Daily Archives: December 21, 2011

Keep paying Rs 10000 (Ten Thousands) Per month… Quash of 498A to be taken up later !!!!!

Kolkata High Court (Appellete Side)
An Application Under Section … vs Smt. Alpana Mondal & Anr. .. … on 8 December, 2011
Author: Kalidas Mukherjee

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C. R. R. No. 3035 of 2011

In the matter of : An application under Section 397/401 read with S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. – and –

In the matter of : Sri Sunil Kumar Mondal .. Petitioner.
– Vs –
Smt. Alpana Mondal & Anr. .. Opposite-Parties.

For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Chattopadhyaya (125) 08.12.2011

This is an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings bearing Misc. Case 497 of 2010 now pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

The petitioner is directed to serve notice along with the copies of the application upon the opposite-parties and file affidavit-of- service within four weeks from date. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner shows one order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in connection with C. O. No. 2623 of 2011 whereby the petitioner- husband has been directed to pay alimony at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month.

Under such circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner herein will go on paying Rs. 10,000/- per month to the opposite- party No.1 and pending hearing of this application, further proceedings of Misc. Case No. 497 of 2010 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, be stayed for a period of six weeks from date. The matter will come up for hearing under the heading “Contested Hearing” after four weeks. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made over to the parties as early as possible upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( Kalidas Mukherjee, J. )

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/427924/

Quash 498A after 3 Lakhs Ransom is paid !! Isn’t this a misuse of process of law ??

Quash 498A after 3 Lakhs Ransom is paid !! Isn’t this a misuse of process of law ??

 

Punjab-Haryana High Court; Surjit Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 December, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 25755 of 2011
Date of decision: 13.12.2011

Surjit Singh and others     …Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another     …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

*****
RANJIT SINGH J.

The prayer is for quashing the FIR No. 115 registered against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC dated 11.11.2009 on the basis of compromise.

This FIR is outcome of matrimonial dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Their marriage was performed on 29.08.2008. The couple could not smoothly lead their marriage life ultimately leading to lodging of the present FIR. Having faced these proceedings for a considerable time, better sense has now prevailed on complainant and the petitioner. They have now decided to sit together and negotiate, which has resulted into compromise. The parties have decided to separate.

As per the counsel, the divorce has already been granted on the ground of mutual consent. The complainant has come present in person before the Court. She has confirmed before the Court that compromise has indeed been Crl. Misc. No. M- 25755 of 2011 -2- entered between the parties.

She further confirms that sum of ` 3 lakhs has been paid to her as permanent alimony and this would satisfy her entire claim.

Since the parties have decided to compromise and now resolved their dispute and differences, no useful purpose would be served in allowing this prosecution to continue.

This Court would have ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others 2007(3) RCR (Cri.) 1052 to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings on the basis of compromise.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 115 dated 11.11.2009 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Qadian, District Batala and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners are hereby quashed.

December 13, 2011
( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/80179322/

In spite of Sharia Law being VERY clear on maintenance, 9 Lakhs Ransom paid by Muslim Husband

In spite of Sharia Law being VERY clear on maintenance, 9 Lakhs Ransom paid by Muslim Husband

Patna High Court

Syed Naiyar Haroon @ S.N.Haroon vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 13 December, 2011

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.40742 of 2010
Syed Naiyar Haroon @ S.N.Haroon S/o S.M. Haroon, R/o Wali Court Apartment, Flat no. 304, Khajpura, P.S. Shashtrinagar, Distt-Patna.

–Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Shamia Jabin W/o Syed Nair Haroon, R/o Wali Court Apartment, Khajpura, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District-Patna. At present Shamia Jabin, D/o Dr. S.M. Shahjahan, R/o Village- Barauni P.S. Barauni, Distt-Begusarai. –Opp.Party

7 13.12.2011 Supplementary and counter affidatis have been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner is named accused in this complaint case, being husband of the complainant, with allegation of demand of dowry, torture etc. Submission is that initially petitioner intended to resume and continue matrimonial relationship but under compelling circumstances he had to break the marital knot.

