Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Natarajan Sundaresan, filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed in family court and magistrate proceedings initiated by his wife, Shadi Natarajan. In Writ Petition No. 2651 of 2013, the petitioner challenged the Family Court, Pune's order dated 11th January 2013, which directed that since the petitioner (respondent in that petition) was served and had knowledge of the petition but remained continuously absent, the petition would proceed ex-parte. The petitioner also sought quashing of the family court proceeding being Petition No. A 1202 of 2012 filed by the wife. In Writ Petition No. 910 of 2013, the petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) filed by the wife. The court noted that the petitioner's advocate relied on an earlier writ petition (No. 4034 of 2012) seeking police protection, which had been withdrawn due to missing averments and documents. The petitioner also showed an order from the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Court No.5, Pune dated 16th July 2012 restraining him from causing domestic violence, which the petitioner claimed to be suffering from. The court observed that the order merely called upon the petitioner not to be violent and questioned how he could suffer from non-violence. The court held that the Family Court's order to proceed ex-parte was not erroneous and that the family court proceeding could not be quashed. Regarding the DV Act complaint, the court relied on its earlier decision in Mangesh Sawant v. Minal Vijay Bhosale & Anr. (2012 Cri LJ 1413) to hold that a complaint under the DV Act is not strictly a criminal proceeding and consequently cannot be quashed. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Pune to defend the proceeding if he so deems fit, and directed the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. Both writ petitions were dismissed as wholly frivolous without the need for issuing notice to the respondent. The court also directed the Registrar Judicial to send a copy of the order to the Family Court Judge and the Judicial Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Ex-Parte Proceedings - Service and Absence - Family Court's direction to proceed ex-parte after service and continuous absence of respondent is not erroneous - Held that the order is valid and no interference warranted (Paras 1-2). B) Criminal Law - Domestic Violence - Quashing of Complaint - Complaint under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not strictly a criminal proceeding and cannot be quashed - Held that the petitioner must appear before the Magistrate to defend the proceeding (Paras 5-6). C) Civil Procedure - Frivolous Litigation - Dismissal Without Notice - Writ petition found wholly frivolous and dismissed without issuing notice to respondent - Held that such petitions waste judicial time (Paras 3-4, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court's order to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner is erroneous; whether a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be quashed.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed as wholly frivolous. Family Court's ex-parte order upheld. DV Act complaint cannot be quashed; petitioner directed to appear before the Magistrate to defend the proceeding. Registrar Judicial directed to send copy of order to Family Court and Magistrate.
Law Points
- Family court can proceed ex-parte if respondent served and absent
- DV Act complaint cannot be quashed as it is not strictly criminal proceeding
- Writ petition wholly frivolous dismissed without notice
