.kkj\ vtZnkj ;kauk lkeusokys vls cksyys dh] tj rqEgh vkEgkyk jDde #i;s - 15]00]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s - ia/kjk yk[k ek=) gqaMk vk.kyk vlrk rj rqykgh ?kjkr jkgk;yk tkxk feGkyh vlrh

¶30

Page No. 3

¶31

Vaibhav

¶32

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶33

vkf.k bTtrgh feGkyh vlrh-

¶34

(iii) vtZnkj ;kaps dFku vls dh] lkeusokys ;kauk dkekpk =kl gksr vlY;kus vkf.k gkWxdkWxe/;s ,dk eksydj.khpk ixkj njegk jDde #i;s - 70]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s - lRrj gtkj ek=) R;keqGs eksydj.khpk [kpZ okpfo.;klkBh lkeuqokys ua-2 rs 4 ;kauh vtZnkj;kauk gkWxdkWxyk fod.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ksryk- vkf.k R;klkBh fOglk vkf.k foekukP;k frdhVkPkk [kpZ Hkkxok;pk vlY;kps lkaxqu frP;kdMqu jDdre #i;s - 50]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s - iUukl gtkj ek=) #i;s ?ksrys R;kuarj vtZnkj ;kauk fn- 19@07@2015 jksth gkWxdkWxyk xsyh- lkeusokys vtZnkj ;kauk nsr vlysyk loZ =kl lgu d#u vtZnkj lkeusokys ;kaP;k ?kjkrhy loZ dkes djr vlr- lkeusokys ua-1 frFksgh vtZnkj ;kauk =kl nsoqu vtZnkj ;kapk ekufld vkf.k ‘kkfjjhd o vkfFkZd NG d# ykxys- lkeusokys ua-1 gs vtZnkjkyk dks.kk’khgh cksyq nsr uOgrs] vtZnkj okijr vlysyk eksckbZy lkeusokys ;kauh gWd dsyk gksrk- rlsp vtZnkj ;kauk ekghr ulysY;k vuksG[;k fBdk.kh ?ksoqu tkÅu dqBsrjh dksaMqu Bsor vlr-

¶35

(iv) vtZnkj ;kapk eqG LoHkko la’k;h Lo#ikpk vlY;kus R;keqGs vtZnkj lkeusokys ;kaP;koj lrr la’k; ?ksr vlr rlsp lkeusokys ua-1 gs gkWdk a Wx e/;s csdk;ns’khj o la’k;kLin (xqIr dke @ gokyknokjs iS’kkps O;ogkj) dkjo;k djhr vlr- R;kckcr vtZnkjkauh lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauk tkc fopk#u gjdr ? ksryh vlrk lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkyk Eg.kkys dh] ßenZ cuus dh dks’kh’k ugha djukÞ vls Eg.kqu vtZnkj ;kauk ftos Bkj ekj.;kph /kedh fnyhvtZnkjkyk tcjnLrhus vkeyh inkFkZ o vkS”k/ks iktyh tkr vlr- vtZnkjkpk v’kk izdkjs lkeusoky gs ekufld o vekuoh NG djr vlY;kus lkeusokys ua-1 ;kapk NG vtZnkj ;kauk lgu u >kY;kus vtZnkj ;k ,d fno’kh pDdj ;sÅu [kkyh iMY;k rsOgk vtZnkjkyk MkWDVjdMs lkeusokys ua-1 ukbZyktkLro ;kauh usys- rsOgk MkWDVjkauh riklY;kuarj vtZnkj ;kauk dkgh ekufld rk.kr.kko] ncko vkgs dk fopkjys ijarq lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh lkscr vtZnkj ;kauk nsr vlysY;k =kl lkaxq ‘kdr uOgR;k- lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkj fnysY;k /kedheqGs vtZnkj ;kaP;k eukr fHkrhps okrkoj.k fuekZ.k >kyslkeusokys ua-1 ;kauk MkWdVjkauh vls lkafxrys dh] vtZnkjkaps eu nqljhdMs oGfo.;klkBh vtZnkj ;kauk ekulhd rk.krk.kokrqu ckgsj iM.;klkBh dkgh lkekftd midze fdaok uksdjh djk vls lkafxrys- R;kuarj vtZnkj ;kauk gkcZj vWM fgYl Qk;ukUl fy- Vh- ,l- Vh- ;sFks uksdjh d# ykxyh- lnjgq uksdjh gs lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkyk dkgh tcjnLrhP;k vVh ?kkyqu uksdjh dj.;kph ijokuxh R;ke/;s vVh v’;k gksR;k dh] vtZnkj gh dkekP;k fBdk.kh dks.kk’khgh vxj eS=h dkghgh dj.kkj ukgh- vtZnkj gh frps cWdps [kkR;kps ,- Vh- ,e- dkMZ lkeusokys ua-1 ;kaps rkC;kr nsbZy- vtZnkj fg fryk feG.kjk ixkj jDde #i;s - 1]00]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s – ,d yk[k ek=) e/khy ,d #i;kgh Lor%lkBh okij.kkj ukgh] loZ ixkj vtZnkj ;k u ekxrk lkeusokys ua-1 ;kaps rkC;kr nsbZy] v’kk izdkjs tkpd vVh o ‘krhZ lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkj ;kauk ?kkrY;k gksR;k-

