2007 (6) TMI 555 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mental health of the respondent before marriage.
2. Allegations of harassment for dowry.
3. Applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to female respondents.
4. Recording of the respondent's statement by the Magistrate.
5. Requirement of a report from the Protection Officer.
6. Relief of penalizing the petitioners.

Summary:

Issue 1: Mental health of the respondent before marriage
The petitioners claimed that the respondent was mentally sick before marriage, which was not disclosed. They argued that the application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed to create pressure, following a failed reconciliation in divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner No. 1. The court held that the truthfulness of these claims cannot be decided in summary proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.PC and must be determined by the Magistrate after due inquiry.

Issue 2: Allegations of harassment for dowry
The petitioners contended that the respondent did not mention the harassment for dowry in her application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, thus claiming the grounds were false. The court reiterated that the veracity of these allegations should be examined by the Magistrate and not in summary proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.PC.

Issue 3: Applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to female respondents
The petitioners argued that u/s 2(q) of the Act, the application u/s 12 cannot be filed against female respondents (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4). The court agreed, stating that the definition of "respondent" under the Act refers to an adult male person, and thus the application against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 is not maintainable.

Issue 4: Recording of the respondent's statement by the Magistrate
The petitioners challenged the recording of the respondent's statement by the Magistrate before issuing notice, which is not required u/s 12 of the Act. The court acknowledged this but held that it cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings, as the Magistrate is allowed to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application u/s 12 of the Act.

Issue 5: Requirement of a report from the Protection Officer
The petitioners argued that no report from the Protection Officer was called before issuing notice. The court clarified that it is not obligatory for the Magistrate to call for such a report before issuing notice; the report must be considered before passing any final order on the application.

Issue 6: Relief of penalizing the petitioners
The petitioners contended that the application's prayer for penalizing them was beyond the Act's provisions. The court noted that while such a relief was unnecessary at this stage, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings; unnecessary reliefs can be negated.

Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The proceedings against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were quashed. The Magistrate was directed to deal with the application as per the Act's provisions.