Falsely accused man is a Rape case survivor, Courts not be swayed by emotions or media reporting.

Falsely accused man is a Rape case survivor, Courts not be swayed by emotions or media reporting. 

Glaringly the false accuser and misuser is not penalised and allowed to scot free

-:: 1::-IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(SPECIAL FAST TRACK COURT)-01,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case Number  : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number  : 02401R0137742014.
State  versus
Mr. Harminder Singh,
Son of Mr. Harinder Singh,
Resident of J-94, Ground Floor,
Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
First Information Report Number : 224/2014.
Police Station Tilak Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Date of filing of the charge sheet before : 22.03.2014.
the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Date of receipt of file after committal in this    : 17.04.2014.
Court of ASJ(SFTC)-01, West, Delhi
Arguments concluded on : 04.06.2014.
Date of judgment : 04.06.2014.
Appearances: Ms. Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Accused on bail with counsel Mr. Surender Tyagi.
Prosecutrix in person.
Ms. Shubra Mehndiratta and Ms.Poonam Sharma, counsel
for Delhi Commission for Women.
************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 1of
11::-  -:: 2::-JUDGMENT
“To call woman the weaker sex is a libel; it is man's injustice to
woman. If by strength is meant brute strength, then, indeed, is
woman less brute than man. If by strength is meant moral power,
then woman is immeasurably man's superior. Has she not greater
intuition, is she not more self-sacrificing, has she not greater
powers of endurance, has she not greater courage? Without her,
man could not be. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future
is with woman. Who can make a more effective appeal to the heart
than woman?”----Mahatma Gandhi.
1.    Mr.Harminder Singh, the accused, has been charge sheeted, by
Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the offence under sections
376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC)
on the allegations that for the last six months prior to 24.02.2014, date and
time unknown, at Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri within the jurisdiction of Po lice Station Tilak Nagar and once at Gurgaon, he committed rape upon the
prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity)several times under the
false promise to marry her and thereafter threatened the prosecutrix to upload her photographs and video on face book and to defame her, if she did
not maintain the physical relations with him and the accused also voluntarily gave beatings to prosecutrix many times.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed
before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 22.03.2014 and
after its committal, the case has been assigned to this Court of the Addition al Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, THC, Delhi for
17.04.2014.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 2of
11::-  -:: 3::-3. After hearing arguments, charge for offence under sections
376/323/506 of the IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated
19.04.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
Prosecutrix as PW1.
5. All the safeguards as per the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court while recording the statement of the
prosecutrix have been taken and the proceedings have been conducted in
camera. Guidelines for recording of evidence of vulnerable witness in
criminal matters, as approved by the “Committee to monitor proper
implementation of several guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court as
well as High Court of Delhi for dealing with matters pertaining to sexual
offences and child witnesses” have been followed.
6. The prosecutrix, as PW1, has deposed that in the month of
January, 2013, she met accused Harminder Singh through her friend
Ms.Gunjan and after 3-4 months, they became very good friends. They
started meeting each other very frequently and accused had physical
relations with her with her free consent. But after sometime there were
certain differences of opinion between her and accused and they had
strained relations. She was very much stressed. She discussed the matter
with her few relatives and well wishers who advised her to lodge a
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 3of
11::-  -:: 4::-complaint against the accused. In the month of February, 2014, someone
whose name she did not know called the police. The police reached her
house and she stated the above mentioned facts to the police. Her statement
(Ex. PW1/A)was recorded by the police. She did not have any grievance
against the accused. She has prayed that he may be acquitted. The police
had produced her before a learned Magistrate in Tis Hazari Courts where
her statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter
referred to as the Cr.P.C.) (Ex. PW1/B) was recorded.  She had made the
statement at the instance of her well wishers as she was very much stressed
at that time. She was also taken to a hospital by the police where she was
medically examined.
7. As the prosecutrix was hostile and had resiled from her earlier
statement, the Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her.
8. In her cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor,
the prosecutrix has deposed that she did not remember the names of the
relatives and the well wishers at whose instance the complaint was lodged
before the police. The complaint (Ex. PW1/A)and the statement under
section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW1/ B)were read over to the witness by
the Additional Public Prosecutor and thereafter she was further cross
examined. She has deposed that she had not stated to the police in her
complaint (Ex. PW1/A)that about six months prior to the lodging of the
complaint, accused took her to Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri, Delhi where he
had already got booked one room and accused had forcibly physical
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 4of
11::-  -:: 5::-relations with her and thereafter promised to marry her and he further stated
that if she did not marry him, he would die. She was confronted with
statement Ex.PW1/A from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded. She had
not stated to the police in her complaint(Ex. PW1/A)that whenever she
asked him to marry her, he started saying that he would talk to his parents
first and after sometime, he stated that his mother was not liking her and
therefore he would not marry her and he started blackmailing me saying that
he was having video recording of the obscene acts and would show to the
same to her mother. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from
portion B to B1 where it is so recorded. She had not stated to the police in
her complaint (Ex. PW1/A)that whenever she refused to meet the accused,
he would chase her and give beatings to her and forcibly have physical
relations with her. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A from
portion C to C1 where it is so recorded. She denied the suggestion that
police recorded her statement according to her version and she is deposing
falsely to this effect. She denied the suggestion that she had made her
statement before learned Metropolitan Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C.
(Ex. PW1/B)voluntarily and not at the instance of her well wishers. During
her medical examination whatever she had stated to the doctor, this was
again at the instance of her well wishers. She denied the suggestion that she
had given the medical history to the doctor voluntarily and not at the
instance of her well wishers. She denied the suggestion that for the last six
months prior to 24.02.2014, the accused committed rape upon her in at
Pelican banquet, Vikas Puri and again in Gurgaon several times under the
false promise to marry her. She denied the suggestion that the accused
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 5of
11::-  -:: 6::-threatened her to upload her photographs and video on the face book and
would defame if she did not maintain physical relations with accused. She
denied the suggestion that the accused voluntarily gave beatings to her
many times. She denied the suggestion that she is not supporting the
prosecution case and deposing falsely as she has compromised the matter
with the accused.
9. In her cross examination by the accused, the prosecutrix has
admitted to be correct thatthe accused has not committed any offence. She
has admitted that accused Harminder Singh has not raped her at all on a
false pretext of marriage nor threatened her nor gave her any beatings. She
has admitted that she had physical relations with the accused with her free
consent. She has again prayed that the accused may be acquitted as he is
innocent. 
10. The prosecutrix, has not deposed an iota of evidence of her being
raped at all. She has not even mentioned the words “rape”, “threat” ,
“blackmail” or “beatings” against the accused in her evidence nor has
deposed anything incriminating against the accused.
11.   In the circumstances, as PW1, the prosecutrix, who is the star
witness has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case and
more importantly has not assigned any criminal role to the accused, the
prosecution evidence is closed, declining the request of the Additional
Public Prosecutor for leading further evidence, as it shall be futile to record
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 6of
11::-  -:: 7::-the testimonies of other witnesses, who are official in nature. The precious
Court time should not be wasted in recording the evidence of formal or
official witnesses when the prosecutrix herself has not supported the
prosecution case and is hostile.
12. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused is
dispensed with as there is nothing incriminating against him when the
prosecutrix is hostile and nothing material has come forth in her cross
examination by the prosecution.
13. I have heard arguments at length. I have also given my
conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record,
relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
14. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of the
prosecutrix, PW1, who happens to be the material witnesses, I am of the
considered view that her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and
reliable. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj
Mal versus The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has
been observed by the Supreme Court as:
“Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their
evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such
witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the
absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on
the evidence of such witness.”
15. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 7of
11::-  -:: 8::-@ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
16. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused is guilty
of raping the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage, threatening
and beating her. There is no material on record to suggest that the
prosecutrix was ever raped by the accused under the false promise of
marriage nor threatened by the accused to upload the photographs and video
on face book to defame her nor gave voluntarily beatings to prosecutrix
many times. No case is made out against the accused as there is no
incriminating evidence against him. In fact, the prosecutrix has deposed that
she had physical relations with the accused with her consent and she has
also prayed for his acquittal.
17. Crucially, the materials and evident on the record do not bridge
the gap between “may be true” and must be true” so essential for a Court to
cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where
once the prosecutrix has herself claimed that the accused is innocent and has
not committed any offence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be
served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
18. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is
guilty of the charged offence under sections 376/323/506 of the IPC. There
is no material on record to show that for the last six months prior to
24.02.2014, date and time unknown, at Pelican Banquet, Vikas Puri and
once at Gurgaon, accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix several
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 8of
11::-  -:: 9::-times under the false promise to marry her and thereafter threatened the
prosecutrix to upload her photographs and video on face book and would defame her, if she did not maintain the physical relations with accused and the
accused also voluntarily gave beatings to prosecutrix many times.
19. From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence of the
prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy and the
prosecution has failed to establish rape, threat and hurt. The evidence of the
prosecutrix makes it highly improbable that such an incident ever took
place.
20. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this
Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home
the charge against the accused, Mr.Harminder Singh, for the offence under
sections 376/323/506 of the IPC.
21. Consequently, the accused, Mr. Harminder Singh is hereby
acquitted of the charge for the offence under section 376, 323, 506    of
the IPC .
22. Compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet.
23. Case property be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of
appeal.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 9of 11::-  -:: 10::-

