I finally got my hands on this judgment thanks to Aejaz_Legal, a reader who posted this judgment as a comment.
If you find yourself accused under the Domestic Violence act, and the accusations date from prior to the passing of this act into law (Oct/26/2006), you must know:
Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held
“It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court”.
Here is the judgment:
__________________________________
IPC 498A 
There is a citation that says even if the allegations are prior to 26-10-2006 and the petitioner and the respondent(s) are not staying together, if the respondent has not been paying maintenance to the petitioner and/or her belongings are retained with the respondent, then it amounts to economic abuse adn if the status is continuing till the time of filing the case ti is continuous cruelty and hence can come into limits of DVA.
So stupid, isn’t it?
LikeLike
One more citation to help:
Ashma Vs. Afsar Etc.
CC No.311/8
Date of institution :28.07.2008
15.10.2008
LikeLike
You know what 498(A) stands for?
4 lettered, 9 lettered, 8 lettered phrase (word starting with ‘A’)
Dire Enactment of Violence (Awful)
LikeLike
And DVA stands for Domestic Violation Act
LikeLike
Full Text
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K . C . BHANU
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.3714 OF 2007.
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in DVC
No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemrniganur, Kurnool District.
Heard both the counsels.
Admittedly, husband of the complainant died on 14-06-2004 and since then the de facto complainant is not
residing with the petitioners.
The shared household is defined under Section 2 (s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), which reads as follows:
“‘Shared household’ means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a
domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether
owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or owned or tenanted by
either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or
singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the
joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Arjuna/Desktop/AP-HC-CRL-3714-2007-DV-NOT-RETROSPECTIVE.htm (1 of 2)1/6/2009 7:30:07 AM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2 ( E ) of the Act, which reads as follows:
“‘Domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of
time, lived together in a shared , household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a
joint family.”
On the face of the allegations in the complaint, the de facto complainant is not residing with the petitioners.
She is residing in House No.2361, Near M.G. Petrol, Yemmiganur, whereas petitioners 1 and 2 have been
residing in House No. 3/31, Uppara street, Yemmiganur, 3rd petitioner is residing in Mahaboobnagar, 4th
petitioner is residing at H.No.S/2267, Laxmipeta, Yemmiganur and 5th petitioner is residing at: H. N o:
3/31, Tippata Street, Yemmiganur.
Admittedly, the de facto complainant filed a suit in O.S. No.111 of 2005, which is pending. She also filed a
case in C.C.No.94 of 2005 under Section 498-A IPC, which is pending trial before the Judl. Magistrate of 1st
Class, Yemmiganur. The domestic incident report does not disclose any of the acts of violence that were
reported by the complainant after 26-10-2006. There is no dispute that the Act came into effect when the
Central Government appoints 26-10-2006 as the date on which the Act was came into force.
For acts of violence, certain penal provisions are incorporated.
Therefore,
“It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but
only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint
on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-
10-2006. Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of court”.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2007 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemrniganur, Kurnool District.
Sd/-N.MURALIDHAR RAO
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
I/ TRUE COPY N
SECTION OFFICER
LikeLike
498(A): HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND OF A WOMAN SUBJECTING HER TO CRUELTY: Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman…
So what if the brother of the woman subjects her to cruelty? Why is the law only hinting at the husband and his relatives?
DVA and 498(A) are clumsily drafted laws…
LikeLike