NATUBHAI SOMABHAI ROHIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Cav) - In the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Rutvij Oza waives service of Rule for the respondent state, whereas learned advocate Mr. N. D. Chaudhary waives service of rule for respondent No.2-the original complainant. The application is taken up for hearing today.

(2.) In all ten persons-all family members are shown as accused in the First Information Report. Accused No.1 is husband, accused No.2 is father-in-law, accused No.3 is mother-in-law, whereas accused Nos. 4 and 5 are sister-inlaws and the remaining accused Nos. 6 to 10 are shown as brother-in-laws. As far as the present application is concerned, it is filed by applicant No.1-original accused No.6, applicant No.2-original accused No.4, applicant No.3-original accused No.5, applicant No.4-original accused No.7, applicant No.5- original accused No.9 and applicant No.6-original accused No.10. In other words, the applicants are sister-in-laws and brother-in-laws of the complainant.

(3.) According to the FIR lodged on 12.12.2013, the marriage of the complainant was solemnised on 21.05.2010 and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house for consummation of marriage. She started living in the company of the family members namely the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and in-laws. According to the complaint, the initial period of seven months or so, passed by smooth. However, thereafter the members in the matrimonial family started misbehaving with the complainant over small issues. The complainant stated that she hoped that everything would get improved with the passage of time. She stated that both her sister-in-laws used to taunt her that she was less educated and that marriage of their brother-the husband was required to be solemnised with a girl of higher community and well educated who was serving with him in the office. It was alleged that accused No.1 husband was prompted to re-marry, therefore other members also used to harass the complainant. Accused No.9 and accused No.10 also used to state that they did not want to keep the complainant as wife.