¶36

(v) vtZnkj ;kaps dFku vls dh] vtZnkj eksydj.khlkBh jDde #i;s - 70]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s – lRrj gtkj ek=) #i;s okpor gksrh vkf.k vtZnkj ;kaps irh Eg.kts lkeusokys ua-1 uksdjh d#u fryk jDde #i;s - 1]00]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s – ,d yk[k ek=) ixkj nsr vlY;kus lkeusokys ua-1 dkgh efgU;kiklqu frpk NG deh dsyk gksrk- v’kk izdkjs

¶37

Page No. 4

¶38

Vaibhav

¶39

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶40

vtZnkj lkeusokys ua-1 ;kaP;k dqVach;kyk jDde #i;s - 1]70]000/- (v{kjh jDde #i;s – ,d yk[k lRrj gtkj ek=) enr djr gksR;k-

¶41

(vi) vtZnkj gh dke djr gksrh- R;kfBdk.kh lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkus lkaxhrys dh] lkeusokys ua-2 rs 4 jDde #i;s - 15]00]000/(v{kjh jDde #i;s - ia/kjk yk[k ek=) ekx.kh vtZnkj ;kaP;kdMqu dke d#u iq.kZ d#u ?ksr vkgs dkj.k vtZnkj o vtZnkj ;kaP;k dqVqack;hph rso<h jDde ns.;kph {kerk ukgh-

¶42

(vii) vtZnkjkps dFku vls dh] lu 2017 P;k vkxksnj lkeusokys ua4 ;kaps yXu >kys gksrs- lkeusokys ua-4 ph iRuh lkeusokys ua-5 vkf.k frps vkbZ -oMhy] lkeusokys ua-2 vkf.k 3 o lkeusokys ua-5 ;kauh vtZnkj ;kauk frgsjh rykd ns.;kpk fopkj djr gksrs vkf.k lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauk Qgkn’kh yXu djk;ps gksrs-

¶43

(viii) R;kuarj vtZnkj ;kauk frgsjh rykd nsoqu gkdyqu ns.;kps dV dkjLFkku jpq ykxys- lkeusokys ua-1 vtZnkj ;kauk vls Eg.kr vls dh] eyk ,d QYWV ?ksoqu ns ukgh rj rqyk eh rykd nsbZu vls cksyqu vtZnkj ;kaP;koj QYWV ?ksoqu ns.;klkBh ncko vk.kr vlr- rlsp lkeusokys ua-1 gs vtZnkjkyk /kedh nsr vlr dh] ‘eh vk/khps nksu ck;dkauk frgsjh rykd fnyk vkgs] rqyk frgsjh rykd ns.;klkBh eyk osG ykx.kkj ukgh o gs ekÖ;k lkBh uohu ukgh’ vls Eg.kwu vtZnkjkyk vkekuq”k Ik.ks csne izdkjs ekjgk.k o f’kohxkG d#u d# ykxys-

