SMT RANJANA GUPTA Vs. RAJNESH GUPTA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.07.2013 endorsing the finding of the learned MM dated 28.03.2012 vide which the order passed on the complaint case (CC No.174/2003) under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as PWDVA) had been disposed of without granting any relief to the petitioner. Relevant would it be to extract that part of the order passed by the learned MM. It reads as under:-

(2.) This order was assailed before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge as noted supra has endorsed this finding passed by the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by this fact finding. His submission is that the order has been passed by both the two courts below cursorily on surmises and conjectures without applying the settled legal proposition; submission being that the mother-in-law of the petitioner namely Urmil Gupta had been deleted from the complaint case on an application filed by her without any formal order; this was on the pretext that a female does not qualify as a respondent under the PWDVA; submission being that this was based on a wrong proposition of law as the Honourable Apex Court in 2011 (2) SCALE 94 : II (2011) DMC 811 (SC) : III (2011) CCR 377 (SC), Sou Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. had in this context noted that the Legislature did not intend to exclude a female relative of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of PWDVA. Submission being that in this case the allegations of the petitioner were specific that the mother-in-law of the petitioner namely Urmil Gupta had kept her jewellery articles and the same had not been returned. Attention has been drawn to internal page 4 of the order of the learned MM; submission being that a specific allegation had been made by the petitioner that her entire jewellery articles were with her mother-in-law.