K C MATHEW Vs. REENA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash a complaint filed by a wife alleging offence under S.498(A) read with S.34 IPC.

(2.) A brief summary of the complaint of the respondent is as follows: The marriage between the respondent and the son of the petitioners was solemnized on 9.1.1995 at St. Peters Church, Manganam, Kottayam District. They lived as husband and wife briefly before the respondent's husband left to U.S. on 22.1.1995. While the respondent wife was living with the petitioners who are parents of the husband, during the period from 24.4.95 to 28.10.95 they had repeatedly made a demand to arrange an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs by converting the remaining tangible assets for the complainant's parents. Unable to bear the bitter cruelty experienced due to the coercion, she left Surat on 28.10.95. The husband telephoned the complainant during the first week of November, 1995 on two occasions and insisted payment of Rs. 12 lakhs forthwith and threatening with dire consequences on her failure. The 2nd petitioner wrote to the complainant's mother in deploring terms by way of character assassination of the wife. When the husband came to India on 29.2.96, he stayed up to 4.3.96, but behaved in a most inhuman manner harassing the complainant by demanding the amount. The husband, physically assaulted the complainant and refused to perform the matrimonial obligations unless his demand is complied with. The husband as well as the petitioners did not provide her any proper maintenance and refused to avail of the amount given to the complainant's parents forcing her to take employment. To crown all the above harassment, the husband instituted proceedings for divorce before a Circuit Court, County of Oakland, State of Michigan to secure a divorce setting up false contentions and suppression of the truth and facts knowing fully well that the said court has no territorial jurisdiction, and obtained dissolution of the marriage. Aggrieved by cruelty at the instance of the accused, the above complaint was preferred before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Thamarassery.

(3.) Two main grounds were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 1) The complaint taken in its entirety does not make out an offence under S.498(A). 2) The Magistrate Court at Thamarassery has no territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offence.