Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court order rejecting the petition seeking quashing of the application moved by Pratima, wife of Mumbai Police Commissioner Hemant Namdeorao Nagrale under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Nagrale had filed a petition in 2008 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the VIth Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra which was granted in 2011,

After the divorce was granted, a private complaint was lodged by the Nagrale's wife in August 2012 in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Fort at Mumbai alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 328, 341, 307, 504, 506(2) read with 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Thereafter, in September 2013, a Criminal Miscellaneous Application was filed by Pratima in Pune submitting inter alia that appropriate protection order be issued under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Nagrale prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence.

An application was then filed by the police commissioner under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the D.V. Act and another application to quash the complaint filed before the Additional CMM, Mumbai.

Both of these applications were rejected.

While holding that the court saw no reason to interfere with the order rejecting to interfere with the domestic violence case, a bench of Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat ordered thus,

"Since the divorce granted by the Family Court on the ground of cruelty is pending consideration in First Appeal No.71 of 2011 before the High Court, and as the operative directions issued by the Family Court had granted permanent maintenance to the respondent wife, all the issues pertaining to and raised in the application preferred under the D.V. Act, 2005 shall be gone into by the High Court in the pending First Appeal No.71 of 2011. Such a course is permissible by express terms of Section 26 of the D.V. Act."

For effective consideration of the entire controversy, the Court ordered that the application preferred under the D.V. Act shall stand transferred to the High Court for appropriate determination and disposal.

The High Court has also been requested to dispose of the pending First Appeal preferably within six months.

The concerned Court at Pune has been directed to transmit all the relevant record and papers to the High Court within two weeks. 

Cause Title: HEMANT NAMDEORAO NAGRALE v. PRATIMA @ RANI HEMANT NAGRALE & ANR.