¶44

(ix) R;kuarj vtZnkj gh uksdjh lksMqu fn- 11@02@2018 e/;s Hkkjrkr vkyh o ,dk fnolkuarj fn- 12@02@2018 jksth lkeusokys ua-1 gs Hkkjrkr vkys- lkeusokys ua-1 gs Hkkjrkr ijr vkysoj vtZnkjkyk HkkokdMs ikBfoys o R;kuarj lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkdMwu loZ dkxni=s tls ikliksVZ] vk/kkjdkMZ] ,p ds vk;Mh o brj dkxni=s ekxqu ?ksryh o ;k iq<s vtZnkjkyk fuV okx.kqd nsbZu dks.kR;kgh izdkjs vekuq”k okx.kqd ns.kkj ukgh] ekxhy >kys xsys loZ fol#u lq[kkus lalkj djhu] vtZnkjkyk =kl gksbZy vls dkgh ,d d`R; dj.kkj ukgh] rlsp nks?kkaps ukokpk ¶yWV nks?kkaps ukos Bsohu vls Eg.kwu lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkaph ekQh ekfxryh- vtZnkjkyk okVys dh lkeusokys ua-1 e/;s lq/kkj.kk >kyh vlsy o iq<hy vk;q”;rjh lq[kkps tkbZy Eg.kwu lo Z dkxni=s lkeusokys ua-1 ps rkC;kr fnyh o ekQ dsys- ijarq R;kuarj nqljs fnolkiklwup lkeusokys ua-1 gs iwohZizek.ks =klk nsoq ykxys] vtZnkjkpk uacj CykWd dsyk o Hkkjr lksMqu fu?kqu xsys-

¶45

(x) ekpZ 2019 e/;s lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh lkafxrys dh] vtZnkjkps iS’kkrqu rks ¶yWV [kjsnh dsyk vkgs rsOgk rsFks ek>s vkbZofMy jgkr vkgsr vls lkafxrys rsOgk vtZnkjkauh rsFks jkg.;kph ijokuxh n;koh fdaok iSls n;kosr vls lkafxrys vlrk lkeusokys ua-1 Eg.kkys dh] rGkstk ;sFks ek>s ikydklkscr rq jkgq ‘kdrsl rsOgk vtZnkj gh rsFsk rGkstk ;sFks lkljh jgk.;kl xsyh rsOgk rsFks lkeusokys ua-2 rs 5 gs gksrs R;kauh vtZnkjkyk ?kjkr ?ksrys ukgh o nkjkrp vR;ar ?kk.ksjM;k ‘kCnkr f’kohxkG dsyh o /kDdkcqDdh d#u gkdyqu fnys o ijr vkyhl rj raxMs rksMqu gkrkr nsoq o ftos Bkj ek#u Vkdq v’kh /kedh fnyh R;keqGs vtZnkj fgyk frps HkkokdMs ;s.;kf’kok; Ik;kZ; jkfgyk ukgh-

