- (1.) The petitioners, herein, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of C.P. Case No. 754 of 2009, initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The prayer includes quashing of the order dated-23.07.2009, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby the petition filed by the petitioners for summary dismissal of the case was rejected. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated-30.11.2009, passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2009, whereby the Revision application filed by the petitioners against the order of cognizance, dated-23.07.2009, was also dismissed.
(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also the learned Counsel for the State.
(3.) Brief facts of the case, are as follows: Neelam Sachdeva the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a complaint before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, praying for an order of her protection under Section 18 of the Act. The nature of protection, sought for, was by way of order of injunction in terms of Columns 4(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) of the application restraining them from indulging in any acts of domestic violence and also restraining them from alienating her assets as also restraining them from dispossessing her from the shared household, besides the order of protection, she has also prayed for a direction to be issued against the Opposite party for providing her monetary relief and compensation. The case of the complainant is that her marriage with the Opposite Party, Rakesh Sachdeva was solemnized on 21.02.1985 at Dhanbad. After her marriage, she commenced living with her husband at her matrimonial house, which comprised of a joint family including the parents-in-law and the brothers and sisters-in-law. After marriage of her brother-in-law three years later, the relations between the members of the family became sour and strained and in course of time, the husband and the members of the family subjecting her to mental cruelty by taunting her that she was a barren lady unable to gave birth to a child. On the pretext that her separation from the family would restore peace, her husband brought and kept her at his brother's house at Dhanbad though he used to occasionally visit and take her on social outings during the period of his visits. She was thus compelled to live separately from her husband and her matrimonial house for more than four years and when she insisted that she should be taken back, her husband dissuaded her on the ground that his earnings from his business was not sufficient to meet the household expenses. On being compelled by her husband, she had to take a job as a teacher in a School but even then, except for attending some occasional family rituals, she was not given the privilege of permanent access to her matrimonial house and the company of her husband. She was thus forced to live separate from her husband. She later came to learn that her husband had filed a suit for divorce against her in the year 2006. In the matrimonial suit, she was granted a maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Alleging that her husband and in-laws have conspired to deprive her of her matrimonial rights as well as rights in the property of her husband including her rights to share the husband's household, she had alleged that she is being subjected to various acts of domestic violence and has therefore, sought for protection.;