Sanjay Kishan Kaul JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The Appellant is 84 years old and the Respondent is 62 years old. The Respondent seeks to establish her status as the wife/companion of the Appellant who has been left high and dry by the Appellant while on the other hand the Appellant categorically denies any such status.
2. The admitted facts are that the Respondent was married to one Shri Harish Chander Chhabra. That marriage did not work out and ultimately a consent decree for divorce was obtained on 10.10.1996. Even in the interregnum period, the Respondent claims to have developed a relationship with the Appellant starting from their introduction in 1987. It is her case that there was continuous interaction between the two and the Appellant even proposed to her in December 1993. The Appellant earned a National Award on 16.10.1996. The Respondent also claims to have been requested to travel with the Appellant to Bangalore on 30.10.1996. The Appellant's wife was alive when the Respondent claims that the Appellant took her to No. 38/1, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and that the Appellant's wife was apparently also aware of the relationship between the two parties. The Respondent claims that she resigned from the job with ICAR at the behest of the Appellant. On 10.1.1998, the Respondent claims that the Appellant applied "kumkum" to her forehead and soon thereafter he was conferred with the Padma Shri Award and the Respondent accompanied the Appellant for the felicitation ceremony on 21.3.1998.
3. It is the Respondent's claim that from 2002-2008 the Respondent was made to stay in different residences hired by the Appellant. But apparently the relationship soured. The endeavors for reconciliation, however, did not succeed. The wife of the Appellant was incidentally alive at that time and she passed away on 22.2.2010. The endeavor, prior to this, by the Respondent seeking remedy for what she claims to be her neglect, through the Women and Child Welfare Department of State of Karnataka, also did not succeed.
4. The Respondent claims to have made various efforts by approaching authorities and high dignitaries apart from police authorities but to no avail.
5. The Respondent initiated proceedings Under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.V. Act') on 16.9.2013 being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 179 of 2013. This case is stated to have been re-numbered as Crl. Misc. Application No. 139 of 2015. The endeavor of the Appellant seeking quashing of these proceedings before the High Court vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 6126/2013 Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure) did not succeed and petition was dismissed on 2.1.2015. The trial went on and at the request of the Respondent made Under Section 410 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the application was transferred from the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate-VI to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-II at Bangalore. This application was finally dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 30.7.2015.
6. The Respondent, aggrieved by the said order, filed Criminal Appeal No. 1070/2015 Under Section 29 of the D.V.........