MOHD IMTIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the petitioners under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated 30.04.2013 in dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Karimnagar, under which the petitioners herein challenged the order dated 18.01.2012 in D.V.C. No.21 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sircilla.

(2.) THE parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience in the revision.

(3.) BRIEF facts are that the aggrieved person presented a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ( for short, 'the Act') in D.V.C.No.21 of 2010 against respondents 1 to 6, her husband, parents -inlaw, sister -in -law and brothers -in -law respectively seeking protection order, residence order, monetary and compensatory reliefs under the Act. The facts are that the marriage of the aggrieved person was performed with the 1st respondent on 03.03.2008 as per the caste and customs prevailing in Sunni School of Law (Islam) and after 28 days of their marriage the 1st respondent went to abroad for his livelihood. It is alleged in the petition that after the 1st respondent went abroad, the relatives of the 1st respondent i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 6 started harassing the aggrieved person for additional dowry and even after her husband returned back from Dubai, he also started harassing her for additional dowry and more so the respondents also snatched away the gold ornaments of the aggrieved person. She further alleged that, during the course of harassment, the 5th respondent beat the aggrieved person on her left leg, resulting which she has sustained a grievous injury, for which she was operated at NIMS and she requires another operation to remove the buttress rods which were inserted at the time of surgery. It is also stated that the 1st respondent is software professional and earning Rs.35,000/ - per month apart from owning two house plots at driver's colony, Kamareddy worth Rs.6,00,000/ - and one R.C.C building worth Rs.25,00,000/ - and the 1st respondent is having sufficient movable and immovable properties. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed their detailed counter as the petition against R -5 and R -6 was dismissed. It is their contention that the aggrieved person lived only for three months in the matrimonial home and later she went to her parents' home without the consent of her husband and she did not return, though the 1st respondent returned to India and after intervention of elders the aggrieved person joined the society and after two days she quarreled with the respondents and left with 15 tulas of gold ornaments and after waiting for the aggrieved person for more than 11 months, the 1st respondent gave divorce from the Government Quzzathof Quila Mohammed Nagar, Golkonda and also arranged Rs.35,000/ - for Mehar and Iddath period maintenance for the aggrieved person and subsequently this petition was filed that is why the petition is not maintainable.