SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suman vs Gurcharan Singh on 11 April, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 470 / 2016
Suman w/o Gurcharan D/o Harbansh Singh, by caste Ramgarhiya,
r/o Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar, presently residing at Court
Road, opposite Circuit House, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil and
District Hanumangarh.

—-Petitioner
Versus
Gurcharan Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh, by caste Ramgariya
Mathadu, r/o H.No. 2 G 19, Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar
presently Scientist Bhabha Atomic Analysis Division, Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, Vishakhapattanam (A.P.)

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr C.S. Kotwani
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR
Order
Date of pronouncement: (11) /04/2018

This Criminal Revision under sec.397/401 CrPC has been

filed against order dated 30.03.2016 passed by learned Special

Judge, SC/ST (Removal of Atrocities cases), Hanumangarh in Cr.

Appeal No.35/2014, whereby the order dated 30.01.2014 passed

by the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Cr. Regular Case

No.179/2011 has been reversed.

Briefly stated, the petitioner filed an application under sec.12

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

{herein after referred to as ‘the Act’} against the respondent and

contended that the marriage between the parties was solemnized

on 16.02.2009 at Hanumangarh. It was also submitted that after

the marriage, petitioner started living with the husband at
(2 of 6)
[CRLR-470/2016]

Sriganganagar. Since marriage the respondent has been working

at Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Vishkhapattanam. It was

averred that the respondent was harassing the petitioner

physically and mentally. The respondent used to demand dowry

from petitioner and always scolded the petitioner for gifts

articles given by her parents in wedding.

The petitioner further alleged in that application that the

respondent did not maintain her properly and sent her back to her

parents’ house. It was also averred that that petitioner’s father

was middle-class man and having obligation to maintain his family

also. The respondent is working as Scientist and earning salary of

Rs.60,000/- per month. Besides, the respondent is having

agriculture lands, residential and commercial properties at various

places and he is in very wealthy position. Therefore, the petitioner

claimed relief under secs.18, 19, 20 22 of the Act for protection,

residential, monetary and compensatory relief.

The application of petitioner was contested by the

respondent by way of filing reply denying the allegations.

After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide order

dated 30.01.2014 allowed application filed by the petitioner in part

and ordered the respondent to pay Rs.4000/- per month to the

petitioner from date of filing of the application i.e. 09.09.2010.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2014, the

respondent filed an appeal under sec.29 of the Act and after

hearing both the parties, the learned appellate court allowed

respondent’s appeal vide order dated 30.03.2016 and reversed

order of the trial court dated 30.01.2014. Being aggrieved by the
(3 of 6)
[CRLR-470/2016]

order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the appellate court, the

petitioner has filled this Revision Petition.

It was contended that the respondent in his reply to the

application filed by the petitioner categorically stated that

respondent and his entire family is having belief that the petitioner

is responsible for the death of her father-in-law and this very fact

is enough for establishing verbal and emotional abuse against the

petitioner by the respondent. It was also contended that the trial

court in its order specifically held the respondent guilty of

harassing the petitioner but the appellate court without any

reason reversed said well-reasoned order of the trial court.

Learned appellate court has not considered this important aspect

and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

It was also contended that the learned appellate court has

further erred while allowing the appeal on the ground that the

petitioner has not furnished exact details like dates of alleged

incidents and by this fact the petitioner does not seem bona fide

and the allegations levelled by her are falsified. The observation of

the appellate court is not only logically incorrect but also against

various judicial pronouncements.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently

opposed the arguments raised by the petitioner and contended

that the allegation of demand of dowry is false. The trial under

charges of secs.498A and 406 IPC against the respondent has

been concluded and the court passed its judgment on 30.06.2017

whereby the respondents are acquitted of the charges under

secs.498A and 406 IPC. There is no iota of evidence on record
(4 of 6)
[CRLR-470/2016]

from which it can be inferred that the respondent has committed

any act of domestic violence against petitioner.

Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused evidence

placed on record.

I have perused original complaint of the petitioner, in which

she has written that after the marriage on 16.02.2009, she

started residing in her matrimonial home at Sriganganagar. Her

husband was posted at Vishakhapattnam in Bhabha Atomic

Research Center. She further made allegation regarding demand

of dowry that at the time of “Vidayi” after the marriage,

respondents demanded a Swift car and rupees Two Lacs. The

allegation of demand of dowry could not be proved during trial of

respondent for charge under secs.498A 406 IPC. The

respondents have placed before this Court judgment dated

30.06.2017 in Cr. Case No.158/2010 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, Hanumangarh.

