SIVAKAMA SUNDARI RAVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. S. Y. MASOOD, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of a direction to the first respondent police to register a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 30. 08. 2006.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate and was working as apprentice in the Annamalai University for a year. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got married with one Ravi Viswanathan on 03. 02. 2002 at Hotel Kanchi, Chennai, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. It is submitted that the petitioner was given 25 sovereign of gold, a pair of diamond ear rings and 3 kgs. of silver and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing house hold utensils. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- also paid as dowry to the bridegroom.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined her husband after wedding and lived with him at Hederabad. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was living with the parents of her husband, viz. , father-in-law and mother-in- law as the petitioner's husband was working in Cuttack and the request made by the petitioner and petitioner's brother to the petitioner's husband to take the petitioner to Cuttack was not accepted by the husband of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner was compelled to reside only along with the parents of her husband and thereafter, the petitioner's husband and in-laws treated the petitioner cruelly and meanwhile the petitioner also became pregnant. It is further alleged that the petitioner was not allowed to go to her parental home for delivery and the in-laws of the petitioner and her husband insisted that she should reside only at Hyderabad and the parents of the petitioner who have visited to the matrimonial home of the petitioner were insulted and the petitioner also not allowed to meet anyone thereafter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the parents of the petitioner's husband locked the petitioner inside the house and never let her to go out. It is further alleged that the petitioner was treated cruelly both physically and mentally.