¶46

(xi) vtZnkjkps dFku vls dh] R;kuarj fn- 29 ekpZ 2019 jksth vtZnkj

¶47

Page No. 5

¶48

Vaibhav

¶49

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶50

gh gkWdkaWxyk xsyh o lkeusokys ua-1 yk Qksu d#u ?ksoqu tk.;kckcr lkafxrys vlrk lkeusokys ua-1 ?kjkyk dqyqi ykoqu rsFkqu iGqu xsyk- vtZnkjkyk ldkGh 7 rs jk=h 3 oktsi;Zar 30 fdyks lkeku ?ksÅu ,dVhp frFks jMr gksrhlkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh vtZnkjkyk pqdhps iRrs fnys o vtZnkjkyk cjsp fBdk.kh fQjkos ykxys o R;kr fryk cjkp =kl lgu djkok ykxyk- vtZnkj jk=h 3 oktsi;Zar fpvj ,u-th-vks-us- dkSVqafcd iksyhlkr rdzkj uksanohyh vkf.k vtZnkj ;kauk vkJekr nk[ky dsys- ,uthvksus- Hkkjrh; okf.kT; nqroklkrqu lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauk letkoqu lkafxrys ,uthvksyk enr djk;ph gksrh Ik.k lkeusokys ;kauh vtZnkj ;kapk fOglk jn~n dsyk vkf.k vtZnkj ;kauk izR;sd xks”Vhph tk.kho gksrh rks ,d gWdj vkgs- vkf.k dkgh fnolkuh vtZnkj ;kauk Qksu vkyk vkf.k vtZnkj ;kauk lkeusokys Eg.kkyk dh] gkWaxdkWax e/;s jkgq ns.kkj ukgh-

¶51

(xii) vtZnkj fgyk brj dks.krhgh fuoklkph lks; ukgh- vtZnkj ;kapk lkeusokys ;kauh vkRefo’okl] vtZnkj ;kaps rk#.;] vkjksX; m/noLr dsys vkgs] vkt jksth vtZnkj 37 o”kkZph vlqu] vkf.k cs?kj fuiq=hd vkgs- R;kauh frps lqiZ.k vk;q”; m/noLr dsys- vtZnkj xsY;k ngk o”kkZiklqu vlg; osnuk gksr vkgsr- vtZnkj fgyk rGkstk ;sFkhy ?kjh jkg.;kl ijokuxh feGkohlkeusokys ;kapk NG o =kl fnolsafnol vf/kdp ok<r vkgs- vtZnkjauh iRuh Eg.kqu loZ drZO; ikj iMyh gksrh- ijarq lkeusokys ua-1 ;kauh irh Eg.kqu vlysY;k drZO;kr dlqu d#u tckcnkjh VkGr vkys vkgsr-

¶52

(xiii) vtZnkjkps dFku vls dh] vtZnkj ;kauk lkeusokys ua-1 fn12@08@2018 iklqu dkgh ,d iSlk fnyk ukgh- vtZnkj ekxhy lgk o”kkZiklqu R;kaP;k ekgsjhy yksadkoj voyacqu txr vkgs- frps mnjfuoZgkph lks; lkeusokys ;kauh vktrkxk;r dsyh ukgh- vtZnkj fgyk vktps egkxkbZps fnolkr Lor%pk [kpZ Hkkxfo.ks dBh.k tkr vkgs- vtZnkj gh dkgh ,d dke/kank ehGkysyh ukgh rh mnjfuokZg dj.;kl vleFkZ vkgs- ;k myV lkeusokys ua-1 gkWdkWax ;k fBdk.kh uksdjh djhr vlqu R;krqu R;kauk njegk jDde #i;s 5]00]000@& (v{kjh jDde #i;s - ikp yk[k ek=) mRiUu feGr vkgslkeusokys ua-1 ;kaph vkfFkZd ifjfLFkrh mRre vkgs- vtZnkjkauk lkaHkG.;kph tckcnkjh lkeusokys ua-1 ;kaph vlqu R;kr dlqj d#u VkGkVkG dsyh vkgs-Þ

¶53

The English translation of the above is under:

¶54

“(i) The Opponents demanded the Applicant No.1 to pay them an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (in words - Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only) in dowry. However, the Applicant told them that at the time of her marriage with Opponent No.1, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (in words - Rs. Fifteen Lakhs only) was paid as ‘Streedhan’ and that therefore, it was not possible to pay any additional amount for purchase of a ship. Thereupon, the Opponents No. 2 to 3 said to the Applicant that till the time she does not bring money, she would be made to work as a maid in both the houses. The Opponents No. 2 to 4 forcibly took Applicant’s eight-tola gold and jewellery and kept the

¶55

Page No. 6

¶56

Vaibhav

¶57

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶58

same in their possession. The Opponents did not treat the Applicant well and proper. They would continuously raise some or the other issue and would deliberately harass the Applicant and would subjected her to cruelty. Moreover, they would make the Applicant to clean the clothes and household utensils, carry out cleanliness work and do all other works in the two houses and would treat the Applicant as a maid .

¶59

(ii) In the year 2015, the Opponent No.1 got a job in Hongkong. Opponents No. 2 to 4 drove the Opponent No.1 from the house. Thereafter, Opponents No. 2 to 4 started telling the Applicant, saying, “What will you do by staying here when your husband even does not stay here?”. The Opponents said to the Applicant, “had you brought the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (in words – Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) for us in dowry, you also would have got a space to stay in the house and also would have got a respect”.

¶60

(iii) The Applicant states that, as the Opponent faced a problem at the work and as it was required to pay a salary of Rs. 70,000/- (in words – Rupees Seventy Thousand only) per month to a maid servant in Hongkong, in order to save the expenditure on a maid servant, Opponents No. 2 to 4 decided to sell the Applicant in Hongkong and for that purpose, they obtained Rs.50,000/- (in words – Rupees Fifty Thousand only) from her by telling her that they want to meet the expenses on Visa and Air-Ticket. Thereafter, on the date 19.07.2015, the Applicant went to Hongkong. The Applicant would carry out all the works in the Opponents’ house by tolerating all the harassments at the hands of the Opponents. Opponent No.1 started harassing the Applicant even at the said place and started subjecting the Applicant to cruelty, mentally, physically and financially. Opponent No. 1 was not allowing the Applicant to talk to anybody. The Opponents had hacked the Applicant’s mobile phone. Moreover, they would take the Applicant to an unknown place which she did not know and would lock her up at the said place.

¶61

(iv) As the Applicant’s nature was inherently suspicious, the Applicant was constantly suspicious of the Opponents. Similarly, the Opponent No.1 was doing unlawful and suspicious activities (carrying out secret works / doing money transactions by way of ‘Hawala’) in Hongkong and therefore, when Applicant made enquiry about the same with Opponent No.1 and objected to the same, Opponent No.1 said to the

¶62

Page No. 7

¶63

Vaibhav

¶64

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶65

Applicant, “Do not try to be a man” and saying so, threatened the Applicant to kill her. The Applicant would be administered intoxicant substances and drugs forcibly. In this manner, the Opponents were subjecting the Applicant to the mental and inhuman cruelty and as a result, on one day, the Applicant collapsed as she did not tolerate the cruelty at the hands of the Opponent No.1 and therefore, having no option, the Opponent No.1 took the Applicant to a Doctor. The Doctor made enquiry with the Applicant as to whether she was under any mental tension or pressure, however, as the Opponent No.1 had accompanied her, she was not able to disclose the Doctor about the cruelty at the hands of the Opponent No.1. Due to the threats given by the Opponent No.1, the Applicant was apprehending a fear in her mind. The Doctor told Opponent No. 1 that the Applicant should engage herself in some social activities or should a job to overcome the mental tension that she was undergoing. Thereafter, the Applicant started doing a job with Harbour and Hills Finance L.T.S.T.. The Opponent No.1 had allowed the Applicant to do the said job by putting some forcible conditions. The said conditions were such that, the Applicant would not engage into any friendship with anybody at the workplace, the Applicant would hand over the A.T.M. Card of her Bank Account to the Opponent No.1, the Applicant would not utilise for herself even a single rupee from out of her salary of Rs.1,00,000/- (in words – Rupees One Lac only) that she would be getting and she would hand over her entire salary to Opponent No.1 without he demands the same. Such oppressive terms and conditions had been put by the Opponent No.1 on the Applicant.

¶66

(v) The Applicant states - the Applicant was saving amount of Rs.70,000/- (In words - Rupees Seventy Thousand only.) for paying the said amount to the maid servant and she was doing a job and was giving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/(In words – Rupees One Lakh only.) to the her husband i.e. Opponent No.1 and hence, the Opponent No. 1 had reduced her harassment since last few months. In such manner, the Applicant was helping the family of Opponent No. 1 by giving amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- (In words - Rupees One Lakh Seventy Thousand only.).

