Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishor Kale, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the proceedings in Misc. Criminal Complaint Case No.314/2007 filed by his wife (respondent no.1) and son (respondent no.2) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act). The wife alleged that she was married to the petitioner on 8.5.1990, and their son was born on 24.2.1991. She claimed that she was treated with cruelty for dowry and was deserted by the petitioner in 1992. Since then, she and her son lived separately with her father. She had previously obtained maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Rs.1800 per month for both. The petitioner had initiated divorce proceedings which were dismissed, and an appeal was pending. The wife alleged that the petitioner and his mother sold the ancestral house to deprive them of its benefits. The petitioner, a lecturer earning Rs.25,000 per month, was sought to be directed to provide accommodation and maintenance. The Magistrate passed interim orders on 31.10.2007 and 11.12.2007 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance and provide accommodation. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the parties had been living separately since 1992, and that the son was not an 'aggrieved person' under the Act. The High Court held that the Act does not prescribe any limitation for filing a complaint, and the son falls within the definition of 'aggrieved person' under Section 2(a) as any person who has been subjected to domestic violence. The court also held that the interim orders were validly passed under Section 23 of the Act. The petition was dismissed, and the proceedings were directed to continue.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Domestic Violence - Maintainability of Complaint - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 12, 19, 20 - Complaint filed by wife and son against husband/father alleging domestic violence and seeking reliefs - Husband challenged maintainability on ground of long separation since 1992 - Held that the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for filing complaint, and even if parties are living separately, the complaint is maintainable if domestic violence is alleged (Paras 1-10). B) Criminal Law - Domestic Violence - Son as Aggrieved Person - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(a) - Son claimed to be aggrieved person due to deprivation of right to reside in shared household and need for accommodation for studies - Held that son falls within definition of 'aggrieved person' as any person who has been subjected to domestic violence, and the Act includes children (Paras 11-15). C) Criminal Law - Domestic Violence - Interim Orders - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 23 - Magistrate passed interim order directing husband to pay maintenance and provide accommodation - Held that interim orders can be passed if prima facie case is made out, and the Magistrate has discretion to grant such relief (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the wife and son under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable when the parties have been living separately since 1992, and whether the son can be considered an 'aggrieved person' under the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the complaint is maintainable and the son is an aggrieved person. The interim orders were upheld, and the proceedings were directed to continue.
Law Points
- Maintainability of complaint under Domestic Violence Act despite long separation
- Son as aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act
- Interim orders under Section 23 of the Act
- Right to residence under Section 17 of the Act
