Date:
23rd June, 2022
Case Title:
Md. Safique Mallick Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Parties:
Petitioner – Md. Safiquemallick
Respondent – State of West Bengal
Subject
An appeal was filed for quashing criminal proceedings for charges booked under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Important Provisions
Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act –Application to Magistrate.
Section 3 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005-Definition of domestic violence.
Overview
- The petitioner and his wife were married according to the Muslim Shriat law on November 20th, 2011.
- The wife then started to misbehave and insult the petitioner.
- The wife left the matrimonial home along with her minor child on February 15th.
- The petitioner then gave divorce to his wife through Talaknamaas per Muslim Personal Law on 19/01/2016.
- The due amount of iddat towards the wife was paid after dissolution of marriage.
- After receiving the copy of the Talaknama, the wife initiated criminal case by making false allegations.
- The wife also filed civil suit before the learned 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore being Title suit no. 173 of 2016 praying for a declaration that the dissolution of marriage by Talaq dated 19.1.2016 was a nullity and non-est in the eye of law and was not made in accordance with Muslim Law.
Issues raised
- Whether denial of economic support to wife & minor son amounts to 'Domestic Violence' even if parties aren't residing in shared household?
Advancements made by the Petitioner
- The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the interim stay was not granted by the Court and the divorce was still operative.
- The wife of the petitioner voluntarily left her matrimonial home and since she was a working lady she cannot claim for any monetary relief.
- The wife cannot file a case under section 12 of the DV Act, claiming herself to be an aggrieved person since the divorce was still operative.
- The learned counsel prayed for quashing the aforesaid case since the magistrate was proceeding with such case without deciding the maintainability issue raised by the petitioner.
Advancements made by the Respondent
- The learned counsel for the respondent argued that being aggrieved by the alleged divorce through Talaknama, she had filed title suit no. 173 of 2016 and until and unless the said proceeding was concluded against the opposite party no 2, it cannot be said that no domestic relationship exists in between the parties or that their matrimonial tie was dissolved and for which she cannot be categorized as aggrieved person.
- Denial of economic support to the wife and minor son would amount to economic abuse as per the definition of domestic violence.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court observed that domestic violence in the form of economic abuse still continues after talaq.
- The limitation provided under Section 468 of the Code would only apply if there was any offence committed in terms of the provisions of DV Act and not in respect of an application filed under section 12 of the said Act.
- The Court relied upon the case of Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 446) to prove the above statement.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that under Section 3 of the DV Act, 2005 domestic violence includes both emotional and economic abuse as well. The wife of the petitioner cannot be categorised as an aggrieved person. Thereby, the application CRR 153 of 2020 was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