24. It would not be out of place to mention here that today there is a public outrage and a hue and cry is being raised everywhere that Courts are not convicting the rape accused. However, no man, accused of rape, can be convicted if the witnesses do not support the prosecution case or give quality evidence, as in the present case where the prosecutrix is hostile, as already discussed above. It should not be ignored that the Court has to confine itself to the ambit of law and the contents of the file as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and is not to be swayed by emotions or reporting in the media.

25. Here, I would also like to mention that in recent times a new expression is being used for a rape victim i.e. a rape survivor. The prosecutrix, a woman or a girl who is alive, who has levelled allegations of rape by a man is now called a rape survivor. In the present case, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of rape as the prosecutrix retracted and turned hostile. In the circumstances such a person, an acquitted accused, who has been acquitted honourably, should he now be addressed as a rape case survivor? This leaves us with much to ponder about the present day situation of the veracity of the rape cases. 

26. One copy of the judgment be given to the Additional Public

Prosecutor, as requested.
27. After the completion of formalities and expiry of the period of
limitation for appeal, the file be consigned to the record room.
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 10of
11::-  -:: 11::-Announced in the open Court  (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA)
on this 04
th
day of June , 2014. Additional Sessions Judge,
(Special Fast Track Court)-01,
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
************************************************************
Sessions Case Number : 51 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0137742014.
FIR No. 224/2014, Police Station Tilaktam Nagar,
Under sections 376/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code.
State versus Harminder Singh    -::Page 11of
11::-
----

Other exact template cases where the false rape accusers resiles but are not punished for misusing and abusing the criminal judicial process.

Sessions Case Number : 58A of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0202092014.
FIR No. 93/2013, Police Station Uttam Nagar, 
Under sections 376 (2) (g) / 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 
State versus Bhure Ali.

Sessions Case Number : 150 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0488012014.
First Information Report Number : 301/2013.
Police Station Rajouri Garden, 
Under sections 354/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code. 
State v. Mr. Pawan Kumar Tyagi and another.

Sessions Case Number : 119 of 2013.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0613972013.
FIR No. 143/2013, Police Station Hari Nagar, 
Under sections 342/376/506/120-B/109/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 
State versus Kuldeep Kumar & Ors.

Sessions Case Number : 26 of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0028602014.
FIR No. 441/2013, Police Station Khyala, 
Under sections 323/354D/506/376/365/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Nazir 
Sessions Case Number : 21of 2014.
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0039452014.
FIR No. 510/2013, Police Station Ranhla, 
Under sections 376 D/328/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Vipin Lakra @ Sonu & anr

Sessions Case Number : 37 of 2014
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0102312014
FIR No. 514/2013, Police Station Moti Nagar 
Under sections 376/328/506/496 of the Indian Penal Code. 

State versus Mahender Singh Dahiya


Source - http://judis.nic.in/

SC allows couples to settle marital cruelty cases - admits 498a misuse and falase cases filed by wife, but still orders husband to pay 15 Lak alimony ! A reward to unscrupulous judicial abuser wife ?

                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2013
      (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007)


K. SRINIVAS RAO                   …          APPELLANT

           Versus

D.A. DEEPA                        …          RESPONDENT


                                  JUDGMENT


(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.


1.    Leave granted.


2.     This appeal, by special leave,  has  been  filed  by  the  appellant-
husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order  dated  8/11/2006  passed
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil  Miscellaneous  Appeal  No.797/03,
setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour.
3.    The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the  Andhra
Pradesh High Court. The  marriage  between  the  appellant-husband  and  the
respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and  customs.
Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose  between  the  elders  on
both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and  hurling  chappals
at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple  got
separated  without  consummation  of  the  marriage   and   started   living
separately.  On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a  criminal  complaint
against the appellant-husband before  the  Women  Protection  Cell  alleging
inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more dowry.  This
complaint is very crucial to this case.  We  shall  advert  to  it  more  in
detail a little later.  Escalated acrimony led  to  complaints  and  counter
complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition  under  Section  9  of  the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights  before  the
Family Court, Secunderabad.  The  appellant-husband  filed  a  counter-claim
seeking dissolution of marriage on  the  ground  of  cruelty  and  desertion
under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4.    The Family Court while dismissing  the  petition  for  restitution  of
conjugal rights and granting decree of divorce  inter  alia  held  that  the
respondent-wife stayed in the appellant-husband’s house only for a day,  she
admitted that she did not have any conversation with anyone  and  hence  any
amount of oral evidence adduced by her will not support her  plea  that  she
was harassed and driven out of the house; that the story that the appellant-
husband made a demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is false;  that  by  filing
false complaint against  the  appellant-husband  and  his  family,  alleging
offence under Section 498-A  of  the  IPC  in  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate
Court, Hyderabad and by filing complaints against the  appellant-husband  in
the High Court where  he  is  working,  the  respondent-wife  caused  mental
cruelty to the appellant-husband and that reunion  was  not  possible.   The
Family Court directed the appellant-husband to repay  Rs.80,000/-  given  by
the respondent-wife’s father to him with interest at 8% per annum  from  the
date of the marriage till payment.

5.    By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal carried  by
the respondent-wife against the said judgment and set aside  the  decree  of
divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband.  The  High  Court  inter
alia observed that the finding of the Family Court that lodging a  complaint
with  the  police  against  the  appellant-husband  amounts  to  cruelty  is
perverse because it is not a ground for divorce  under  the  Hindu  Marriage
Act, 1955.  The High Court further held that the appellant-husband  and  the
respondent-wife did not live together for a long time  and,  therefore,  the
question  of  their  treating  each  other  with  cruelty  does  not  arise.
According to the High Court, the conclusion that the respondent-wife  caused
mental cruelty  to  the  appellant-husband  is  based  on  presumptions  and
assumptions.

6.    Mr. Jayanth  Muth  Raj,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-husband
assailed  the  conduct  of  the  respondent-wife  and  submitted   that   it
disentitles her from getting any relief from this Court.   Counsel  took  us
through the complaint lodged by the respondent-wife with the  Superintendent
of Police, Women Protection Cell, Hyderabad, making  defamatory  allegations
against the mother of the appellant-husband and drew our  attention  to  the
various legal proceedings initiated by  her  against  the  appellant-husband
and his family.  Counsel submitted that she also lodged complaints with  the
High Court asking for the removal of the  appellant-husband  from  his  job.
Counsel submitted that by lodging such false complaints the  respondent-wife
caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.   Counsel  submitted
that the High Court fell into a grave error in observing  that  because  the
respondent-wife did not live with the appellant-husband for long  she  could
not have  caused  mental  cruelty  to  him.   Counsel  submitted  that  this
observation is erroneous and is contrary  to  the  law  laid  down  by  this
Court.  False and defamatory allegations made  in  the  pleadings  can  also
cause  mental  cruelty.    Counsel   submitted   that   the   marriage   has
irretrievably broken down and, therefore, it is necessary to dissolve it  by
a decree of divorce.  In support of his submissions counsel placed  reliance
on G.V.N. Kameswara Rao  vs.  G.  Jabilli[1],  Parveen  Mehta  vs.  Inderjit
Mehta[2],  Vijayakumar  R.  Bhate  vs.  Neela  Vijayakumar  Bhate[3],  Durga
Prasanna  Tripathy  vs.  Arundhati  Tripathy[4],  Naveen  Kohli  vs.   Neelu
Kohli[5] and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh[6].

7.    Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel  for  the  respondent-wife,
on the other hand, submitted that the  father  of  the  respondent-wife  had
given Rs.80,000/- and 15 tolas of gold as dowry to  the  appellant-husband’s
family.  However, they demanded additional cash of Rs.10,00,000/-.   Because
this demand could not  be  met,  the  respondent-wife  and  her  family  was
humiliated and ill-treated. Therefore, the parents  of  the  respondent-wife
had to return to their house along  with  her  immediately  after  marriage.
The father of the respondent-wife made efforts to  talk  to  the  appellant-
husband’s family, but, they did not respond to his efforts.  They  persisted
with their demands and, therefore, the respondent-wife  had  no  alternative
but to lodge complaint against them under Section 498-A of  the  IPC  before
the Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.   The  appellant-husband  thereafter
gave a false assurance that he will  not  harass  her  and,  therefore,  she
withdrew the complaint and went to  the  matrimonial  house.   However,  the
approach of the appellant-husband and his family did not change. She had  to
therefore renew her complaint.  Counsel submitted that only because  of  the
obstinate and uncompromising  attitude  of  the  appellant-husband  and  his
family that the respondent-wife had to take recourse to  court  proceedings.
Counsel submitted that the respondent-wife values the matrimonial tie.   She
wants to lead a happy married life with  the  appellant-husband.   She  had,
therefore, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which  should
have been allowed  by  the  Family  Court.   Counsel  submitted  that  after
properly evaluating all the circumstances the High  Court  has  rightly  set
aside the decree of divorce and granted a decree of restitution of  conjugal
rights.  The High Court’s judgment, therefore, merits no interference.

8.    The matrimonial dispute started with a quarrel between the  elders  of
both sides in which initially the appellant-husband and the  respondent-wife
were not involved.  The  ego  battle  of  the  elders  took  an  ugly  turn.
Parties  were  dragged  to  the  court  and  the  inevitable  happened.  The
relations between the two families got strained. With a fond  hope  that  we
could bring about a settlement we requested  the  counsel  to  talk  to  the
parties and convey our wishes that they should bury the  hatchet  and  start
living  together.  We  also  tried  to  counsel  them  in  the  court.   The
respondent-wife appears to be very keen to go back to the  matrimonial  home
and start life afresh, but the appellant-husband is  adamant.   He  conveyed
to us through his counsel that by filing repeated false  complaints  against
him and his family the respondent-wife has caused extreme  cruelty  to  them
and therefore it will not be possible to take her back.  In view of this  we
have no option but to proceed with the case.

9.    The High Court has taken a view that since the  appellant-husband  and
the respondent-wife did not stay together, there is  no  question  of  their
causing  cruelty  to  each  other.   The  High  Court  concluded  that   the
conclusion drawn by the Family Court that the respondent-wife caused  mental
cruelty to the appellant-husband is erroneous.  We are unable to agree  with
the High Court.

10.   Under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,  a  marriage
can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition  presented  either  by
the husband or the wife on the  ground  that  the  other  party  has,  after
solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with  cruelty.   In  a
series of judgments  this  Court  has  repeatedly  stated  the  meaning  and
outlined the scope of the term ‘cruelty’.   Cruelty  is  evident  where  one
spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her  or
him as to cause in her or his mind reasonable apprehension that it  will  be
harmful or injurious  to  live  with  the  other  spouse.   Cruelty  may  be
physical or mental.

11.   In Samar Ghosh this Court set out illustrative cases  where  inference
of ‘mental cruelty’ can be drawn.  This list  is  obviously  not  exhaustive
because each case presents it’s own peculiar factual  matrix  and  existence
or otherwise of mental cruelty will have to be judged  after  applying  mind
to it.  We must quote the  relevant  paragraph  of  Samar  Ghosh.   We  have
reproduced only the instances which are relevant to the present case.


      “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance,  yet  we
      deem it appropriate to enumerate some  instances  of  human  behaviour
      which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of  “mental  cruelty”.
      The  instances  indicated  in  the  succeeding  paragraphs  are   only
      illustrative and not exhaustive:


      (i) On consideration of complete  matrimonial  life  of  the  parties,
      acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible  for
      the parties to live with  each  other  could  come  within  the  broad
      parameters of mental cruelty.


      (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of  the
      parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such  that  the
      wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with  such  conduct
      and continue to live with other party.


      (iii)                  xxx   xxx  xxx


      (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of  deep  anguish,
      disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused  by  the  conduct  of
      other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.


      (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated
      to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.


      (vi) Sustained unjustifiable  conduct  and  behaviour  of  one  spouse
      actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The
      treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension  must
      be very grave, substantial and weighty.


      (vii)                  xxx   xxx  xxx


      (viii)                 xxx   xxx  xxx


      (ix)             xxx   xxx   xxx


      (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few  isolated
      instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.  The  ill
      conduct must be persistent for a  fairly  lengthy  period,  where  the
      relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because  of  the  acts
      and behaviour of a  spouse,  the  wronged  party  finds  it  extremely
      difficult to live with the other  party  any  longer,  may  amount  to
      mental cruelty.


      (xi)             xxx   xxx   xxx


      (xii)                  xxx   xxx  xxx


      (xiii)                 xxx   xxx  xxx


      (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation,  it
      may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond  is  beyond  repair.
      The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by  a  legal  tie.  By
      refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve  the
      sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard  for  the
      feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it  may
      lead to mental cruelty.”


      It is pertinent to note that in this case the  husband  and  wife  had
lived separately for more than sixteen and a  half  years.   This  fact  was
taken  into  consideration  along  with  other  facts  as  leading  to   the
conclusion that matrimonial bond had been ruptured beyond repair because  of
the mental cruelty caused by the wife.  Similar view  was  taken  in  Naveen
Kohli.

12.   In V. Bhagat  v.  D. Bhagat[7]  in the divorce petition filed  by  the
husband the wife filed  written  statement  stating  that  the  husband  was
suffering from mental hallucination, that his was a morbid  mind  for  which
he needs expert  psychiatric  treatment  and  that  he  was  suffering  from
‘paranoid  disorder’.   In  cross-examination  her   counsel   put   several
questions to the husband suggesting  that  several  members  of  his  family
including his  grandfather  were  lunatics.   This  court  held  that  these
assertions cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a  nature  that  the
husband cannot be asked to live with the wife  thereafter.   Such  pleadings
and questions it was held, are  bound  to  cause  immense  mental  pain  and
anguish to the husband.   In  Vijaykumar  Bhate  disgusting  accusations  of
unchastity and indecent familiarity  with  a  neighbour  were  made  in  the
written statement.  This  Court  held  that  the  allegations  are  of  such
quality, magnitude and consequence  as  to  cause  mental  pain,  agony  and
suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of  cruelty  in  matrimonial
law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving  the  wife  to  feel
deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it  would  be  dangerous  to  live
with her husband.  In Naveen Kohli the respondent-wife got an  advertisement
issued in a national newspaper that her husband was her employee.   She  got
another news  item  issued  cautioning  his  business  associates  to  avoid
dealing with him.  This  was  treated  as  causing  mental  cruelty  to  the
husband.