¶67

(vi) The Applicant was doing a job. At that time, the Opponent No.1 told the Applicant that the Opponent Nos. 2 to 4 have demanded amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (In words -

¶68

Page No. 8

¶69

Vaibhav

¶70

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶71

Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only.) from the Applicant and as the Applicant and her family members do not have capacity to pay the said amount, they are getting their demand fulfilled by making her to work.

¶72

(vii) The Applicant further states - prior to the year 2017, the Opponent No. 4 had got married. The wife of Opponent No. 4, i.e. Opponent No. 5 and her parents, Opponent Nos. 2 and 3 and Opponent No. 5 were thinking to divorce the Applicant by way of Triple Talaq and to marry Opponent No. 1 with Fahad.

¶73

(viii) Thereafter, they started hatching a plot to drive out the Applicant by giving her Triple Talaq. The Opponent No. 1 used to say the Applicant : “You purchase one flat for me or else I will divorce you” and by saying so, the Opponent No.1 used to put pressure on her to purchase a flat for him. Moreover, the Opponent No.1 used to threaten the Applicant by saying : “I have already divorced two wives by way of Triple Talaq and it will not take much time for me to divorce you by way of Triple Talaq and this is not new for me” and used to start beat her up in a brutal and inhuman manner and used to hurl abuses at her.

¶74

(ix) Thereafter, the Applicant left the job and returned to India on the date 11.02.2018 and after one day thereafter, i.e. on the date 12.02.2018, the Opponent No. 1 returned to India. When the Opponent No.1 returned to India, he sent the Applicant to brother's house and thereafter, the Opponent No.1 asked the Applicant to handover all the documents viz. Passport, Aadhaar Card, H K Id and other documents and he apologized the Applicant and said : “Henceforth, I will treat you well and will not treat you inhumanly, I will forget whatever that had happened earlier and will lead a happy married life. I will not do any act which will cause harassment to you. Similarly, I will keep the flat in the joint names of both of us”. Therefore, thinking that the behaviour of the Opponent No.1 might have improved and at least they might lead further life happily, the Applicant handed over all the documents to the Opponent No.1 and pardoned him. However, from the next day itself, the Opponent No.1 started harassing her as he used to harass her earlier, blocked the Applicant’s number and left India.

¶75

(x) In the month of March, 2019, the Opponent No.1 told

¶76

Page No. 9

¶77

Vaibhav

¶78

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶79

that the said flat was purchased from out of the monies of the Applicant and that therefore, his parents are residing at the said place. Thereupon, when the Applicant told to give permission to reside therein or to give money, the Opponent No.1 said to her, “You may live alongwith my parents at Taloja.” Thereupon, at the time when the Applicant went to reside at her matrimonial house at Taloja, the Opponent No. 2 to 5 were present there but they did not take the Applicant in the house and at the door itself, they hurled abuses in filthy language at her, manhandled her and drove her from there and threatened her saying, “If you come again, we would cut your legs and would give it in your hands and would kill you” and therefore, the Applicant had not option left but to return to her brother’s house.

¶80

(xi) The Applicant further states : Thereafter, on the date 29th March, 2019, the Applicant went to Hongkong and telephoned the Opponent No. 1 and asked him to receive her. However, the Opponent No.1 locked the house and fled away from the said place and because of the same, from 07.00 a.m. in the morning till 03.00 a.m. in the night, the Applicant had to wait there itself crying all the time, alongwith her baggage weighing around 30 kg. The Opponent No.1 gave wrong address to the Applicant and the Applicant had to wander at many places and as a result, she had to go through the tremendous trauma during that period. Till 3.00 O’clock in the night, the Applicant was wandering outside and therefore, the Cheer N.G.O. submitted complaint to the Family Police and took the Applicant to an ‘Ashram’ (hostel). The said N.G.O. convinced the Opponent No.1 through the Indian Embassy’s Commercial Wing. The N.G.O. wanted to help but the Opponent got cancelled the Visa of the Applicant and the Applicant was aware about everything that he was a hacker. After some days, the Applicant received a phone call and the Opponent told the Applicant : “I won’t allow you to live in Hongkong.”

¶81

(xii) The Applicant does not have any other shelter. The Opponent has devastated the confidence, youth and health of the Applicant. Applicant is 37 years old as of today, she is shelter less and issueless. He devastated her entire life. The applicant has been suffering from unbearable pain for the past ten years. Applicant may be permitted to live in the house at Taloja. The cruelty and harassment at the hands of the Opponent is increasing day by day. The applicant had fulfilled

¶82

Page No. 10

¶83

Vaibhav

¶84

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶85

all her duties as wife. However, the Opponent has been neglecting his duties as husband and avoiding his responsibility.

¶86

(xiii) The Applicant further states : Since the date 12.08.2018, the Opponent No.1 has not given a single paisa to the Applicant and as a result, since last six years, the Applicant has been maintaining herself by depending upon her family from her parents’ house. The Opponent did not provide anything for her livelihood. The applicant is finding it difficult to meet her own expenses in these days of inflation. The Applicant has not got any job to do and as a result, she is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the Opponent is doing a job in Hongkong and is earning an income of Rs.5,00,000/- (In words – Rupees Five lakhs only). The financial condition of the Opponent is sound. It is the responsibility of the Opponent to maintain the Applicant but he has failed to do so and is avoiding the same.”

¶87

The contentions which have been raised in the DV complaint are required to be examined in view of the Domestic Violence as defined under Section 2(g) of the DV Act. Section 2(g) is as under:-

¶88

“ “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3; ”

¶89

Thus, Section 2(g) defines Domestic Violence as has the same

¶90

meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3 of the DV is as under:-

¶91

“ 3. Definition of domestic violence.— For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

¶92

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse ; or

¶93

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person

¶94

Page No. 11

¶95

Vaibhav

¶96

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶97

related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security ; or

¶98

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

¶99

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

¶100

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section,—

¶101

(i) “ physical abuse ” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

¶102

(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrade or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

¶103

(iii) “ verbal and emotional abuse” includes —

¶104

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

¶105

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;

¶106

(iv) “ economic abuse” includes —

¶107

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance ;

¶108

(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of

¶109

Page No. 12

¶110

Vaibhav

¶111

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶112

assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the

¶113

aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

¶114

(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

¶115

Explanation II.— For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. ”

¶116

(Emphasis added)

¶117

Thus, it is very clear that the “Domestic Violence” as contemplated under DV Act is very broad. The same inter alia includes physical assault, physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Economic abuse includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity. If various averments in the DV complaint are examined on the touchstone of various crietarias of Domestic Violence as contemplated under the provisions of the DV Act, then it is very clear that the

¶118

Page No. 13

¶119

Vaibhav

¶120

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶121

Respondent No.1 has come with the case that she has been subjected to physical assault, physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, as well as economic abuse. In fact, the contentions raised in the DV proceedings shows that, as in Hong Kong salary of maid servant was Rs.70,000/- per month and therefore, the Petitioner No.1 took the Respondent No.1 to Hong Kong to do the work of maid servant and she has been subjected to Domestic Violence.

¶122

In fact, thereafter, as the Respondent was suffering mental trauma and the doctors in Hong Kong advised that she should regularly go out of the house for overcoming the said mental trauma, she was constrained to work and she was getting salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The said salary was also forcibly taken by Petitioner No.1. Apart from the said salary, she was also required to work as a domestic servant and therefore Rs.1,70,000/- was in effect her income and she was deprived of the said income. The averments in the complaint also show that the Respondent was subjected to Domestic Violence, as her family could not pay dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. In fact it is stated in the complaint that the Petitioners have taken a stand that by earning in Hong Kong, the Respondent is paying said dowry of Rs.15,00,000/-. The averments also show that all the Petitioners have decided that the Petitioner No.1 should give divorce to the Respondent No.1 and marry Petitioner No.5’s sister and for that purpose, Petitioner No.1 was to give

¶123

Page No. 14

¶124

Vaibhav

¶125

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶126

talaq to the Respondent. The further contentions raised is that all along Petitioner No.1 was threatening the Respondent No.1 that she should give one flat to the Respondent No.1, otherwise, he would divorce her by stating “talaq” thrice and Petitioner No.1 further threatened the Respondent No.1 that he had already given such type of Talaq to two wives and therefore, within no time he should give talaq to the Respondent No.1.

