AKANKSHABEN Vs. STATE OF GUAJRAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Gohil, Ld.APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1-State and Mr.Devnani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed complaint for the offences under section 498A and others of I.P.C vide C.R.No.I-35/05 with Dakore Police Station. The respondent No.2 was arrested and thereafter while releasing him on bail, the Ld.Magistrate has put the condition of deposit of passport. The respondent No.2 had deposited the passport as per order 19.4.05 and the respondent had carried the matter before the Ld.Sessions Judge by preferring revision being Revision Application No.22/05 qua challenging the imposition of condition of deposit of passport. The Ld.Sessions Judge found that the condition of deposit of passport deserves to be modified by directing the respondent No.2 to produce the certified xerox copy of the passport and imposed a condition that without prior permission of the court the respondent No.2 accused shall not leave the limits of Nadiad. Against said order, the petitioner has approached this court by preferring the present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr.Barot for the petitioner and Mr.Gohil, Ld. APP and Mr.Devnani for respondent No.2. Mr.Barot, Ld.advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is wife was given ill-treatment and she was beaten and therefor the complaint was filed and the matter is pending. He submitted that the petitioner was beaten by the respondent No.2 husband though the bungalow was purchased by receiving the consideration from the father of the petitioner. He also submitted that there was illegal demand of dowry and consequently the cruelty was complained. Mr.Barot submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have ordered for modifying the condition of deposit of passport since the discretion was properly exercised by the learned Magistrate. He also submitted that if the passport is not deposited, the respondent No.2-accused may run away to Middle East countries, namely, Kuwait and he will not come back. He submitted that the petitioner has also preferred the application for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C and if the passport is not deposited, it will not be possible for the petitioner to get the amount of maintenance even if ordered and therefore he submitted that the order passed by the Ld.Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed.