1 Cri.Appln.No.4615/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4615/2010 1) Sunil s/o Laxmanrao Salve, and others - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) Chhaya Sunil Salve and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate for Applicants; Ms.Priyanka Sawji, Adv. For Respondents. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard extensively. Rule was issued on 6th April, 2011 and the matter is heard finally. 2) The applicant no.1 - Sunil married to Smt. Chhayabai on 13.5.1987. The couple is blessed with three children, who are present Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The complaint illustrates the parties could not pull on well though both are well-educated and appear to be gainfully employed. The proceedings before the Family Court, seeking divorce, initiated by husband is pending. There operates maintenance 2 Cri.Appln.No.4615/2010 decree against the husband, which he has all throughout complied, no grievance between the parties. 3) It appears from the record, the husband and the wife/respondent are separate since at least 2002, as is pleaded at several places. The divorce petition, being No.168/2006, was filed and it is pending as stated above. 4) Considering these aspects and when the petition moved under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act) is perused, I find that the observations of Naib-Tahsildar and Protection Officer, in the form of report to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Beed, dated 9.8.2010, does not depict the correct position. 5) The wife Smt. Chhayabai has impleaded Smt. Jyoti w/o Sunil claiming her to be second wife of her husband Sunil. Indeed, said Jyoti has no relation to the family and consequently, she could not be branded to take benefit of the above referred Act. Same is the position with Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Sweeping allegations are made against them and it is said that they have latently allowed the husband to commit violence. Such allegations, would not and need 3 Cri.Appln.No.4615/2010 not be further allowed to accelerate the proceedings. 6) The conduct between the couple may be at loggerhead and not keeping well, however, that does not mean to implead the person not known to the family and alien thereto. 7) Section 18 of the said Act provides for Protection orders by a Magistrate, which he would be passing after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a Protection order. Section 19 of the Act deals with monetary relief and the Magistrate has to consider the loss of earning; medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person. 8) Survey of these sections and the petition, I find seldom there is any reference to attract the above provisions against the husband or other persons named in the petition. 9) Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has yet to take cognizance and, 4 Cri.Appln.No.4615/2010 therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed. 10) Having gone through the conduct of the parties and their separation since long, the prosecution sought in terms of the above referred Act, would be a persecution by itself and amount to another weapon to be used to pressurize the petitioner to succumb the unjust demand. 11) Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the applicants/husband are quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/