Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
J.Srinivas S/O Sri.Jayachandra vs G.Dhanalakshmi D/O Govindaswamy on 5 April, 2013
Petitioner Barred By Time In Filing DV After 1 Year From the Date of Alleged Cause of Action
- Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent remains absent.
- The brief facts are as follows:-An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2005 Act’, for brevity), was filed on 16.2.2009 against the petitioner and a case was registered by the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1), Bangalore, in Crime No.139/2009. The allegations were that the marriage of the respondent and the petitioner was solemnized on 31.5.2004 as per Hindu customs and rites and the wedding had been conducted at much expense to the father of the respondent and the respondent. The respondent lived in her matrimonial home upto November 2004 and she was pregnant by then. She was treated cruelly by the petitioner and his parents during that time and unable to bear the torture, she had left the matrimonial home. She alleges that she was compelled to eat a certain substance in order to abort pregnancy. Inspite of the efforts of the petitioner and his family members, she did not abort. She was compelled to eat meat though she was a strict vegetarian etc. It was also urged that the respondent’s parents had given gold and other valuables apart from meeting the marriage expenses. Even then the petitioner had demanded further amounts as dowry and therefore, continued to harass and treat the respondent with cruelty. It is in this background that the respondent had filed the petition under the 2005 Act. The court had taken cognizance of a petition under Section 12 of the 2005 Act and issued summons to the petitioner. It is that which is sought to be challenged in the present petition.
This court had granted an interim order in the first instance and the petition has come up for hearing only at this point of time.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the maximum punishment that is attracted, even if the case against the petitioner is established, is one year and given the cause of action that is alleged in the complaint, the complaint ought to have been filed within a period of one year in terms of Section 468 of the Cr.PC and admittedly, the case having been registered in the year 2009 in respect of the offence alleged of the year 2004, the complaint was hopelessly barred by time and could not have been entertained.
Though the allegations are spread over a period of time, it does appear that the complaint was not filed within one year from the date of alleged cause of action. Therefore, the proceedings could not have been entertained by the court below.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings Crl.Mis.No.139/2009 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-1) Bangalore, are quashed.