The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) initiated by a wife against her Toronto-based husband, holding that specific allegations had been made against him and that whether domestic violence occurred is a matter of trial.
Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, which sought to quash proceedings pending before the V MMTC, Bengaluru.
Background
The couple married on 06.12.2013. The wife initially stayed with her in-laws in Bengaluru until arrangements were made, and then joined her husband in Toronto. She returned to India in 2016.
She later filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking a Protection Order under Section 18, a Residence Order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, and compensation under Section 22. Of the five respondents originally arrayed, two were deleted, leaving the husband and his parents. She also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decreed on 03.11.2018.
Arguments Before the Karnataka High Court
Senior Advocate S.P. Shankar, appearing with Advocate Mamata G. Kulkarni for the husband, argued that the DV Act complaint was filed only to harass the petitioner. He submitted that the wife had returned in April 2016 but filed the petition only in August 2017, after one year and four months. He contended that the plea was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC, that no application for condonation of delay under Section 473 had been filed, and that the petition contained no details of domestic violence. He also argued that no domestic violence could arise when the husband was in Toronto, and that the wife did not travel even after the Section 9 petition was allowed.
He relied on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Sejal Dharmesh Ved v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, and the High Court’s order in Mareppa and Others v. Pushapanjali, among others.
Advocate Shreya S. Kumar, appearing for Advocate Siji Malayil on behalf of the wife, submitted that the wife had not deserted her husband but had been made to live separately. She pointed to specific allegations against each respondent in paragraph 18 of the DV petition. On the Section 9 decree, she argued that the tickets were handed over on 15.11.2018 for travel on 17.11.2018, and that the wife also needed a visa. She further contended that Section 468 of the CrPC could not apply, as the reliefs sought were under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act and did not relate to criminal prosecution. She relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal.
Court’s Findings
The Court noted that the disputes over the travel tickets and the husband’s efforts to take his wife back could not be examined at this stage, observing that “these are the issues which cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”
On limitation, the Court held that “whether it is barred by limitation is also a mixed question of fact and law.”
Rejecting the claim that the petition lacked pleadings of domestic violence, the Court pointed to the specific allegations in paragraph 18. It distinguished Mareppa, noting that only omnibus allegations had been made in that case, whereas specific allegations had been made against the petitioner here.
Referring to Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi, the Court noted that the High Court should be very slow and circumspect while invoking Section 482 and may interfere only where injustice or illegality is found, which was not the case here. It observed: “In the case on hand, whether there exists such domestic violence or not is a matter of trial.”
The Court also relied on the Madras High Court’s ruling in Arul Daniel and Others v. Suganya, which held that a Section 482 petition challenging proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act is not maintainable. It further cited the coordinate Bench ruling in Oliver Menezes v. Serita Therese Mathias, which in turn relied on the principle that “a Magistrate is not a criminal Court for the purposes of proceedings under Chapter IV of the Act.”
Outcome
Holding that the petitioner had not made out any ground to invoke Section 482 of the CrPC, Justice Sandesh dismissed the criminal petition.
Case Title: Sabuj Paul v. Arpita Dasgupta and Others
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7018 of 2019
Bench: Justice H.P. Sandesh
Date: 17.10.2026