¶127

It is further stated in the complaint that as the Domestic Violence escalated to the extent that the Respondent No.1 could not bear the same, she left Hong Kong on 11th February 2018 returned back to India. However, on the next date i.e. 12th February 2018, the Petitioner No.1 came to India and tendered an apology to the Respondent No.1 and obtained all the documents from the Respondent No.1, like her passport, Aadhar Card, HK ID and other documents and immediately after getting all these documents, he left India on the next date and blocked the cell phone number of the Respondent No.1.

¶128

In March 2019, Petitioner No.1 informed the Respondent No.1 that the flat which has been purchased by utilizing her money, has been occupied by his parents and if she wants to stay with them, she could stay with them. However, Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 refused to allow the Respondent No.1 to enter the house and she was physically assaulted as well as she was subjected to verbal abuse. On 29th March 2019, the

¶129

Page No. 15

¶130

Vaibhav

¶131

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶132

Respondent No.1 went to Hong Kong, however, the Petitioner No.1 had locked the house and went outside. It has been further mentioned that, in spite of efforts of the Indian Council, Petitioner No.1 did not respond. He threatened the Respondent No.1 that she could not stay in Hong Kong and cancelled the Respondent No.1’s VISA and therefore, the Respondent No.1 was constrained to return back to India. It has been further stated that since 2018, the Petitioner No.1 has not paid anything to the Respondent No.1.

¶133

Thus, the case as narrated in the complaint filed under the DV Act clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 has been subjected to Domestic Violence, including physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse. In view of the contentions raised in the DV complaint, it is necessary to consider whether a case is made out for quashing of the complaint.

¶134

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal¹ has set out parameters for exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC. The relevant paragraph No.102 is as under:-

¶135

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised

¶136

1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

¶137

Page No. 16

¶138

Vaibhav

¶139

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶140

either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶141

(1) 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.

¶142

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence , justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶143

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶144

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence , no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶145

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶146

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution

¶147

Page No. 17

¶148

Vaibhav

¶149

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶150

and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶151

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. ”

¶152

(Emphasis added)

¶153

Thus, what the Supreme Court has said that power under Section 438 of CrPC be used for quashing criminal complaint/FIR 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. It has been held that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused the complaint/FIR be quashed. The last criteria is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶154

None of the criterias set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are applicable to the facts of this case. It cannot be

¶155

Page No. 18

¶156

Vaibhav

¶157

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶158

held that as there is delay in filing the complaint that the complaint is filed with mala fides or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused.

¶159

The perusal of the record shows that the Respondent No.1 initially filed complaint with Women Cell of Mumbra Police Station on 2nd April 2024. Thereafter she lodged FIR on 8th May 2024 and in the meanwhile DV complaint has been filed on 24th April 2024.

¶160

The further contention raised by Ms. Bajwa, learned Counsel for

¶161

the Petitioners that the Petitioner is working as teacher and earning salary of Rs.16,000/- per month.

¶162

Mr. Ibraheem K. M, learned Counsel for the Respondent tenders order dated 8th August 2024 issued by Zilla Parishad, Ratnagiri by which the Petitioner has been appointed as teacher on salary of Rs.16,000/- per month on contract basis. It is required to be noted that in the said order of appointment the social status of the candidate is mentioned as Economic Weaker Section (EWS). In any case, it is clear that the Petitioner acquired said service on the contractual basis after filing of complaint and the said service is given to the Respondent No.1 as she belongs to Economic Weaker Section, which clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 is suffering from economic abuse as contemplated under the DV Act and therefore the same is Domestic Violence. Thus, there is no substance even in the said contention.

¶163

Page No. 19

¶164

Vaibhav

¶165

911-WP-426-2025 (Modified).doc

¶166