Meanwhile between the parties several litigations creped up but now resolving all disputes petitioner and complainant are ready to lead separate and independent life without any alliance with each other and by way of permanent settlement / alimony subject to withdrawal / disposal of all the cases between the parties concerned petitioner is ready to pay a sum of rupees nine lacs to the complainant which is acceptable to opposite party as submitted by the learned counsel representing her.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, in the event of deposit of the aforesaid amount through demand draft / Banker’s cheque in the name of the complainant opposite party no.2 in Court and filing of petition stating all such facts as well preferably filing of due application in accordance with law in all the proceedings pending between the parties in different courts, in the event of arrest or surrender within six weeks, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two 3

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate / Judicial Magistrate concerned, Begusarai, in Complaint Case no.393 C of 2010, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with additional condition that petitioner shall remain present before the court below till disposal of the case. In case of failure to remain present on two consecutive dates without reasonable explanation, the privilege granted shall be deemed to be cancelled. However, it is further made clear that Banker’s cheque / demand draft will be paid to or encashed by the complainant opposite party no.2 only on disposal of all the cases for the present pending between the parties. Precautions be also taken that no one may take undue advantage of the riders imposed. ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)

AAhmad

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/106927350/

If you are sincere, hardworking, responsible and earn well, you can always be screwed in a matrimonial / alimony case

Delhi High Court
Puneet Kaur vs Inderjit Singh Sawhney on 12 September, 2011

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 79/2011
% Date of decision: 12th September, 2011

PUNEET KAUR ….. Petitioner Through : Mr. Ashok Chhabra with
Mr. Sunjayjyoti Singh Paul,
versus
INDERJIT SINGH SAWHNEY ….. Respondent Through : Respondent in
person.

CORAM :-

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM(M)No.79/2011 and CM No.1756/2011

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26th November,
2010 whereby her application for maintenance under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. The petitioner claimed maintenance and litigation expenses
from her husband on the ground that she was unable to maintain
herself and her two children aged 13 and 16 years.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 1 of 12 The petitioner averred that she
was not gainfully employed and was receiving interest income of
about `8,000/- to `10,000/- per month from the investments
whereas the monthly expenses of the children were to the tune of
`25,000/-per month. The petitioner further averred that the
respondent was running the business of transport in the name of
Bakshi Transport Service and his income was more than `2,00,000/-
to `3,00,000/- per month.

3. The respondent contested the above application before the
learned Trial Court on the ground that the respondent was
unemployed and had no income. The respondent averred that he was
living like a pauper and had no money even for two proper meals
a day. He also stated that he had no shelter.

The respondent also alleged that the petitioner’s annual income
was `3,00,000/- per month from three sources, namely `1,00,000/-
to `2,00,000/- per month from business, `60,000/-per month from
salary and `20,000/- per month from interest.

4. The learned Trial Court believed the respondent and held
that there was no material record to show that the respondent
had any income and, therefore, the petitioner’s application was
dismissed.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 2 of 12

5. In Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16, this
Court laid down the following principles for fixing the
maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act:-

“4. Right to maintenance is an incident of the
status from an estate of matrimony. Interim
maintenance has an element of alimony, which
expression in its strict sense means allowance
due to wife from husband on separation. It has
its basis in social conditions in United Kingdoms
under which a married woman was economically
dependent and almost in a position of tutelage to
the husband and was intended to secure justice to
her.

5. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act goes a
step further inasmuch as it permits maintenance
to be claimed by the husband even against the wife.

6. While considering a claim for interim
maintenance, the court has to keep in mind the
status of the parties, reasonable wants of the
applicant, the income and property of the
applicant. Conversely, requirements of the non
applicant, the income and property of the non
applicant and additionally the other family
members to be maintained by the non applicant
have to be taken into all. Whilst it is important
to insure that the maintenance awarded to the
applicant is sufficient to enable the applicant
to live in somewhat the same degree of comfort as
in the matrimonial home, but it should not be so
exorbitant that the non applicant is unable to pay.

7. Maintenance awarded cannot be punitive. It
should aid the applicant to live in a similar
life style she/he enjoyed in the matrimonial
home. It should not expose the non applicant to
unjust contempt or other coercive proceedings. On
the other hand, maintenance should not be so low
so as to make the order meaningless.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 3 of 12

8. Unfortunately, in India, parties do not
truthfully reveal their income. For self employed
persons or persons employed in the unorganized
sector, truthful income never surfaces. Tax
avoidance is the norm. Tax compliance is the
exception in this country. Therefore, in
determining interim maintenance, there cannot be
mathematical exactitude. The court has to take a
general view. From the various judicial
precedents, the under noted 11 factors can be
culled out, which are to be taken into
consideration while deciding an application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same are:

1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the
claimant.