13.   In Naveen Kohli the  wife  had  filed  several  complaints  and  cases
against the husband.  This Court viewed her conduct  as  a  conduct  causing
mental cruelty and observed that the finding of the High  Court  that  these
proceedings could not be taken to be such which  may  warrant  annulment  of
marriage is wholly unsustainable.

14.   Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted  in  Samar
Ghosh, we could add  a  few  more.   Making  unfounded  indecent  defamatory
allegations against the spouse or his or her  relatives  in  the  pleadings,
filing of complaints or  issuing  notices  or  news  items  which  may  have
adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and  filing
repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the  spouse  would,
in the facts of a case, amount  to  causing  mental  cruelty  to  the  other
spouse.

15.   We shall apply the above principles to the present case.  Firstly,  it
is necessary to have a look at  the  legal  proceedings  initiated  by  both
sides against each other.  The facts  on  record  disclose  that  after  the
marriage, due to some dispute which arose between  the  elders,  both  sides
abused and virtually attacked each other.  The respondent-wife was taken  by
her parents to their house.  According to the  respondent-wife,  her  father
made efforts to bring about an amicable settlement but the  other  side  did
not respond favourably and, therefore, on 4/10/1999 she lodged  a  complaint
with the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Women  Protection  Cell  against  the
appellant-husband  and  members  of  his  family.    In  our  opinion,  this
complaint is, to a large extent, responsible for widening the  rift  between
the  parties.   In  this  complaint,  after   alleging   ill-treatment   and
harassment for dowry, it is alleged that  mother  of  the  appellant-husband
asked the respondent-wife  to  sleep  with  the  father  of  the  appellant-
husband. When she was cross-examined in the Family Court during the  hearing
of her petition for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights  the  respondent-wife
admitted that she had lodged the complaint. PW-2 her mother, in  her  cross-
examination stated  that  though  they  had  asked  her  not  to  lodge  the
complaint, the respondent-wife lodged  it.   She  told  them  that  she  had
lodged the complaint because the  appellant-husband  was  not  listening  to
her.  Thus, it appears that this complaint was  lodged  out  of  frustration
and anger and was a reaction to  the  appellant-husband’s  refusal  to  live
with her.  It was, perhaps, felt by her that  because  of  the  pressure  of
such a complaint the appellant-husband would take her  back  to  his  house.
Far from helping the respondent-wife, the complaint appears to  have  caused
irreparable harm  to  her.   It  increased  the  bitterness.   Perhaps,  the
respondent-wife was misguided by someone.  But,  such  evidence  is  not  on
record.  Even in this court, this complaint appears to  us  to  be  a  major
factor amongst others impeding settlement.  Pursuant to the said  complaint,
Crime No.8/2000 was registered by C.I.D.,  Hyderabad,  in  the  Metropolitan
Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad against the appellant-husband  and  his
family under Section 498-A of the IPC.  It  is  the  respondent-wife’s  case
that the appellant-husband gave an assurance before the police that he  will
not harass her.  She, therefore, withdrew the complaint.   The  police  then
filed a closure report.  According to the  respondent-wife,  the  appellant-
husband did not abide by the promise made by him and, therefore,  she  filed
a protest petition.  The Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, then, took  cognizance
of the case and renumbered the case as C.C.No.62/2002.

16.   In the meantime,  the  respondent-wife  filed  O.P.No.88/2001  in  the
Family  Court,  Secunderabad,  for  restitution  of  conjugal  rights.   The
appellant-husband filed a counter claim  for  divorce  on  27/12/2002.   The
Family Court dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal  rights  and
allowed the counter claim for divorce filed by the  appellant-husband.   The
respondent-wife challenged the Family Court judgment in the High Court.   On
8/12/2006 the High Court reversed the Family Court’s order and  allowed  the
petition for restitution of conjugal rights.  The present  appeal  is  filed
by the appellant-husband against the said judgment.


17.   According to the respondent-wife, on 17/9/2007 when  she,  along  with
her mother, came out of the court after a case  filed  by  her  against  the
appellant-husband was adjourned, the appellant-husband beat her  mother  and
kicked  her  on  her  stomach.   Both  of  them  received  injuries.    She,
therefore, filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section  324  of
the IPC against the appellant-husband (C.C.No. 79/2009).  It may  be  stated
here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.


18.    On  24/6/2008  the  judgment  was  delivered  by   Additional   Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate,  Hyderabad  in  C.C.No.  62/2002.   The  appellant-
husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and  was  sentenced  to
undergo six months simple imprisonment.  He and his parents  were  acquitted
of  the  offences  under  the  Dowry  Prohibition  Act.   His  parents  were
acquitted of the offence  under  Section  498-A  of  the  IPC.   After  this
judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a complaint in  the  High
Court saying that since the appellant-husband was  convicted  he  should  be
dismissed from service.  Similar letters were sent to the High Court by  the
maternal uncle of the respondent-wife.

19.   On 14/7/2008 the appellant-husband filed Criminal  Appeal  No.186/2008
challenging his conviction  under  Section  498-A  of  the  IPC  before  the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge.  It is pertinent to note that  the  respondent-
wife filed Criminal Appeal No.1219/2008 in the High  Court  questioning  the
acquittal of the appellant-husband and his parents  of  the  offences  under
the Dowry Prohibition Act and also the  acquittal  of  his  parents  of  the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.  This appeal  is  pending
in the High Court.  Not being content with this, the  respondent-wife  filed
Criminal Revision Case No.1560/2008 in the High  Court  seeking  enhancement
of punishment awarded to the appellant-husband  for  offence  under  Section
498-A of the IPC.

20.   According to the appellant-husband on 6/12/2009  the  brother  of  the
respondent-wife came to their house and attacked  his  mother.   His  mother
filed a complaint and the police registered a complaint  under  Section  354
of the IPC.  The brother of the respondent-wife also lodged a complaint  and
an offence came to be registered.  Both the cases are pending.


21.   On 29/6/2010 Criminal Appeal No.  186/2010  filed  by  the  appellant-
husband challenging his conviction for the offence under  Section  498-A  of
the  IPC  was  allowed  by  the  Metropolitan  Sessions  Judge  and  he  was
acquitted.  The respondent-wife has filed criminal appeal in the High  Court
challenging the said acquittal which is pending.

22.   We need to now see the effect of the above events.   In  our  opinion,
the first instance of mental cruelty is seen in the scurrilous,  vulgar  and
defamatory statement made by the  respondent-wife  in  her  complaint  dated
4/10/1999 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Women Protection  Cell.
 The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her  to  sleep
with his  father  is  bound  to  anger  him.   It  is  his  case  that  this
humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him.  He and  his  family
were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the  complaint.
 His grievance appears to us to be justified. This complaint is  a  part  of
the record.  It is a part of the pleadings.  That this  statement  is  false
is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which  we
have already quoted.  This statement cannot be  explained  away  by  stating
that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back  to  the
appellant-husband.  This is not the way to win  the  husband  back.   It  is
well settled that such statements cause mental  cruelty.   By  sending  this
complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty  to  the  appellant-
husband.

23.     Pursuant to this complaint,  the  police  registered  a  case  under
Section 498-A of the IPC.  The appellant-husband  and  his  parents  had  to
apply for  anticipatory  bail,  which  was  granted  to  them.   Later,  the
respondent-wife withdrew the complaint.  Pursuant  to  the  withdrawal,  the
police filed a closure report.   Thereafter,  the  respondent-wife  filed  a
protest petition.  The trial court took cognizance of the case  against  the
appellant-husband and his parents (CC No. 62/2002).  What  is  pertinent  to
note is that the respondent-wife filed criminal appeal  in  the  High  Court
challenging the acquittal of the appellant-husband and his  parents  of  the
offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act  and  also  the  acquittal  of  his
parents of the offence punishable under Section  498-A  of  the  IPC.    She
filed criminal revision seeking enhancement of  the  punishment  awarded  to
the appellant-husband for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in  the
High Court which is still pending.  When the criminal appeal  filed  by  the
appellant-husband challenging his conviction for the offence  under  Section
498-A of the IPC was allowed  and  he  was  acquitted,  the  respondent-wife
filed criminal appeal in the High  Court  challenging  the  said  acquittal.
During this period respondent-wife and  members  of  her  family  have  also
filed complaints in the High Court complaining about  the  appellant-husband
so that he would be removed from the job.  The conduct  of  the  respondent-
wife in  filing  a  complaint  making  unfounded,  indecent  and  defamatory
allegation  against  her   mother-in-law,   in   filing   revision   seeking
enhancement of the sentence awarded  to  the  appellant-husband,  in  filing
appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and  acquittal  of
his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he  and  his
parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job.  We have  no  manner
of doubt that this conduct has  caused  mental  cruelty  to  the  appellant-
husband.

24.   In  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  wrongly  held  that  because  the
appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not stay together there is  no
question of the parties causing cruelty to  each  other.   Staying  together
under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty.   Spouse  can
cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even  while  he  or  she  is  not
staying under the same roof.  In a given case, while staying away, a  spouse
can cause  mental  cruelty  to  the  other  spouse  by  sending  vulgar  and
defamatory letters or  notices  or  filing  complaints  containing  indecent
allegations or by initiating  number  of  judicial  proceedings  making  the
other spouse’s life miserable.  This is what has happened in this case.

25.   It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the  respondent-
wife are staying apart from 27/4/1999.  Thus,  they  are  living  separately
for more than ten  years.   This  separation  has  created  an  unbridgeable
distance between the two.  As held in Samar Ghosh, if  we  refuse  to  sever
the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty.

26.   We are also satisfied that  this  marriage  has  irretrievably  broken
down.       Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for  divorce
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  But, where marriage  is  beyond  repair
on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the  wife  or
of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage
as a very weighty circumstance amongst  others  necessitating  severance  of
marital tie.  A marriage which is dead for all purposes  cannot  be  revived
by the court’s verdict, if the parties are  not  willing.  This  is  because
marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and  if  they  are  dried-up
there is hardly any chance of their springing back to  life  on  account  of
artificial reunion created by the court’s decree.

27.   In V. Bhagat this Court noted that divorce petition  was  pending  for
eight years and a good part of the  lives  of  both  the  parties  had  been
consumed in litigation, yet the end was not in sight.  The facts  were  such
that there was no question of reunion,  the  marriage  having  irretrievably
broken down.  While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental  cruelty
this Court observed that  irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage  is  not  a
ground by  itself,  but,  while  scrutinizing  the  evidence  on  record  to
determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and  in  determining  the
relief to be granted the said circumstance can certainly be borne  in  mind.
In Naveen Kohli, where husband and wife had been living separately for  more
than 10 years and a large number of criminal proceedings had been  initiated
by the wife against the husband, this Court observed that the  marriage  had
been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage and public interest and interest  of
all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct  de
jure what is already defunct de facto.  It is  important  to  note  that  in
this case this Court made a recommendation to the Union of  India  that  the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate  irretrievable  breakdown
of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.

28.   In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-wife has  caused
by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and the marriage  has
irretrievably broken down.  Dissolution of marriage will relieve both  sides
of pain and anguish.  In this Court the respondent-wife expressed  that  she
wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is  not  possible  now.
The appellant-husband is not willing to take her back.  Even  if  we  refuse
decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances  of
the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-husband  because
a lot of bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-wife.


29.   In Vijay Kumar, it was submitted that if the decree of divorce is  set
aside, there may be fresh  avenues  and  scope  for  reconciliation  between
parties.   This  court  observed  that  judged  in  the  background  of  all
surrounding circumstances, the claim appeared to  be  too  desolate,  merely
born out of despair rather than based upon any  real,  concrete  or  genuine
purpose or aim.  In the facts of this case we feel the same.

30.   While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce  must  be  granted,
we are alive to the plight of the  respondent-wife.   The  appellant-husband
is working as an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High  Court.   He
is getting a good salary.  The respondent-wife  fought  the  litigation  for
more than 10 years.  She appears to be entirely  dependent  on  her  parents
and on her brother, therefore, her future must be secured by  directing  the
appellant-husband  to  give  her  permanent  alimony.   In  the  facts   and
circumstance of this case, we are of the opinion that the  appellant-husband
should be directed to pay a sum  of  Rs.15,00,000/-  (Rupees  Fifteen  Lakhs
only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of  permanent  alimony.   In  the
result, the impugned judgment  is  quashed  and  set  aside.   The  marriage
between the appellant-husband - K. Srinivas Rao and  the  respondent-wife  -
D.A. Deepa is dissolved by  a  decree  of  divorce.   The  appellant-husband
shall  pay  to  the  respondent-wife  permanent  alimony  in  the   sum   of
Rs.15,00,000/-, in three instalments.  The first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-
 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) should be paid on  15/03/2013  and  the  remaining
amount  of  Rs.10,00,000/-  (Rupees  Ten  Lakhs  only)  should  be  paid  in
instalments of Rs.5,00,000/-  each  after  a  gap  of  two  months  i.e.  on
15/05/2013 and 15/07/2013 respectively.  Each  instalment  of  Rs.5,00,000/-
be paid by a demand draft drawn  in  favour  of  the  respondent-wife  “D.A.
Deepa”.

31.   Before parting, we wish to touch upon  an  issue  which  needs  to  be
discussed in the interest of victims of  matrimonial  disputes.   Though  in
this case, we have recorded a finding that by her conduct,  the  respondent-
wife has caused mental cruelty to  the  appellant-husband,  we  may  not  be
understood, however, to  have  said  that  the  fault  lies  only  with  the
respondent-wife.   In matrimonial disputes there is hardly  any  case  where
one spouse is entirely at fault.  But,  then,  before  the  dispute  assumes
alarming proportions, someone must make efforts to make parties see  reason.
 In this case, if at the earliest stage, before  the  respondent-wife  filed
the complaint making indecent  allegation  against  her  mother-in-law,  she
were to be counselled by  an  independent  and  sensible  elder  or  if  the
parties were sent to a mediation centre or if they  had  access  to  a  pre-
litigation clinic, perhaps the bitterness would not have escalated.   Things
would not have come to such  a  pass  if,  at  the  earliest,  somebody  had
mediated between the two.  It  is  possible  that  the  respondent-wife  was
desperate to save the marriage.  Perhaps, in desperation, she  lost  balance
and went on filing complaints.  It  is  possible  that  she  was  misguided.
Perhaps, the appellant-husband should  have  forgiven  her  indiscretion  in
filing complaints in the larger interest of matrimony.   But,  the  way  the
respondent-wife approached the problem was wrong.  It portrays a  vindictive
mind.  She caused extreme mental cruelty to the appellant-husband.  Now  the
marriage is beyond repair.

32.   Quite often, the  cause  of  the  misunderstanding  in  a  matrimonial
dispute is trivial and can be sorted. Mediation as a method  of  alternative
dispute resolution has got legal recognition now.  We have referred  several
matrimonial disputes to mediation centres.  Our experience shows that  about
10 to 15% of matrimonial disputes get settled in this Court through  various
mediation centres.  We, therefore, feel that  at  the  earliest  stage  i.e.
when the dispute is taken up by the Family Court or by the  court  of  first
instance  for  hearing,  it  must  be   referred   to   mediation   centres.
Matrimonial disputes  particularly  those  relating  to  custody  of  child,
maintenance, etc. are preeminently fit  for  mediation.  Section  9  of  the
Family Courts Act enjoins upon the Family Court to make  efforts  to  settle
the matrimonial disputes and in these efforts, Family  Courts  are  assisted
by Counsellors.  Even if the Counsellors fail in their efforts,  the  Family
Courts should  direct  the  parties  to  mediation  centres,  where  trained
mediators are appointed to mediate between the parties.   Being  trained  in
the skill of mediation, they produce good results.

33.   The idea of  pre-litigation  mediation  is  also  catching  up.   Some
mediation centres have, after giving wide publicity, set up “Help Desks”  at
prominent places  including  facilitation  centres  at  court  complexes  to
conduct pre-litigation mediation.  We are informed that in Delhi  Government
Mediation and Conciliation  Centres,  and  in  Delhi  High  Court  Mediation
Centre, several matrimonial disputes are  settled.   These  centres  have  a
good success rate in pre-litigation mediation.   If  all  mediation  centres
set up pre-litigation  desks/clinics  by  giving  sufficient  publicity  and
matrimonial disputes  are  taken  up  for  pre-litigation  settlement,  many
families will be saved of hardship if, at least, some of them  are  settled.


34.   While purely a civil matrimonial dispute can be amicably settled by  a
Family Court either by itself or by directing the  parties  to  explore  the
possibility of settlement through mediation, a complaint under Section  498-
A  of  the  IPC  presents  difficulty  because  the  said  offence  is   not
compoundable except in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  where  by  a  State
amendment, it has been made compoundable.  Though in  Ramgopal  &  Anr.   v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.[8], this Court requested the  Law  Commission
and the Government of India to  examine  whether  offence  punishable  under
Section 498-A of the IPC could be made compoundable, it has  not  been  made
compoundable as yet.   The  courts  direct  parties  to  approach  mediation
centres where offences are compoundable.  Offence punishable  under  Section
498-A being a non-compoundable offence, such a course  is  not  followed  in
respect thereof.  This Court has always  adopted  a  positive  approach  and
encouraged  settlement  of  matrimonial  disputes  and   discouraged   their
escalation.  In this connection, we must refer  to  the  relevant  paragraph
from G.V. Rao  v. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.[9], where the complaint  appeared  to
be the result of matrimonial dispute, while refusing to interfere  with  the
High Court’s order quashing the complaint, this court  made  very  pertinent
observations, which read thus:

      “12. There has been an outburst  of  matrimonial  disputes  in  recent
      times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is  to
      enable the young couple to settle down in life  and  live  peacefully.
      But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt  which  often  assume
      serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
      elders of the family are also involved with the result that those  who
      could have counselled and brought  about  rapprochement  are  rendered
      helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There
      are many other reasons which  need  not  be  mentioned  here  for  not
      encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
      their  defaults  and  terminate  their  disputes  amicably  by  mutual
      agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it  takes
      years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
      “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.”



      In B.S. Joshi & Ors.  v.  State of Haryana & Anr.[10], after referring
to the above observations, this Court stated that the said observations  are
required to be kept  in  view  by  courts  while  dealing  with  matrimonial
disputes and held that complaint involving offence under  Section  498-A  of
the IPC can be quashed by the High Court in exercise  of  its  powers  under
Section 482 of the Code if the parties settle their dispute.   Even in  Gian
Singh  v.  State of Punjab & Anr.[11], this  Court  expressed  that  certain
offences which overwhelmingly and  predominantly  bear  civil  flavour  like
those arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or  the
family dispute and where  the  offender  and  the  victim  had  settled  all
disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such  offences
have not been made compoundable, the  High  Court  may  quash  the  criminal
proceedings if it feels that by not quashing the same, the ends  of  justice
shall be defeated.

35.   We, therefore, feel that though offence punishable under Section  498-
A of the IPC is not compoundable, in appropriate cases if  the  parties  are
willing and if it appears to the criminal court that  there  exist  elements
of settlement, it should direct the parties to explore  the  possibility  of
settlement through  mediation.   This  is,  obviously,  not  to  dilute  the
rigour, efficacy and purport of Section 498-A of  the  IPC,  but  to  locate
cases where the matrimonial dispute can be nipped in  bud  in  an  equitable
manner.  The judges, with their expertise, must ensure  that  this  exercise
does not lead to the erring spouse using mediation process  to  get  out  of
clutches of the law. During mediation, the  parties  can  either  decide  to
part company on mutually agreed terms or they may decide  to  patch  up  and
stay together.  In either case for  the  settlement  to  come  through,  the
complaint will have to be quashed.  In that event,  they  can  approach  the
High Court and get the complaint quashed.  If  however  they  chose  not  to
settle, they can proceed with the complaint.  In this exercise, there is  no
loss to anyone. If there is settlement, the parties will be saved  from  the
trials and tribulations of a criminal case and that will reduce  the  burden
on the courts which will be in the larger public interest.   Obviously,  the
High  Court  will  quash  the  complaint  only  if  after  considering   all
circumstances it finds the settlement to be equitable and genuine.   Such  a
course, in our opinion, will be beneficial to those who  genuinely  want  to
accord a quietus to their matrimonial disputes.  We would, however, like  to
clarify that reduction of burden of cases on the courts  will,  however,  be
merely an incidental benefit and not the reason for sending the parties  for
mediation.  We recognize ‘mediation’ as an effective method  of  alternative
dispute resolution in matrimonial matters and that  is  the  reason  why  we
want the parties to explore the possibility of settlement through  mediation
in matrimonial disputes.

36.   We, therefore, issue directions, which the  courts  dealing  with  the
matrimonial matters shall follow:

     a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the  Family  Courts
        shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial  disputes  through
        mediation.  Even if the Counsellors submit a  failure  report,  the
        Family Courts shall, with the consent of  the  parties,  refer  the
        matter to the mediation centre.   In  such  a  case,  however,  the
        Family Courts shall set  a  reasonable  time  limit  for  mediation
        centres to complete the process of mediation because otherwise  the
        resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may get delayed.  In
        a given case, if there is good chance  of  settlement,  the  Family
        Court in its discretion, can always extend the time limit.


     b) The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section  498-A
        of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they  take
        up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre
        if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and  both  the
        parties are willing.  However, they should take care to see that in
        this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the
        IPC is not diluted.  Needless to say that the discretion  to  grant
        or not to grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this direction.
        It will be for the concerned  court  to  work  out  the  modalities
        taking into consideration the facts of each case.

     c) All mediation centres shall set  up  pre-litigation  desks/clinics;
        give them wide publicity and make  efforts  to  settle  matrimonial
        disputes at pre-litigation stage.

37.   The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.


                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                       (AFTAB ALAM)


                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                              (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 22, 2013.
-----------------------
[1]    (2002) 2 SCC 296
[2]    (2002) 5 SCC 706
[3]    (2003) 6 SCC 334
[4]    (2005) 7 SCC 353
[5]    (2006) 4 SCC 558
[6]    (2007) 4 SCC 511
[7]    (1994) 1 SCC 337
[8]    (2010) 13 SCC 540
[9]    (2000) 3 SCC 693
[10]   AIR 2003 SC 1386
[11]   (2012) 10 SCC 303

-----------------------
33

source - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40084

pdf format @http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40084

Delhi Court-PWDVA misuse- Wild allegation by DIL is domestic violence against MIL SIL. Husband’s Women relatives equally protected under PWDVA (against Bahu)

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS

JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Crl. Revision No. 367/2010

1.  Santosh Kaur
W/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap
R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,
Behind Laxmi Bai College,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi.
2. Ms. Ritu Kashyap
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Kashyap
R/o 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony,
Behind Laxmi Bai College,
Ashok Vihar, Phase-III,
Delhi.
3. Mrs. Sarika Mehta
W/o Sh. Kamal Mehta
R/o F-8, 2nd
Floor,
Kamla Nagar,
Delhi
............ Revisionists

Versus

Smt. Nidhi Kashyap
W/o Sh. Gaurav Kashyap
D/o Sh. K.C. Ahuja
R/o C-4/428, Lawrence Road,
Delhi – 110035
............ Respondent

Date of institution: 29.5.2010
Arguments heard on: 16.8.2010
Date of Decision: 28.8.2010

ORDER:

This revision has been filed against the summoning orders dated 24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in the petition filed by the respondent Nidhi Kashyap under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revisionist no.1 Smt.Santosh Kaur is the mother-in-law of the respondent whereas the revisionist no.2 Ms. Ritu Kashyap is her unmarried sister-in-law (Nanand) and respondent no.3 Mrs. Sarika Mehta is her married sister-in-law (Nanand).

