AAYAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. I for the State respondent.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with opposite party no.4 Dr. Sadiq S/o Mohd. Tariq on 7.4.2004, according to Muslim rites and rituals and soon after the marriage the in-laws of the petitioner i.e. opposite party nos.4 to 6 have started harassing and torturing the petitioner for more dowry. The petitioner tolerated all the torture and harassment, caused by the opposite party nos.4 to 6 with a hope that everything will come on right track in future but the opposite party nos.4 to 6 crossed all the limits of torture and harassment. In the meantime, the petitioner conceived, but the opposite party nos.4 to 6 did not took any care of her. When all efforts made by the petitioner and her family members for setting the matter amicably, went in vain then the petitioner having no other alternative remedy, adopted legal proceedings against the opposite party nos.4 to 6 by way of filing complaint case under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the meantime petitioner gave birth to two male children i.e. the detenue namely Ayan and Alman aged about 4 years and 1-1/2 years respectively. Thereafter when the petitioner made a telephonic call to the opposite party no.4 and requested him to give the custody of her children to her then he threatened the petitioner for the life of the detenue, saying that if his demand of dowry is not fulfilled he would commit murder of the detenue and by illegally detaining the detenue, the opposite party nos.4 to 6 are pressurizing the petitioner and her parents to fulfil demand of dowry and withdraw the F.I.R. dated 6.9.2019. In these circumstance, the detenue are not safe because they are using the detenue as a tool for fulfilling their illegal demand.