Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs Sapna Bothra And Anr on 18 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010012002024
2025:GAU-AS:10885
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./60/2024
SOURAV SETHIA AND 2 ORS
S/O SHRI SUBHKARAN SETHIA
R/O STUMPER STREET, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK CITY, STATE- NEW YORK,
ZIP -11233, CONTACT NO. 8486350840
2: SRI SUBHKARAN SETHIA
S/O LATE BACHRAJ SETHIA
R/O SANTOSH APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
TARAPUR
SIBBARI
NEAR CHINMOY ROAD
SILCHAR-788001
P.S. TARAPUR
IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSAM
3: SMTI. SUNITA DEVI @ SUNITA DEVI SETHIA
W/O SRI SUBHKARAN SETHIA
R/O SANTOSH APARTMENT
2ND FLOOR
TARAPUR
SIBBARI
NEAR CHINMOY ROAD
SILCHAR-788001
P.S. TARAPUR
IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
SAPNA BOTHRA AND ANR
Page No.# 2/8
D/O SRI ASHOK BOTHRA
RESIDING AT 302, MANGALAM APARTMENT, EAST INDIA GALI,
S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON
P.S. BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-781001, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP
(M), ASSAM
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. K Jain
Advocate for the respondent: Mr. J.K Bhuyan for
Respondent No. 1.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025.
Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
18.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. K Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K Bhuyan,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C read
with Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside of the
Domestic Violence case No. 76 of 2023 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005 for brevity),
pending in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 and the
Page No.# 3/8
respondent No. 1 were solemnized on 09.05.2022 as per Hindu rituals and customs at
Guwahati and it was agreed upon between the parties that as soon as the US Visa of the
respondent No. 1 gets approved, the respondent 1 would fly to the U.S to live and reside
with the petitioner No. 1.
4. After the said social marriage, the petitioner No. 1/husband applied for the U.S
Visa, on behalf of the respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the Visa of the respondent
No. 1 was issued on 02.03.2023. The Visa for the U.S was issued in Bangkok and at that
point of time, the respondent No. 1 along with the parents of the petitioner No. 1
(petitioner No. 2 & 3) was at Bangkok. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
the attention of this Court to the flight tickets of the parents of the petitioner No. 1 and
the respondent No. 1 which shows that the respondent No. 1, along with the parents of
the petitioner No. 1, were in Bangkok from 27.02.2023 to 09.03.2023.
5. It is further stated that instead of travelling to the U.S, the respondent No. 1,
along with the petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3, returned to the matrimonial home at
Silchar, Assam on 09.03.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners were under the expectation that
the respondent No. 1 will travel to the U.S to reside with the petitioner No. 1. But,
instead, the respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home and went to reside with her
parents in Guwahati.
6. Thereafter, the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 was filed before
the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) against the petitioners on 09.05.2023 along
with a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) dated 04.05.2023 prepared by the District Social
Welfare Officer, Kamrup (M) and Protection Officer, Kamrup (M) and the same is now
registered as D.V Case No. 76/2023 and pending before the Court of Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It is the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 had never resided in a shared household at
any point of time with the petitioner No. 1 in his residence in the U.S since their marriage.
It is stated that the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1, though socially married,
Page No.# 4/8
have in fact, never been in a domestic relationship since the date of their marriage. And
therefore, the DV Case against the petitioners is misplaced and needs to be quashed and
set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent no. 1 has
made only one allegation of physical violence against the petitioner No. 3 which allegedly
happened on 04.03.2023 at Silchar. The same is also wrongly mentioned in the DIR which
states that the domestic violence occurred on 04.03.2023. However, the learned counsel
for the petitioner states that this report has also been made mechanically without any
application of mind and that the respondent No. 1 has also made a false allegation in her
petition before the Ld. Trial Court regarding the violence which happened at 04.03.2023
at Silchar, Assam as the flight tickets and the issuance of the U.S Visa clearly shows that
the respondent No. 1 was in Bangkok from 27.02.2023 to 09.03.2023. As such, it is clear
that the allegation of physical violence on 04.03.2023 at Silchar, Assam, as claimed by the
respondent No. 1, is completely false and malicious.
7. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
there are no specific allegations made against the petitioner No. 1 or the petitioner No. 2
inasmuch as the allegations are mostly general in nature and the complaint before the Ld.
Trial Court has only stated that the respondent no. 1 has been subjected to filthy
language and misbehavior. It is stated that there was another divorce petition which was
filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner No. 1 right after their court marriage
on 25.08.2021. But, subsequently the said divorce petition was amicably settled outside
the Court when the respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw the said petition and thereafter,
the social marriage was conducted on 09.05.2022. Therefore, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that all along the respondent No. 1 never had the intention to reside
with the petitioner No. 1 in the U.S and thereafter, several cases have been filed by the
respondent No. 1 against the petitioner No. 1. Besides the present D.V Case, there is a
maintenance case, F.C Criminal Case No. 240/2023 pending before the Ld. Principal
Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and another Divorce Case under
Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for dissolution of marriage which has been registered as F.C Civil Case No. 679/2023
Page No.# 5/8
which is also pending before the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the maintenance case,
the petitioner No. 1 has been paying an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the
respondent No. 1 as interim maintenance regularly.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that the respondent No.
