Ramgopal Soni vs. Megha Saraf

Held

The Court held that the filing of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. does not debar a wife from claiming maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 20 of the Act allows for monetary relief, which can be in addition to or under an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court also clarified that the definition of 'respondent' under the Domestic Violence Act includes relatives of the husband, citing Supreme Court judgments in Hiralal P. Harsora and Sandhya Manoj Wankhade. Therefore, applicants No. 1 to 3 can be proceeded against. The Court stated that it cannot consider the defense of the applicants at this stage and can only consider uncontroverted allegations. Consequently, no case was made out for interference, and the application was dismissed.

Facts

The applicants, Ramgopal Soni and his family members, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in MJCR No. 5901/2023 and an order dated 01.12.2023. The respondent, Megha Saraf, is the wife of applicant No. 4, Shiva Soni. The respondent had lodged a complaint alleging harassment for dowry and a Creta car, and that her Streedhan was taken. She also alleged that her signature was taken on blank stamp papers. The applicants contend that the respondent lodged an FIR three and a half months after returning to her parental home, and that she had previously made a different complaint to the Superintendent of Police which was not investigated. They argue that the respondent is a working woman and has filed the current proceedings with the intention of extracting monetary benefits, also noting that she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The applicants claim no specific role has been assigned to applicants No. 1 to 3 in the respondent's statement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be quashed on the grounds that the respondent is a working woman and has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Question of law). The applicants argued that the respondent's intention was to extract monetary benefits and that she is a working woman. They also contended that no specific role was assigned to applicants No. 1 to 3. The applicants relied on the fact that the respondent had filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application. 2. Whether the applicants No. 1 to 3, who are relatives of the husband, can be proceeded against under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (Question of law). The applicants argued that no specific role was assigned to them. The revenue (impliedly, the respondent's side) argued that the definition of 'respondent' under the Act includes relatives of the husband.