GUWAHATI, India, June 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 26:

1. Heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Sarmah, the learned counsel representing the sole respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the proceedings of D.V. Case No.212 of 2023 pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. The 51 year old respondent filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the present petitioner, being her husband. They were married on 08.02.2008. Initially, they stayed at Duliajan, though their marriage was solemnized at Guwahati.

4. They had marital disputes. Therefore, the respondent filed a divorce proceeding, being F.C. (Civil) Case No.447 of 2010 in the Family Court. Though, the Family Court delivered a judgment, both the respondent and the petitioner decided to patch up their differences. Even after expiry of 10 years subsequent thereto, they could not have a proper relationship. Therefore, the respondent again filed another divorce proceeding being Case No.425/2018.

5. The respondent started to live in her parents' house. On one occasion, in order to patch up their dispute, the respondent came to her matrimonial house but her husband left the house and started to reside at a hotel after locking his bedroom in his house.

6. Narrating the aforesaid facts, among other prayers, the respondent filed the said application before the court below seeking an amount of Rs.2 crore as compensation and damage caused to her mentally and emotionally. The petitioner reportedly earns Rs.2.3 lakh per month by working as the Chief Executive Engineer at Oil India Limited, Duliajan.

7. The leaned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and issued notice to the present petitioner.

8. The learned counsel Mr. Sarmah has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras Court that was delivered in Arul Daniel & Ors. v. Suganya, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435. In this judgment, the Hon'be Madras High Court has held that the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable, though a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable on a limited ground on patent lack of jurisdiction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqN1I0uKMvjm%2BytLe%2FRoUKiDS8VjlI9UJ2FAUGXWlEBQ7&caseno=Crl.Pet./557/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010093872024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.