1 has filed multiple cases in different Courts against the petitioner No. 1 just for the sake
of harassing and black-mailing the petitioners and therefore, prays that the said impugned
D.V Case No. 76/2023 may be quashed and set-aside. It is also submitted that no prima
facie case of domestic violence has been made out in the DV case No. 76/2023. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following cases to support his contentions :
(i) Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others V. State of Telangana and Another
reported in (2025) AIR (SC) 173.
(ii) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi V. Vidhi Rawal reported in (2025) INSC 734.
(iii) Geddam Jhansi and Another V. State of Telangana and Others reported in
(2025) INSC 160.
9. Per contra, Mr. J.K Bhuyan learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has
submitted that the Court marriage had been registered between the parties on
25.08.2021. Thereafter, the social marriage was also conducted on 09.05.2022. After
09.05.2022, the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 resided together at Silchar,
Assam in a shared household. Thereafter, it cannot be said that the petitioner No. 1 and
the respondent No. 1 never resided together in a shared household. In fact, the
respondent No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 have been in a domestic relationship from
09.05.2022 till the D.V Case was filed. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 also
submits that the allegations made in her petition before the Ld. Trial Court have to be
proved by adducing evidence before the Ld. Trial Court and therefore, such allegations
will be proved only if the Trial is allowed to continue. It is also submitted by the learned
counsel that the respondent No. 1 has made specific allegations regarding use of filthy
Page No.# 6/8
language and misbehavior by the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 & 3 have also
misbehaved and mocked the respondent No. 1 regarding her stridhan articles alleging
that she is from a poor family and due to all such allegations and abusive words, the
respondent No. 1 has been harassed mentally and therefore, the ingredients of domestic
violence are present in the instant case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this
Court may not interfere in the proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court and the same may
be allowed to continue. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that
the date of physical violence have been recorded as 04.03.2023 in the petition filed
before the Ld. Trial Court and also in the DIR which is a typographical error. But he has
already stated in his petition before the Ld. Trial Court that the attitude and misbehavior
of the petitioner No. 2 & 3 towards the respondent No. 1 worsened after their return from
Bangkok.
10. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
and have also perused the pleadings and considered the authorities relied upon by the
learned counsel for the parties.
11. Upon going through the pleadings, it is seen that there are no specific allegations
made against the petitioner No. 1 & 2 in the application under Section 12 of the Act of
2005 before the Trial Court. In fact, the allegations are mostly general in nature. This
Court is also of the view that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 had taken the
plea that the date 04.03.2023 was a typographical error. However, this plea is not justified
as it has not been corrected till date by filing an amendment petition before the Ld. Trial
Court. In fact, even in the DIR, at paragraph No. 4, it is clearly mentioned that the date,
place and time of violence is 04.03.2023 at Silchar, Assam. This Court has seen the flight
tickets enclosed by the petitioner in the present petition and also the U.S Visa granted to
the respondent No. 1. It is seen that the respondent No. 1 was in Bangkok from
27.02.2023 to 09.03.2023 and the U.S Visa was issued to the respondent No. 1 on
02.03.2023. Therefore, it cannot be said that physical assault on the respondent No. 1 by
the petitioner No. 3 was committed on 04.03.2023 at Silchar, Assam.
Page No.# 7/8
12. This Court has also perused the DIR in detail and it is seen that besides the
allegation of physical assault on 04.03.2023 at Silchar, Assam, there is no other specific
allegation or materials against the petitioner No. 1 & 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Geddam Jhansi (Supra) has held that criminalizing domestic disputes without
specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous
consequences for the institution of the family which is built on the premise of love,
affection and cordiality and mutual trust. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that
invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive
measures which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences
punishable under the Penal Code or any other Penal statute are alleged or attributed to
the accused and a prima facie case is made out.
13. The respondent No. 1 has not disputed the fact that she has also filed an
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner No. 1 and the same is
pending before the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati and that she has also filed the divorce petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of
marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 which is also pending
before the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. It is
also not disputed that the respondent No. 1 is receiving an interim maintenance of Rs.
20,000/- per month from the petitioner No. 1. It is an admitted fact that the respondent
No. 1 is now living with her parents.
14. This Court, upon going through the application of the respondent No. 1 under
Section 12 of the Act of 2005 and also the DIR of the District Social Welfare Officer,
Kamrup (M) and Protection Officer, Kamrup (M) finds that no specific allegations has been
made against any of the petitioners except some general allegations of using filthy
language and misbehavior. The only specific allegation is against the petitioner No. 3 for
the alleged assault on 04.03.2023 which is also found to be false and misplaced on the
face of records. The settled law is that vague, omnibus or sweeping allegations with no
Page No.# 8/8
supporting details are not sufficient to make out a case of domestic violence. The
aggrieved person must state what acts are done, when and by whom.
15. In view of the above observations and discussions, this Court is of the view that
there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioners and the D.V Case No.
76/2023 pending before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati is hereby set-aside and quashed.
16. Petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant