RAJAT JOHAR Vs. DIVYA JOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant petition, the petitioner invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the impugned orders dated 17.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 131/14.

(2.) The brief facts stated are that, a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent-Divya Johar against the petitioner-Rajat Johar before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, Delhi. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.05.2009 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Hotel Lutyen's, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Delhi. The respondent before marriage was working as a Manager, Quality Assurance in a reputed MNC in Gurgaon and was earning a decent salary in the year 2008-09, but she was forced to quit the same after marriage to join the petitioner at Hyderabad in the month of May 2009. Thereafter, in the month of August 2010, the respondent was short listed for final interview for the post of full-time faculty (Asst. Professor) with NIFT, Hyderabad but the petitioner was completely against of taking up a full-time job by the respondent therefore, she did not attend the final interview on the instances of her husband/petitioner.

(3.) Out of the said wedlock one baby boy (Master Avin Johar) was born on 02.02.2011. He was born about nine weeks prematurely and was diagnosed for blood pressure and kidney problem. As a result of which the minor child is suffering from severe medical ailment since his birth and requires constant medical treatment and supervision. Thereafter, on 03.04.2012, the respondent along with her minor child were thrown out of the matrimonial home and on being harassed by the petitioner and her family members the respondent filed a domestic violence case against the petitioner and other family members. It has been alleged by the respondent that the petitioner has neither taken her and her minor child back nor has made any provision for their maintenance. It has been further alleged that the petitioner has refused the respondent to stay in the matrimonial home and have further refused to hand over the Stridhan articles including jewellery to the respondent despite repeated requests.