The Rajasthan High Court dismissed two criminal revision petitions challenging orders rejecting a domestic violence application and an application for possession of a house. The Court found no legal infirmity as specific allegations of violence were absent and ownership claims offered no material for revisional interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1457/2019
Saroj W/o Lt. Sh. Suresh Hingorani, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Sindhi, R/o House No. 22, Pawan Vihar Yojna, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 79/2019
Saroj W/o Lt. Sh. Suresh Higorani, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Sindhi, R/o H.no. 22, Pawan Vihar Yojna, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.M. Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi PP Mr. Neel Kamal Bohra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
(2 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
Reserved on 08/09/2022 Pronounced on 16/09/2022
Revision Petition No.1457/2019 :
“ vr% fuxjkuh ;kfpdk izLrqr dj fouez fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZuh dh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj QjekbZ tkdj vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-09-2019 ,oa fo}ku eftLVªsV }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 26-092017 dks fujLr Qjek;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZuh }kjk pkgs x;s vuqrks"kksa dks Lohdkj Qjek;k tkosA vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks izkFkhZuh ds i{k esa gks ikfjr fd;k tkosA ”
Revision Petition No.79/2019
“ vr% fuxjkuh ;kfpdk izLrqr dj fouez fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZuh dh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj QjekbZ tkdj vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 01-11-2018 ,oa fo}ku eftLVªsV }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 17-092016 dks fujLr Qjek;k tkos rFkk izkFkhZuh }kjk pkgs x;s vuqrks"kksa dks Lohdkj Qjek;k tkosA vU; dksbZ mfpr vkns'k tks izkFkhZuh ds i{k esa gks ikfjr fd;k tkosA ”
(3 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
passed by the learned trial court, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was rejected.
5.1 As the pleaded facts would reveal, the present petitioner, immediately after hear marriage, was subjected to physical and mental cruelty at the hands of her husband and his family members, including the private respondents herein, at her matrimonial home.
5.2 Owing to the said continuous and ever increasing cruelty, the petitioner and her husband (since deceased) submitted an application seeking mutual divorce before the concerned Family Court; but unfortunately, on the date fixed before that Court itself, the petitioner’s husband committed suicide, as a consequence whereof, the mutual divorce application was rejected by the concerned court.
(4 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
enable the private respondent No.2 to look after the day-to-day affairs in relation to construction of the house in question over the aforementioned plot.
6.1 Learned counsel further submitted that looking into the cruelty of her in-laws, she tried her level best to get the aforementioned power of attorney cancelled, as a counterblast thereof, the private respondent no.2 herein filed a false complaint against the petitioner; not only this, the private respondents have exerted immense pressure upon the petitioner so as to enable them to get the unauthorized possession of the house in question.
6.2 Learned counsel also submitted that since the proceedings pursuant to filing of the mutual divorce petition could not culminate into finality, on count of her husband’s death (by suicide), therefore, she remained a legally wedded wife of her late husband; her household article are still being kept in the house of her late husband at Housing Board.
6.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the house in question is the self acquired property of the petitioner, but still, the private respondents are bent upon to deprive the petitioner of her legitimate civil and ownership rights over the property in question; her minor son Mohit is also in the custody of the private respondents, and the petitioner, was not even permitted to meet her son.
6.4 Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned courts below have passed the impugned orders without taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without duly appreciating the evidence placed on record; thus, the impugned orders passed in both the instant petitions deserve to be quashed and set aside.
(5 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
8.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and her husband (since deceased) had already taken divorce as per the rituals prevalent in their community, but the divorce decree by the competent court could not be obtained, on count of death of her husband. Thus, as per learned counsel, once the divorce had happened, as per the settled customs and usage of the community, then the mere factum of absence of divorce decree could not sustain the plea of the petitioner regarding subsistence of her marriage with Late Suresh. Moreover, as per learned counsel, the petitioner, after divorce as per community customs, left her matrimonial home and was residing at her parents house, while her son, Mohit, was residing with the private respondents herein.
8.2 Learned counsel, while denying the averments and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, more particularly, regarding her ownership over the house in question, submitted that during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband, the house in question was sold to the private respondents by the petitioner and her late husband, followed by execution of the power of attorney (registered) and Will document in their (private respondent’s) favour; since then, the private respondents, being lawful owner, are in physical possession of the house in question.
(6 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
8.3 As per learned counsel, even after sale of the disputed property, the same was mortgaged by the petitioner with the Bank and a loan was taken by her; the instalments towards such loan are being continuously and regularly, paid by the private respondents; the expenditure towards work of furniture, marble electricity, water etc. in the house in question was being incurred by the private respondents.
8.4 Learned counsel also submitted that during the lifetime of her husband, the petitioner was having extra-marital affair with some other man, and both of them, were giving continuous threats to the petitioner’s late husband, as a consequence whereof, her husband, on the date fixed before the concerned Family Court, committed suicide, and thus, the application for mutual divorce could not culminate into divorce decree.
8.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the son of the petitioner lived with her for a period of four years; the education and welfare of the child is very well taken care of by the private respondents; even the child is very happy to live with them.
8.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner, while launching the proceedings under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and other laws, is bent upon to take possession of the house in question, by seeking to falsely implicate and entangle the private respondents; whereas, in relation to possession and ownership of the house in question, there is a remedy available under the civil law, which can be resorted to by the petitioner; but the petitioner, by seeking to launch criminal and other proceedings against the private respondents, clearly wishes to cause unwarranted harassment to her in-laws, including the private respondents herein.
(7 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
8.7 Learned counsel thus submitted that it is clear from the aforementioned backdrop and the well reasoned speaking impugned orders concurrently passed by the learned courts below that the petitioner has not approached the courts of law, including this Hon’ble Court, with clean hands, while making incorrect averments and levelling false allegations against the private respondents. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned orders were concurrently passed by the learned courts below do not warrant any interference by this Court.
(8 of 8)
[CRLR-1457/2019]
12.1 This Court also observes, as rightly noticed by the learned revisional court, that the documents, namely, Power of Attorney, is a subject matter of evidence, and no conclusion in regard thereto can be drawn at the preliminary stage of the case.
12.2 Further, at the preliminary stage, no conclusion can be drawn also in respect of ownership of the petitioner over the house in question, that too, in absence of any document on record, to substantiate the claim of ownership by the petitioner.
12.3 This Court also observes that the learned court below has rightly concluded that despite all above, it is always open for the petitioner to get her civil rights in respect of the house in question adjudicated by the concerned civil court.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders rejecting the domestic violence application warrant revisional interference due to lack of specific allegations.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petitions regarding delivery of possession of the residential house.
Whether the contentions regarding ownership and civil remedies preclude revisional intervention.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Saroj W/o Lt. Sh. Suresh Hingorani
State Of Rajasthan
Lokesh Hingorani
Rakesh Hingorani
Smt. Kamla W/o Lt. Sh. Laxmandas
Puspaendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
