Allowed

Natharam Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2023CRLMP/608/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged orders rejecting a plea to drop domestic violence proceedings against in-laws. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, liability attaches only if domestic violence occurs within a 'shared household.' Since the relaters did not reside with the aggrieved person and specific allegations were absent,

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 20.10.2021 and 22.01.2021 quashing proceedings and dismissing the plea to drop cases are set aside and the proceedings against the petitioners under the Act are not justified.

Natharam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 608/2022

¶4

Natharam Choudhary S/o Lt. Sh. Tilaram Ji Choudhary, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Jat, R/o E-5, Colony 2, Vetnary College Campus, Near Deendayal Circle, C.v.a.s., Bikaner (Raj.).

¶5

Smt. Sita W/o Natharam Choudhary, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Jat, R/o E-5, Colony 2, Vetnary College Campus, Near Deendayal Circle, C.v.a.s., Bikaner (Raj.).

¶6

Smt. Rajni D/o Natharam Choudhary W/o Harish Choudhary, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat, R/o E-59, Pranit Colony, Near Lingampali, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶7

Smt. Sunita D/o Natharam Choudhary W/o Sachin, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Jat, R/o E-5, Colony 2, Vetnary College Campus, Near Deendayal Circle, C.v.a.s., Bikaner (Raj.).

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Manju D/o Ramniwas W/o Rajkumar, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Plot No. 19, K. No. 56/4 Near C Road Saran Nagar Road, Jodhpur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ranjeet Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vikram Sharma, PP
	Mr.	S.S. Gour

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶14

Order

¶15

13/07/2023

¶16

Instant misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 20.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby the

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

[CRLMP-608/2022]

(2 of 7)

learned Judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, was dismissed.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Act of 2005’) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan demanding right of residence and monthly expenses in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. She also prayed for return of dowry items and also sought maintenance under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 alongwith other misc. prayers.

¶22

During pendency of the application before the court below, the petitioners filed an application stating therein that the petitioner No.1 and petitioner no.2 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent no.2 are residing at Bikaner. Similarly petitioner no.3 and petitioner no.4 who are sister-in-law of the respondent no.2 are residing at Hyderabad and Bikaner respectively whereas, the respondent no.2 after marriage stayed only for one day at Bikaner and thereafter, she went to Pune where she lived with her husband, therefore, petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and proceedings against them may be dropped.

¶23

After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 22.01.2021. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Women

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

[CRLMP-608/2022]

(3 of 7)

Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur, however, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2021.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the case of the petitioners does not come within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act of 2005 as the respondent no.2 had earlier married to one Vijay Khokhar and without any decree of divorce passed by any competent Court and by concealing this fact, the respondent no.2 entered into second marriage with the son of petitioners no.1 & 2. Thus, the respondent no.2 still being the legally wedded wife of Vijay Khokhar, her relationship with son of petitioners No.1 & 2 does not come within the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005. It is further argued that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated by the respondent no.2 with malafide intention inasmuch as none of the petitioners ever stayed with the respondent no.2 nor there is any specific act assigned to the petitioners except bald and omnibus allegations. It is also argued that both the sister-in-laws are living separately at Hyderabad and Bikaner having no concerned with the respondent no.2. Similarly, petitioner No.1 and petitioner no.2 who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent no.2 are residing at Bikaner and the respondent no.2 had stayed at Bikaner only for one day after marriage, thereafter, she went to Pune with her husband, therefore, there is no question of domestic violence meted out to the respondent no.2 by the petitioners. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned orders dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan and order dated 20.10.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

[CRLMP-608/2022]

(4 of 7)

atrocities Cases), Jodhpur metropolitan may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners for dropping the proceedings initiated against them by respondent no.2 under Section 12 of Act of 2005 may be allowed.

¶33

Per contra, Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners started torturing and harassing respondent No. 2 on one pretext or the other. Respondent No. 2 tolerated their unruly behaviour for few years with hope that her husband and in-laws would mend their ways & approach towards her, but all in vain. Thereafter, she was shunted out of the matrimonial home and had to take shelter in her parental house. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that she had no source of income and was not in a position to maintain herself. Therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned so also the record.

¶35

The expression 'domestic violence' is defined in Section 3 of the Act of 2005 and the respondent is said to have committed the same in the manner, resulting thereby injuries caused to the aggrieved person. The term ‘respondent’ as per Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 means any person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom, the latter has sought for any reliefs under the Act of 2005. As per Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005, the expression 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons, who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

[CRLMP-608/2022]

(5 of 7)

when they are related by marriage, consanguinity or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. If the above provisions are read together, it would mean that a respondent, who is or has been in a domestic relationship and live or lived together with the aggrieved person at any time and has committed domestic violence while sharing common household would be liable under the Act of 2005 in case an application is received from the aggrieved person or from a Protection Officer or service provider.

¶40

In the case at hand, the petitioners are the in-laws of the opposite party. The application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 is filed by the respondent no.2 seeking reliefs against the petitioners on the basis of allegations levelled therein, referring to which, it is claimed that the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 as against them is maintainable. When certain allegations are made against any respondents, who are related to the aggrieved person, either by marriage or such other means as delineated in Section 2(f), an action under the Act of 2005 would lie only if acts of domestic violence is committed while being in a shared household. If the aggrieved person and respondent never stayed together in same household, merely because the former was abused and ill-treated by the latter, it would not amount to any acts of domestic violence in absence of being in a shared household. That apart, to include and involve the in-laws, who are in a common household with the aggrieved person, all such particulars are to be stated in the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. If there is no specific allegation against the respondent or respondents, who is alleged to be in shared

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

[CRLMP-608/2022]

(6 of 7)

household, reliefs under the Act of 2005 cannot be claimed against them by the aggrieved person. Thus, to act upon the grievance of the aggrieved person, the Magistrate is to go through the contents of the application filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 to satisfy himself that the respondent being in a domestic relationship and having shared common household, either presently or at a given point of time, if committed any domestic violence may be proceeded with for appropriate reliefs under the Act of 2005 and not otherwise.

¶45

In so far as the petitioners are concerned, as earlier mentioned, they are the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisterin-laws. On a reading of the application under Section 12 of Act of 2005, it is revealed that the respondent no.2 alleged that soon after marriage the petitioners started ill-treating her for dowry. For the ill-treatment and alleged mischief, the respondent no.2 had lodged an FIR No. 06/2019, resulted in submission of chargesheet against the husband and petitioner no.1 father-inlaw. However, in the humble opinion of the Court, the petitioner no.1 for being chargesheeted by itself would not be a ground to justify the action under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 which is permissible only if they are alleged of committing the acts of mischief being in a domestic relationship with the opposite party. On a look at application, it is evident that for very brief periods, the respondent no.2 stayed in the house of the petitioners. In other words, barely for few days, the opposite party remained in the matrimonial home of petitioners and furthermore, the application does not indicate as to if she was ill-treated by any of the petitioners during all such stay. The respondent no.2 appears

¶46

(7 of 7) [CRLMP-608/2022]

¶47

[2023:RJ-JD:21462]

¶48

to have remained with her husband. The entire allegation is principally directed against the husband of respondent no.2 while she was staying with him in a common household. Even the maintenance awarded under the Act of 2005 has been directed to be paid by the husband of respondent no.2. The petitioners cannot be subjected to the proceeding under the Act of 2005 in absence of any allegations of them having committed domestic violence by considering the fact that she was with all the petitioners during her short stay.

¶49

In the light of above discussion, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The proceedings under the Act of 2005 vis-àvis the petitioners, cannot be justified. The order dated 20.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur so also the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶50

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶51

85-BJSH/-

Natharam Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natharam Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

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

Manoj Chasta Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramvilas Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Sampatraj Mehta Vs State

Anil Saraswat Vs State of Rajasthan

Joli Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan