SHARAD GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7.12.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate / II Addl. Civil Judge, Shikohabad, District Firozabad in case no.256 of 2011, Smt. Usha Vs. Sharad Gautam as well as order dated 11.4.2014 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Firozabad in criminal revision no.8 of 2014, Sharad Gautam Vs. State of U.P., and to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner in furtherance of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Smt. Usha filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate / Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.2, Firozabad, which was registered as aforementioned case, with the prayer that she was married with the petitioner on 12.11.2005 as per Hindu rites and rituals and her father spent Rs.10 lacs in the marriage, but the members of her matrimonial home were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding further Rs.3 lacs in dowry. When the father of respondent no.2 expressed his inability to meet the requirement, respondent no.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her in -laws. When this fact was disclosed by respondent no.2 to her parents, they came at her in -laws' house and tried to pacify the matter, but her in -laws remained adamant. It is also the case of respondent no.2 that the petitioner and other family members forced her for abortion at several times. On 10.5.2011 also, they again abused and beat her and told her that 'she will inform her father to bring Rs.3 lacs'. When she denied, they ousted her from the house and threatened that without fulfilling the demand, she will not come back otherwise they will kill her. A first information report of the said incident was also lodged by respondent no.2.

(3.) PETITIONER has filed written statement denying all the facts and has specifically stated that he has filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and he has no capacity to pay the amount mentioned in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the respondent no.2 is living separately without any sufficient reason. Petitioner has tried to take her back, but she always refused.