MANDEEP RAMBILAS GOYAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/17274/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240552932016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 17274 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
MANDEEP RAMBILAS GOYAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL M AGRAWAL(1796) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MRS. PRITI J JOSHI(3641) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PRERAK P OZA(8279) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 21/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The applicants before this Court have invoked Sections 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.864 of 2016 pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat, for the offence under
Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “D.V. Act”), preferred by the
respondent No.2 herein.
2. The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of deciding
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:41:33 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17274/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240552932016)
the present application are to the effect that the marriage between
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 has since been dissolved by a
decree of divorce on 16.07.2015, by the judgment and order of the
learned Family Court, Surat. As such the applicant No.1 and the
respondent No.2 no more are husband and wife and hence the
applicant Nos. 2 and 5 are no more the in laws of the respondent
No.2.
2.1. The marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2
was solemnized according to Hindu Religious rights at Ahmedabad
on 10.06.2006 and the marriage was also duly registered. However,
due to disputes and misunderstandings between them over trifle
matters they could not continue their marital relations and they could
not live together. In the meanwhile one child was born on
03.08.2013 out of their wedlock. As the differences between
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 became unbearable to each
other, Family Suit No.599 of 2014 was filed before the Family Court
at Surat as at the time of filing the suit, the respondent No.2 had
gone to stay with her parents at Surat.
2.2. During her stay at Ahmedabad with the applicant No.1, the
respondent No.2 filed a compliant with Satellite Police Station,
Ahmedabad on 19.08.2014 under Sections 498(A), 323, 506(2) and
114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act against the present applicants. Ultimately the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:41:33 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17274/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240552932016)
respondent No.2 realizing that there is no substance in that
compliant, on 20.10.2014 withdrawn the same. Thereafter, the
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 filed Family Suit No.599 of
2014 before the Family Court at Surat on 21.11.2014, wherein, after
hearing the parties and finding that no reconciliation is possible
between the spouses, the Family Court by order dated 16.07.2015
passed decree of divorce and the decree was accordingly drawn.
2.3. That, as per the settlement agreement and as per the order of
the Family Court, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by cheque
No.295801 on 06.12.2014 to the respondent No.2 by the applicant
No.1. similarly the further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by cheque
No.295803 on 30.07.2015 to the respondent No.2 by the applicant
No.1.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sunil M. Agrawal for the applicants
would submit that initially respondent No.2 had filed a complaint
under Section 498(A), 323, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was
subsequently withdrawn on 20.10.2014. Pursuant to that, a
settlement agreement was entered into on 21.11.2014, where the
parties agreed to settle all disputes, with the custody of the child
given to the wife, however, a condition was included stating that if
there were changed circumstances, the husband would be at liberty
to obtain custody of the child.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:41:33 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17274/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240552932016)
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Agrawal would further submit that upon
finding the wife unable to maintain the child properly, an application
for custody of child was preferred by the husband and the notice was
issued by the learned Family Judge to the respondent No.2 herein.
Subsequently, the application filed by the wife under the D. V. Act is
merely an afterthought and a pressure tactic to force the applicants
not to pursue child’s custody, hence, requested to allow the present
application.
4. Per contra , learned advocate Mr. Yogesh Manghani on behalf
of learned advocate Mr. Prerak Oza for the complainant – respondent
No.2 herein and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan
Shah for the State would submit that merely because applicant No.1
and respondent No.2 obtained a divorce and remarried, the factum of
domestic violence perpetrated by applicant No.1 and his family
members cannot be brushed aside. There is no law stating that a
complaint under the D.V. Act is not maintainable after taking a
divorce or entering into a remarriage, and the application should
therefore be rejected.
4.1. Learned advocate for the complainant would further submit
that application for custody of child has been rejected by the Family
Court not having jurisdiction to decide the case. Thus, argued to
reject the present application.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:41:33 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/17274/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2026
(GJHC240552932016)
5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties,
this Court noted the undisputed facts that the parties entered into a
settlement agreement resulting in a divorce, which included a
specific clause allowing the husband to seek child’s custody under
changed circumstances. Although the husband’s earlier custody
application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, he was fully
within his rights to approach a competent court of law. The wife
immediately rushed to file an application under the D.V. Act only
after receiving notice regarding the custody application and after
having already obtained a divorce decree. This Court observes that
while in a D.V. Act application generally has no strict period of
limitation, however, initiating it after settling disputes once for all,
obtaining a divorce, and remarrying, specifically in response to the
husband exercising his legal right to seek custody of child, amounts
to an abuse of the process of law.
6. Consequently, the present application is allowed. The
complaint being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.864 of
2016 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Surat, is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicants.
7. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 18:41:33 IST 2026