From the evidence on record, it is clear that petitioner

Suman left matrimonial home after May 2010. It is further evident

that during period of one half years, petitioner Suman went to

stay with in-laws’ family for one or two times. She never gave

detail as to on what dates she went there and for how many days

she stayed there. She has not mentioned fact that during her stay

at Sriganganagar whether respondent came there to stay with her

and it is also not clear when alleged act of domestic violence said

to be committed.

It would be pertinent to note that the “domestic violence” as

defined under sec.3 of the Act, “any act, omission or commission
(5 of 6)
[CRLR-470/2016]

or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in

case it 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

harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with

a view to coerce her or any other person related to her, to meet

any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable

security; or has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or

any person related to her by any conduct mentioned above or

otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to

the aggrieved person.”

Definition of domestic violence rest upon not only the nature

of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim but also

upon norms of acceptable behaviour. The core of definition of

domestic violence consists of all the acts that constitute violence.

Any continuous deprivation of aggrieved woman from economic or

financial resources or prohibition of access to shared household

would be a domestic violence. In determining whether any act,

omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes

“domestic violence”, the overall facts and circumstances of the

case shall be a guiding factor.

Learned appellate court, after considering over-all evidence

has right observed as follows:

^^izkFkhZ;k dh dgkuh ls ;g Li’V ugha gksrk gS fd oLrqr% og vius llqjky dc xbZA
izkFkhZ;k dks ;g Hkh fl) djuk pkfg;s Fkk fd ftl le;kof/k esa og nks ckj xaxkuxj
esa jgh og dkSulh vof/k Fkh vkSj D;k ml vof/k esa vihykFkhZ Hkh mlds lkFk vkdj
jgk Fkk tc mlds lkFk ?kjsyw fgalk dkfjr gqbZA ijarq ,slh dksbZ lk{; eSa ikoyh esa
(6 of 6)
[CRLR-470/2016]

ugha ns[krk gw¡A izkFkhZ;k ds Øwjrk dsa laca/k esa tks Hkh vk{ksi gS og lkekU; izd`fr ds
lkFk bl ifjizs{; esa izkFkhZ;k lqeu dk ;g vkjksi fd mls ;g rkus nsuk fd og vius
llqj dks [kk xbZ gS vkfn vkfn ;g Hkh vihykFkhZ ds ifjizs{; esa blfy;s mi;qDr
izrhr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd firk dh e`R;q ds mijkar vihykFkhZ us viuh ekrk dks
xaxkuxj Hkst fn;k Fkk vkSj vihykFkhZ dh dgkuh ds vuqlkj rFkk lqeu rc viuh
lklw ds ikl xaxkuxj jgh FkhA ;gka Hkh vihykFkhZ izkFkhZ;k ls vyx fo’kk[kkiV~ue esa
jgk Fkk vkSj mudh dgkuh ds vuqlkj mlus viuh iRuh dks viuh ekrk ds ikl
NksM+k Fkk tgka ls izkFkhZ;k vihykFkhZ dk ?kj NksM+dj pyh xbZ FkhA eSaus lk{; dk tks
mijksDr foospu fd;k gS mlds vuq:i vihykFkhZ i{k dk “kiFk i esa fn;k x;k ;g
dFku mi;qDr izrhr gksrk gS ftlesa “kiFk i ds in la[;k 5 esa vihykFkhZ ;k izkFkhZ
us ;g dgk gS fd fookg ds i’pkr izkFkhZ;k yxHkx ,d ekl gh mlds llqjky esa
jgh gSA ;fn izkFkhZ;k dk ifr xaxkuxj esa fuokl ugha djrk Fkk rks fQj izkFkhZ;k ds
ifr us izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk Øwjrk dc dh ifr ds vfrfjDr tks Hkh vizkFkhZx.k Fks muds
fo:) izkFkhZ;k ds vk{ksiksa dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us udkj fn;k rks fQj vizkFkhZx.k
la[;k 1 ftlds lkFk izkFkhZ;k dHkh Hkh tkdj fo”kk[kkiV~ue ;k vgenkckn ugha jghA
vizkFkhZ us izkFkhZ;k ds lkFk ?kjsyw fgalk dc dkfjr dh ;g esjh le ls ijs gS**

Obviously, for granting relief under the Act, it is for the

petitioner to prove that alleged act of violence has been

committed to her. This Court concurs with aforesaid observation

recorded by the learned appellate court.

In view of the above, I find no ground of interference in the

order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the appellate court below. The

Revision petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and the same

is dismissed.

(VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR)J.

mma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh