IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULHARC-.EA
DATED THIS THE 3157 DAY or J;§§iU.§R¥,"r2oa9.r_'r _
serene, %
HQNBLE MR. JUSTICE Asncxfits. 1-!INC%--!VIG*E§I
CRIMINAL PETITIC1N_ Nc§'.é':69éir-2908
Between
1. K.Rameshbabu
5/0 X. Hanumanth*raos';j'r' ~ '
Aged about 32 \;rea;7's»V "
Occ: Agriculture 1*
R/o Sirguwa "
Taluk: Sirquppa-- '
Beiiary Distri=r;t .
2. K. Hanumanthrai} " _
Age Mam % ~
,Ri"e.Tod.;3;3éi*~.,_-'.iiIag:e «««««
Taluk: .L,inga':-sguaf
{p¢t:t:oner"sr;:d.i a%ITnsr'2
=.._,daleted ride Cgsurtbrd-er dt.1.10.2GO8)
« . . Venkaramina
' 'vsfig K. ,.l-iarmmanthrae
*.__"Agafi Meier, R/0 Tadaki village
Tfiuk; Lifigasgur
" . _4. %ra'_sersvt.,'V "
[By 51'? shsvanana V. Pattanshettt, i§td'¢t1Cé3t_e']~ ti'
And
Srnt. K. Aruna
W/o K. Rameshbabu ..
Aged about 2? years . V
Qcc: Househeld
R/o B-udhihal Camp H
Taiuk: Sindhnur t V.
Eflstrictz Kappa! ~ ...Respondent
By 1_Sfi’V’3a$aj’§ara;’«ER;.t._i§éat.h, Advocate]
This Cr!’ Petition is fileL’s;u:1»d’er» Séction 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the
Advocate for the p<§titicr1ers_ praying' that this Hosfble Court may be
pleased to quash the pmoeedings in (:11. Misc. No.203i08 on the ffle cf
the,J.,M.F.C..,.;sincihanur, "i=nst§t1;tc:d under Section 12 of Protection of
Worraenfrom Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
V”T_b§’sAC’r’:. ‘VPe.tftté5’n::cg;§ning on for admission this day, the Court
9_B..|.’LE_B
thé Pratection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
flag,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). Subsequentty;’__t:his:”‘
Court, by its order, dated 15* October, zoos ;ti_sr’~’n.i:ssed~
petition as hot pressed as against the ._vp*etitioe:éi*sV.:§;’V”;_V?
and 4 based on the submission ofbthe !e3rhed couo’se3v’vforhv
petittoners. Consequentiy the cause%tit§V}e»of the the
prayer are aiso amended. The..A1pet«i’tio_r§ reovoireo to be
considered only in respect (respondent
No.3 in the proceedings’:hefore:A__the’5ttfia«!.A§fo1s~rt;)V:f’ I
2. Sri shivaharad Fetie.h§h.g:ft:.,V_’ttjg’:.’j’e.a.:»;;ed counsel for the
petitioner suoratts there ts a bar for
prosecuting my notice the definition
contained in said Act, which is extracted
h¢?~t;tn,Pe;0’3¥f:.:, u sssss
tlais Act, unIe§ the context otherwise
ret;uf’res;~ V (3). tiifltvzocx xxx xxx
V .(q) “réspoo:c!ei;t”” means any aduft mab person who is, or
I’ heed,-.i.=5 a mmestic relationship with the aggrieved
‘ ‘good against whom the aggrieved person has
‘. gsoogbtany relief under this Act.
” ‘Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in e
” “relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a
figs;
if:ti<;.e».Conetit.t§tien,.effgreéia. He submits that the proviso to sub-
~ –$e;tien..,2(q) ef_tfi.e said Act stata that a cempiaint can be filed
"the_'fe|ative at the husband; the reietlves cf the husband
complaint against a relaeive of the husband or the maie
partner!'
3. Nextty, Sri Pattenshetti brings to my netice the pre$§ie.£$L;’
Sectmn 19(1) of the said Act, which reads as foliows:
-39(1) While disposing of an arpgzlitrartiet-3. A
section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate twat: egg eeigggk
satisfied that domestic v£o1enceV!:a:.s takes_ ‘place, ”
residence order» “‘ V’ ‘ ” ‘V
(a) to (19 xxxxxxxxx. AV _ _
Previded that no order an’ae:t:tec!at-se (3) shall be
paged against any perezzan we is a¥.”;§rt§mee.v” ‘ 1 ._
4t Pet centre, 5:: ‘fikeeevatiaj Me§f;’;?.”‘zhefleéxrned counsel
appearing for the tttazatt the said Act was
enetted to give%’f$Vrete§:tio’e3_iio wetfiétht against her relatives.
He submits that tt «weuIti”‘ti§it»’h–e§?et”been the Intendment of the
legislature te give :$ret_ect.i.en fa the woman onty against men and
notvigg.a’§nSrE’:..:%G§iT1én”; He'”$t3’i3’rhits that the provisions of the said
Act sVfi’e:1:Et;!;T_be. tetrtcma en the ietter and spirit ef Articie 14 of
498%.