Briefly the case of the respondent Nidhi Kashyap/ applicant before the Trial Court is that she was the class mate of revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap who is the real sister of Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) and had friendly relations with him. According to Nidhi Kashyap, her father is a property dealer and mother is a bank employee and they have strong a financial background. It is pleaded that they are only two sisters and therefore as a part of well planned conspiracy, the revisionists before this court induced her to enter into a matrimonial relationship with Gaurav Kashyap despite the fact that both belonged to different communities. According to the respondent, her marriage with Gaurav Kashyap was solemnized secretly on 29.7.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Birla Line, Kamla Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies after which she left for her parental home as she was asked to disclose the factum of her marriage to them only after 45 days. It is further pleaded by Nidhi Kashyap that on 12.9.2008 when she entered into her matrimonial home at 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi the revisionists before this court, under a well planned design conspiracy and in a pre planned manner, called her parents at their home and disclosed the factum of the marriage of their son with the present respondent (Nidhi Kashyap) on which her parents received a serious shock but finding no alternative they ultimately gave their consent and approval to the matrimonial ties and on 12.10.2008 as per the demands of her in-laws, her parents organized a joint reception where they gave a large amount of gold and jewellery and domestic articles and cash to her. According to Nidhi Kashyap, the respondent before this court court, the revisionists are in domestic relationship with her due to her matrimonial relationship with Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no. 1 before the Ld. Trial Court). She has alleged that on 13.10.2008 after she entered into her matrimonial home, her Nanand the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap raised a demand of Hundai i10 car and it was made clear to her that in case if she wants to live peacefully she would have to ask her parents to satisfy their demands.  Again on 13.10.2008, her mother-in-law Smt. Santosh Kashyap the revisionist no.1 before this court took a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her purse against her will and consent and in the evening the revisionists no.2 and 3 took away entire gold and diamond jewelleries except one Mangal Sutra, one gold ring, nose pin and ear rings and thereafter did not return the same to her despite her repeated requests and demands. The present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has also mentioned numerous other occasions alleging that the revisionists before this court had been disclosing their intent and expectations for cash and other articles from time to time and she had been subjected to harassment, torture and violence on account of the repeated dowry demands made by the revisionists before this court including her married sister-in-law Sarika Mehta. According to Nidhi Kashyap, her entire jewellery is lying with her in-laws. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Gaurav Kashyap the husband of the present respondent is also pending adjudication before the Ld. ADJ, Rohini. She has alleged that she has been compelled to make a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura, Delhi on account of the callous conduct on the part of her in-laws including the present revisionists. She has further alleged that her husband Gaurav Kashyap is the owner of property bearing no. 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi and he and his parents are owning and possessing 100 sq. plot as Samaipur Badli, Delhi. Further, she has alleged that her husband Gaurav Kashyap and his parents are owning and possessing the HIG Flat in TDI Sonepat having a market value to the tune of Rs.22 lacs and are running a factory under the name and style of MCO Chemical, Samaypur, Delhi and are owning and possessing two godowns at Samaypur and Swaroop Nagar and her husband Gaurav Kashyap is having one house at Sri Nagar, Bharat Nagar, Delhi. It is also alleged by the respondent before this court that her husband and his parents are owning and possessing a Maruti 800 car bearing no. DL-6019 and are also owning a truck Tata-407 and two victor bikes. She has now demanded that her husband Gaurav Kashyap i.e. the respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court is under a legal obligation to maintain her and she requires independent residential accommodation which is available at the rental value of Rs.10,000/- per month excluding the water and electricity charges and also requires Rs.30,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs. 5 lacs on account of mental torture, pain and agony suffered by her. According to the present respondent she cannot remain dependent upon her parents for her shelter and therefore, her husband Gaurav Kashyap is required to make the arrangements for separate residential accommodation. In her petition, the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has further demanded that her husband and her in-laws including the present revisionists should be restrained from entering into her parental home and from making any kind of communication to her and from committing any act of Domestic Violence and aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. Further, she has demanded that they be restrained from alienating and parting with her istridhan articles and also from creating any third part interest and parting with the possession of the property bearing No. D-6, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and property bearing no. 77, Bharat Nagar Delhi till her husband make the provisions for her independent residential accommodation. She has also claimed Rs.3,000/- from her in-laws including the present revisionists as litigation expenses.

Pursuant to the aforesaid petition, the Ld. Trial Court sought a Domestic Incident Report from the Protection Officer. The said report was duly filed which I have duly perused. The said report clearly reflects that Smt. Sarika Mehta the revisionist no.3 before this court is not a member of the shared household and is separately residing at her matrimonial home residing at F- 8, 2nd Floor, Kamla Nagar, Delhi with her husband Sh. Kamal Mehta whereas Smt. Santosh Kaur the mother-in-law and Ritu Kashyap the unmarried sister-in-law are all residing at 6-D, Janta Flats, Satyawati Colony, Behind Laxmi Bai College, Delhi. The report further shows that only one incident of domestic violence on 3.7.2009 by the husband has been reported on which day the present respondent was beaten by her husband and was asked to leave the house. The report further reflects that the only incident of verbal and emotional abuse are of insults for not having brought dowry, demeaning, humiliating, undermining, ridicule and name calling by her husband and her in-laws and preventing her from meeting a particular person. She has also alleged economic violence upon her by her husband by not providing her money, food, clothes, medicine etc. and forcing her out of the matrimonial house and has alleged that her in-laws including the present revisionists have disposed off her istridhan articles by selling or pawing the same without her consent and forcibly taken away her salary, income or wages etc.

The revisionists before this court have alleged that the orders of summoning are also bad as they have been passed without calling upon the respondent to furnish and establish the material facts necessitated for passing such orders. It is submitted that no domestic violence has ever been committed by the revisionists upon the respondent before this court (complainant before the Ld. Trial Court) and the petitioner under the Domestic Violence Act has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and the complaint filed by the present respondents against them before Crime Against Women Cell, Pitam Pura has been filed only to harass, humiliate and to extort money from them. The revisionists have pointed out that the marriage of Gaurav Kashyap with the present respondent was a simple one without any demand and was an outcome of the love affair. They have pointed out that the parents of the present respondent were against her marriage and therefore, they secretly got married without informing their family members at Arya Samaj Mandir which was a dowry less marriage and the respondent had come in wearing clothes and it is in this background that the parents of Gaurav Kashyap including the revisionists organized a reception on 12.10.2008 at Janak Vatika, Bharat Nagar. The revisionists have further pointed out that on 3.7.2009 the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap picked up a quarrel with her husband Gaurav Kashyap and called her father with 5-6 other people who beaten up Gaurav Kashyap and even shouted on road and use abusive language for Gaurav Kashyap. Thereafter the present respondent went to her parent's house by saying that she would not live nor would maintain any relations with them and Gaurav Kashyap made umpteen efforts to bring her back but she refused. According to the revisionists they are themselves aggrieved and victim of the violence inflicted upon them by the present respondent. It is further stated that all the properties mentioned by the present respondent does not belong to the husband of the respondent. The revisionists have placed their reliance on the following authorities:

1. S.R. Batra & Anr. vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1 (2007) SLT 1.
2. Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697.
3. Mohd. Maqeenuddin Ahmed & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) JCC 85.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a special legislation in favour of women. It is the duty of the court to ensure that this special legislation reaches out to the effected lot but at the same time is not allowed to be misused by anyone.

Wikipedia defines domestic relationship between two individuals as a legal or personal relationship to live together or share one domestic life but are neither joined by marriage nor the civil union.

The Indian law i.e. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not define family but it defines Domestic Relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Domestic relations are meant to cover sisters, widows, mothers and daughters and single women. The Indian law does not specify separate relationship and mentions members in a joint family.