4. The number of persons, the non applicant has
to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live
in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment etc.
of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non applicant.

9. Some guess work is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non applicant when
all the sources or correct sources are not
disclosed.

10. The non applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.

11. The amount awarded under Section 125 Cr.PC
is adjustable against the amount awarded under
Section 24 of the Act.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 4 of 12

6. In Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava, 181 (2011) DLT 602,
this Court laid down the factors to be taken into consideration
for ascertaining the income of the spouse. The relevant portion
of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

“12. It is settled position of law that a wife is
entitled to live in a similar status as was
enjoyed by her in her matrimonial home. It is the
duty of the courts to ensure that it should not
be a case that one spouse lives in a life of
comfort and luxury while the other spouse lives a
life of deprivation, poverty. During the pendency
of divorce proceedings the parties should be able
to maintain themselves and should be sufficiently
entitled to be represented in judicial
proceedings. If in case the party is unable to do
so on account of insufficient income, the other
spouse shall be liable to pay the same. (See
Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge,
Dehradun and Ors., reported at V (1998) SLT 551,
III (1997) CLT 398 (SC), II (1997) DMC 338 (SC)
and (1997) 7 SCC 7).

13. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of
Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, reported at 140
(2007) DLT 16 has culled out 11 factors, which
can be taken into consideration for deciding the
application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

14. Further it has been noticed by the Courts
that the tendency of the spouses in proceedings
for maintenance is to not truthfully disclose
their true income. However, in such cases some
guess work on the part of Court is permissible.

15. The Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jasbir Kaur (Smt.) (supra), has also recognized
the fact that spouses in the proceedings for
maintenance do not truthfully disclose their true
income and therefore some guess work on the part
of the Court is permissible. Further the CM(M)
No.79/2011 Page 5 of 12 Supreme Court has also
observed that “considering the diverse claims
made by the parties one inflating the income and
the other suppressing an element of conjecture
and guess work does enter for arriving at the
income of the husband. It cannot be done by any
mathematical precision”.

16. Although there cannot be an exhaustive list
of factors, which are to be considered in
guessing the income of the spouses, but the order
based on guess work cannot be arbitrary,
whimsical or fanciful. While guessing the income
of the spouse, when the sources of income are
either not disclosed or not correctly disclosed,
the Court can take into consideration amongst
others the following factors:

(i) Life style of the spouse;

(ii) The amount spent at the time of marriage
and the manner in which marriage was performed;

(iii) Destination of honeymoon;

(iv) Ownership of motor vehicles; (v) Household
facilities;

(vi) Facility of driver, cook and other help;
(vii) Credit cards;

(viii) Bank account details;

(ix) Club Membership;

(x) Amount of Insurance Premium paid; (xi)
Property or properties purchased; (xii) Rental
income;

(xiii) Amount of rent paid;

(xiv) Amount spent on travel/ holiday; (xv)
Locality of residence;

(xvi) Number of mobile phones;

(xvii) Qualification of spouse;

(xviii) School(s) where the child or children
are studying when parties were residing together;

(xix) Amount spent on fees and other expenses
incurred;

(xx) Amount spend on extra-curricular activities
of children when parties were residing together;

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 6 of 12 (xxi) Capacity to
repay loan.

17. These are some of the factors, which may be
considered by any court in guesstimating or
having a rough idea or to guess the income of a
spouse. It has repeatedly been held by the Courts
that one cannot ignore the fact that an Indian
woman has been given an equal status under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
and she has a right to live in dignity and
according to the status of her husband. In this
case, the stand taken by the Respondent with
respect to his earning is unbelievable.”

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, both the
parties are directed to file their respective affidavits of
assets, income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up
to this date containing the following particulars:-

7.1 Personal Information

(i) Educational qualifications. (ii) Professional
qualifications. (iii) Present occupation.

(iv) Particulars of past occupation. (v) Members of the family.

(a) Dependent.

(b) Independent.

7.2 Income

(i) Salary, if in service.

(ii) Income from business/profession, if self employed. (iii)
Particulars of all earnings since marriage. (iv) Income from
other sources:- (a) Rent.

(b) Interest on bank deposits and FDRs. (c) Other interest i.e.
on loan, deposits, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc.

(d) Dividends.

(e) Income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 7 of 12 (f) Gifts and Donations.

(g) Profit on sale of movable/immovable assets. (h) Any other
income not covered above .

7.3 Assets

(i) Immovable properties:-

(a) Building in the name of self and its Fair Market Value
(FMV):-

? Residential.

? Commercial.

? Mortgage.

? Given on rent.

? Others.

(b) Plot/land.

(c) Leasehold property.

(d) Intangible property e.g. patents, trademark, design,
goodwill.

(e) Properties in the name of family members/HUF and their FMV.

(ii) Movable properties:-

(a) Furniture and fixtures.

(b) Plant and Machinery.

(c) Livestock.

(d) Vehicles i.e. car, scooter along with their brand and
registration number.

(iii) Investments:-

(a) Bank Accounts – Current or Savings. (b) Demat Accounts.

(c) Cash.

(d) FDRs, NSC, IVP, KVP, Post Office schemes, PPF etc. (e)
Stocks, shares, debentures, bonds, units and mutual funds.

(f) LIC policy.

(g) Deposits with Government and Non-Government entities.

(h) Loan given to friends, relatives and others. (i) Telephone,
mobile phone and their numbers. (j) TV, Fridge, Air Conditioner,
etc. (k) Other household appliances.

(l) Computer, Laptop.

(m) Other electronic gadgets including I-pad etc. (n) Gold,
silver and diamond Jewellery. (o) Silver Utensils.

(p) Capital in partnership firm, sole proprietorship firm.
CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 8 of 12 (q) Shares in the Company in which
Director. (r) Undivided share in HUF property. (s) Booking of
any plot, flat, membership in Co-op. Group Housing Society.

(t) Other investments not covered by above items. (iv) Any
other assets not covered above.

7.4 Liabilities

(i) OD, CC, Term Loan from bank and other institutions. (ii)
Personal/business loan

(a) Secured.

(b) Unsecured.

(iii) Home loan.

(iv) Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Property Tax.

7.5 Expenditure

(i) Rent and maintenance including electricity, water and gas.

(ii) Lease rental, if any asset taken on hire.

(iii) Installment of any house loan, car loan, personal loan,
business loan, etc.

(iv) Interest to bank or others.

(v) Education of children including tuition fee.

(vi) Conveyance including fuel, repair and maintenance of
vehicle. Also give the average distance travelled every day.

(vii) Premium of LIC, Medi-claim, house and vehicle policy.

(viii) Premium of ULIP, Mutual Fund.

(ix) Contribution to PPF, EPF, approved superannuation fund.

(x) Mobile/landline phone bills.

(xi) Club subscription and usage, subscription to news papers,
periodicals, magazines, etc.

(xii) Internet charges/cable charges.

(xiii) Household expenses including kitchen, clothing, etc.
(xiv) Salary of servants, gardener, watchmen, etc.

(xv) Medical/hospitalization expenses. (xvi) Legal/litigation
expenses.

(xvii) Expenditure on dependent family members.

(xviii)Expenditure on entertainment.

(xix) Expenditure on travel including outstation/foreign
travel, business as well as personal.

(xx) Expenditure on construction/renovation and furnishing of
residence/office.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 9 of 12 (xxi) Any other expenditure not
covered above.

7.6 General Information regarding Standard of Living and
Lifestyle

(i) Status of family members.

(ii) Credit/debit cards.

(iii) Expenditure on marriage including marriage of family
members.

(iv) Expenditure on family functions including birthday of the
children.

(v) Expenditure on festivals.

(vi) Expenditure on extra-curricular activities.

(vii) Destination of honeymoon.

(viii) Frequency of travel including outstation/foreign travel,
business as well as personal.

(ix) Mode of travel in city/outside city.

(x) Mode of outstation/foreign travel including type of class.

(xi) Category of hotels used for stay, official as well as
personal, including type of rooms.

(xii) Category of hospitals opted for medical treatment
including type of rooms.

(xiii) Name of school(s) where the child or children are
studying.

(xiv) Brand of vehicle, mobile and wrist watch.

(xv) Value of jewellery worn.

(xvi) Details of residential accommodation.

(xvii) Value of gifts received.

(xviii)Value of gifts given at family functions.

(xix) Value of donations given.

(xx) Particulars of credit card/debit card, its limit and usage.

(xxi) Average monthly withdrawal from bank.

(xxii)Type of restaurant visited for dining out.

(xxiii)Membership of clubs, societies and other associations.

(xxiv)Brand of alcohol, if consumed.

(xxv)Particulars of all pending as well as decided cases
including civil, criminal, labour, income tax, excise, property
tax, MACT, etc. with parties name.

8. Both the parties are also directed to file, along with
affidavit, copies of the documents relating to their assets,
income and expenditure from the date of the marriage up to CM(M)
No.79/2011 Page 10 of 12 this date and more particularly the
following:-

(i) Relevant documents with respect to income including Salary
certificate, Form 16A, Income Tax Returns, certificate from the
employer regarding cost to the company, balance sheet, etc.

(ii) Audited accounts, if deponent is running business and
otherwise, non-audited accounts i.e. balance sheets, profit and
loss account and capital account.

(iii) Statement of all bank accounts.

(iv) Statement of Demat accounts.

(v) Passport.

(vi) Credit cards.

(vii) Club membership cards.

(viii) Frequent Flyer cards.

(ix) PAN card.

(x) Applications seeking job, in case of unemployed person.

9. The affidavit and documents be filed within a period of four
weeks with an advance copy to opposite parties who shall file
their response within two weeks thereafter.

10. List for hearing on 9th November, 2011.

11. Both the parties are directed to remain present in Court on
the next date of hearing along with all original documents
relating to their assets, income and expenditure.

12. This Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by
Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate.

13. Copy of this order be sent to the Principal District Judge
for being circulated to the concerned judges dealing with
matrimonial cases.

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 11 of 12

14. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsels for
both the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J

SEPTEMBER 12, 2011

mk

CM(M) No.79/2011 Page 12 of 12

source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/153453675/

Jaspreet Kaur vs Devinderjit Singh Gill And Others on 13 July, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspreet Kaur vs Devinderjit Singh Gill And Others on 13 July, 2009

CRM No. M-27307 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM No. M-27307 of 2006 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.7.2009

Jaspreet Kaur …Petitioner Versus

Devinderjit Singh Gill and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kushaldeep Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajan Gupta, J.

The petitioner has challenged herein the orders passed by courts below refusing to summon the respondents to face trial under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner levelled clear cut allegations in the complaint and on the basis of the same, the accused should have been summoned to face trial. According to the counsel, both the courts below have gone wrong in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner had concealed material facts in the petition filed before this court. According to the counsel, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 had been dissolved by a decree of divorce on 5th February, 2002. The divorce petition was preferred by CRM No. M-27307 of 2006 2 the petitioner. No complaint, whatsoever, was lodged by the petitioner regarding demand of dowry till divorce was granted. After an inordinate delay, the present complaint was preferred by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh on 11.6.2003. According to the counsel, the complaint has only been lodged to extract monetary benefits from the respondents. Learned counsel has also referred to reply by way of affidavit of respondent No.1 and submitted that the petitioner re-married one Balwan Singh on 16.1.2005. She obtained divorce by mutual consent from the said person on 20.3.2005 and received Rs.3,25,000/- from him. He submits that the petitioner only wants some monetary compensation from respondent No.1 also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record annexed with the petition.

A perusal of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh shows that the Magistrate sought a report from the police also before taking a decision on the complaint. It was reported by the police that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were married according to Sikh rites. Due to certain reasons, their relations became strained, whereafter they started living separately. The Magistrate did not find sufficient evidence to summon the accused under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 120-B IPC and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the court of Sessions. The revisional court upheld the order passed by the Magistrate. It observed that the petitioner had appeared as a witness in a divorce CRM No. M-27307 of 2006 3 petition and stated that all the articles relating to the marriage were lying in the house which was still in possession of the petitioner. The court did not find any allegation with regard to cruelty. The contention of the petitioner that divorce had been granted on the ground of cruelty, was rejected on the ground that parameters for cruelty under Section 498-A IPC and under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are totally different.

It is clear that the petitioner obtained divorce from respondent No.1 on 5th February, 2002 and lodged the present complaint on 11th June, 2003. The couple had separated much before filing of the divorce petition. There can be no doubt about the fact that complaint filed after inordinate delay, appears to be an after thought. Moreover, the present revision petition was preferred before this court in May, 2006. No mention was made therein of the second marriage of the petitioner with one Balwan Singh on 16.1.2005 and divorce shortly thereafter (on 20th March, 2005). The proceedings at the behest of the petitioner appear to be rather frivolous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned orders.

I thus find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA)

JUDGE

July 13, 2009

‘rajpal’

Source
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/630201/