London wife files DV on Indian sis in law & looses completely !!

People who never had a shared household with the wife cannot be dragged into a DV / matrimonial case just for being relatives ! Delhi HC, Dec’15

Sister in law (husband’s sister) and her husband who live in India are dragged into a DV case by the wife who lived with her NRI hubby @ London !! She claims that they called over phone and intervened in her life !!

The court appreciates the facts and notices that “….Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K…. …On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. “

Noticing that there is NO basis for charging the relatives, the Hon HC clearly orders “….The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects …..”

Names of sister in law and her husband, already dropped by the Honourable MM court remain so !!

***********************************************************

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 03, 2015

CRL.REV.P. 553/2015

SWATI MISHRA ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocate.

versus

LEENA GUPTA & ANR ….. Respondents
Through : None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

(1) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court) whereby names of respondents were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the petitioner was married to Dr.Anurag Gupta. She has filed petition under Section 12 of DV Act against him and her father-in-law (Sita Ram Prasad Gupta). Respondent No.1 is her elder sister-in-law and was married to respondent No.2. Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K. It is stated that there is ancestral house of her husband at Patna and the respondents did not allow her to enter the ancestral house. On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects and needs no intervention. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(3) The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed in limini. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

DECEMBER 03, 2015

sa

*****************************disclaimer************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
**********************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
**********************************************************************

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s