The intent of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to protect the value system and institution  of family and save it from destruction. This being so, the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have to be so interpreted to ensure that the existing family system is preserved.  The misuse and abuse of the Act is a matter of serious concern for the courts who are required to be careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet or pawn in the hands of her male relatives so as to manipulate the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and use it for ulterior motives.

In the present case it is an admitted case of the parties before this court that the respondent Nidhi Kashyap who is the wife of Gaurav Kashyap (respondent no.1 before the Ld. Trial Court) has filed the complaint under special legislation (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) wherein she has spared none and roped the entire family including the young unmarried sister-in-law who was her friend and class-mate even before her marriage and also her married sister-in-law who is residing separately with her own family. It is admitted that the marriage between the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap with Gaurav Kashyap was solemnized secretly and was an outcome of a love affair as Nidhi Kashyap was known to Gaurav Kashyap through the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap who was the batch mate of Nidhi Kashyap and was studying with her. It is also an admitted case of the parties that on having come to know of marriage a reception had been organized after which the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap started staying with her husband and her in-laws. It appears that unfortunately the said marriage is not worked out resulting into spade of litigation between the parties and Gaurav Kashyap even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage act which is still pending adjudication and the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has filed a case in Crime Against Women Cell alleging dowry demands and harassment against one and all.  

The provisions of the Protection of Women from  Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have been invoked by the respondent Nidhi Kashyap not only against her husband Gaurav Kashyap but also against her aged father-in-law Mohan Lal Kashyap (respondent no.2 before the Ld. Trial Court), mother- in-law Smt. Santosh Kaur (present revisionist no.1 before this court), unmarried sister Ritu Kashyap (revisionist no.2 before this court with whom Nidhi Kashyap was previously studying and through whom she came to know Gaurav Kashyap and had a love affair), married sister Smt. Sarika Mehta and her husband Sh. Kamal Mehta who both are residing at F-8, 2nd Floor, Kala Nagar, Delhi.  

At the very outset I may observe that merely because the revisionist no.3 Smt. Sarika Mehta happen to be the real sister of the husband of present respondent would not ipso-facto imply a domestic relationship to the extent as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 as she is residing separately with her own husband and cannot be deemed to be a member of the shared household as a joint family. The revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap is a young girl of 22 years who had been the classmate of the present respondent and through whom the present respondent had came into contact with Gaurav Kashyap and had an affair culminating into the marriage. The revisionist no.1 is the aged mother-in-law. The allegations against her are general and non specific. 

Daughters married or unmarried cannot be terrorized into abandoning their parental family under the fear of their involvement into litigations connected with Domestic Violence. Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not a part of the shared household or joint family as contemplated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but at the same time they have certain rights in their parental home which cannot be denied to them. Even an unmarried sister of the husband residing in the shared household with her parents has certain rights which cannot be taken away. Making wild allegations against an unmarried sister-in-law of a tender marriageable age by an estranged wife of brother tentamounts to inflicting violence upon her and it is the duty of the court to ensure that she is protected from the same. Violence can also be inflicted by an estranged wife or daughter-in-law or sister-in-law upon other members of the husband's family to gain and secure personal points and financial control or for separating her husband from his parents and other family members. In the zeal and endeavour to implement the rights of one woman (daughter-in-law) it is necessary for the courts to ensure that the rights of another woman (in her capacity as mother-in-law or sister-in-law married or unmarried) are not taken away or infringed in any manner. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects the mothers, sisters and daughters from any kind of physical and mental abuse or violence in as much as it does the daughter-in-law. The court as a protector and implementor of rights, is required to perform a balancing act. It is necessary to ensure that it does not get swayed by the astute legal drafting of the counsels and is equired to get at the truth of the allegations by examining the pleadings on the touch-stone of reasonableness and probabilities. Where a complaint appears to have been filed on filmsy grounds only to humiliate the family members, the same is required to be thrown out at the earliest opportunity. Mother-in-law or sister's- in-law (married or unmarried) cannot be permitted to be subjected to harassment only because they happen to be related to the estranged husband of the woman (complainant).

In the present case firstly I have considered the allegations reflected in the Domestic Incidence Report and the allegations so made by the complainant Nidhi Kashyap before the court which do not inspire confidence and appears to have been made in routine. The respondent has alleged that the present revisionists had forcibly taken away her salary and wages which allegations on the face of it are false and incorrect since it is an admitted case of the respondent before this court that she is not working. The question of her husband or in-laws taking away her salary, income, wages etc. under these circumstances does not arise.  

Secondly the report of the Protection Officer also show that the dowry related harassment pertains to the demand of car and cash of Rs.3 lacs. The respondent Nidhi Kashyap has also attached the list of Stridhan articles alongwith the petition to support and substantiate her allegations regarding misappropriation of her Stridhan articles which I have perused. I may observe that the said list so attached along with the petition is not a duly authenticated list signed by both the parties as required under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This is the list of articles which only the respondent Nidhi Kashyap claims were her stridhan which list does not bear the signatures of the respondent. Under the given circumstances as the list is not signed by both parties, it was necessary for the complainant Nidhi Kashyap to have attached alongwith her list the receipts/bills showing purchase of these articles which has not been done. Therefore, the above allegations also do not appear to be credible and truth-full particularly keeping in view the background that the marriage between the respondent and Gaurav Kashyap  was a secret, runaway marriage as an outcome of a love affair which marriage was kept secret for many days and ultimately when the same was disclosed to the parents of the respondent by her in- laws a joint reception was organized.

Thirdly the present respondent Nidhi Kashyap has not placed on record any document to show that her husband is the owner of any of the aforesaid properties or have any independent right over the same. The allegations are non specific and general. It is settled law that the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made by a women against her husband and not against in-laws or other relatives nor can she claim any right to stay in the said house (Ref: S.R. Batra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra reported in 1 (2007) SLT 1 and Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs. Sanjay Singh reported in 2007 (96) DRJ 697). The present respondent has not placed on record any document to show that the properties in the present case belonging to her husband Gaurav Kashyap and the complaint in Crime Against Women Cell.  

Lastly it is an admitted case of the parties including that of the complainant Nidhi Kashyap that her marriage with Gaurav Kashyap is an outcome of the long standing love affair between them. She was a classmate of the revisionist no.2 Ritu Kashyap through whom she was introduced to Gaurav Kashyap (her real brother) with whom she developed love affair culminating into a secret marriage which was disclosed to her parents much later. This being the background of the case, the allegations made by the complainant against one and all family members of her husband where none have been spared do not appear probable. It is apparent on the face of the pleadings that they have been so drafted so as to involved all the family members of the husband sparing none including the present revisionists who are the aged mother-in-law, unmarried sister-in- law of marriageable age and married sister-in-law residing separately. This, it appears has been done for the purpose of harassing the entire family of the husband with a sinister motive and design to harass and humiliate them. Given the background of the case, the allegations made against the Revisionists on the face of it do not appear to be truthful and probable warranting any interference from the court under this Special Legislation.  

In view of the above  background and in the interest of  justice, I hereby set aside the orders of dated 24.2.2010,
25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaur, Ms. Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since there does not exist sufficient material on record to summon them and to proceed against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed. Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order. Revision file be
consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court             

(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 28.8.2010              ASJ-II(NW): Rohini

Santosh Kaur   Vs.   Nidhi Kashyap
CR No. 367/2010 28.8.2010
Present: None for the Revisionists.
None for the respondent.
Vide my separate detailed order dictated and announced in the open court, I set aside the orders of dated
24.2.2010, 25.3.2010 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Ld. Trial Court thereby summoning the present revisionists i.e. Smt. Santosh Kaur, Ms. Ritu Kashyap and Smt. Sarika Mehta since there does not exist sufficient material on record to summon them and to proceed against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Revision is accordingly allowed.

Trial court record be sent back along with the copy of this order.

Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ASJ-II (NW)/ 28.8.2010

Source - http://judis.nic.in/dist_judis/pdf_retrieval_main.asp