JAYAMMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for R1 - State. Perused the records.

(2.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent who are the Mother -in -law and Daughter -in -law to each other. There is also no dispute that the marriage between second respondent and her husband took place on 23.6.1988. It is stated in the complaint that at the time of marriage, the father of the second respondent has given Rs. 15,000/ -, Rs. 25,000/ - worth household articles, 8 gram gold ring, a suit to the husband of the second respondent and also by spending Rs. 3 lakhs her father performed the marriage. At that time, her father also gave one gold necklace, one chain, two pairs of ear studs, one pair of silver lamps and one silver Ganapathi idol and other silver articles. It is stated that at that time, all these articles were asked by her husband and therefore, at the instance of the husband of the second respondent, these articles were also given to her husband as well as the second respondent. There is no allegations in the complaint that petitioner has demanded all those articles. It is also alleged in the said complaint that after the marriage, the petitioner as well as her son have demanded Rs. 8 lakhs dowry from the second respondent. In this context, it is alleged that A1 has always demanding for money persistently and also threatening the second respondent with dire consequences of killing her and her family members. The complaint averments also disclose that in the year 2002, she left the matrimonial home and started living in the house of her mother. Even after she started living with her mother, whenever, the husband met her in the family functions, he used to abuse her with filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences and also making allegations that he had the second marriage taken second already. This particular aspect has been disclosed by the second respondent to the petitioner and also mother of the second respondent both of them have directed her not to disclose this fact in order to save the status of both the families. On the basis of the above said allegations, the Police have registered a case u/s. 498A, 506 of IPC read with Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) LOOKING to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the said sentence is not sufficient so as to attract any of the provisions invoked by the Police so far as this petitioner is concerned. Even accepting that in any one of the instance she also joined the hands with the husband of the second respondent to demand the said amount, but the allegations shows that persisting demand was made by the husband only. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations made in the FIR which contains the complete allegations against A1, therefore there is no sufficient allegations in order to attract the above said provisions, so far as the petitioner is concerned.