KAMLABAI Vs. MANOHARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31-8-87, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Neemuch, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 1987, thereby upholding the order dated 21-4-87, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Neemuch, in Criminal Case No. 20 of 1986, holding the complaint filed by the petitioner as barred by time and dismissing the same on that count.

(2.) A few facts of the case, necessary for disposal of this petition, may be noted: The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2. Her marriage was solemnised on 10-2-72, in village Chittakhedi, police station Jiran, district Mandsaur, but as can be gathered from the allegations made in the complaint, there was no conjugal harmony between the two and ultimately the petitioner was required to separate herself because of illtreatment and at times indifferent attitude on the part of her husband. She started serving as a school mistress and is also presently serving. Her in-laws live in village Ringnod, Tahsil Jaora. It has been stated by the complainant in her evidence, recorded on 3-7-87, that while she was about to go for a bath, her mother-in-law Sampatbai persuaded her to take out the ornaments, which she was wearing. Accordingly she took out the ornaments presented to her on the eve of her marriage and since then the ornaments were not returned despite repeated demands and entreaties on her part. There was a quarrel in the family on account of her serving as a school teachers, which she has been serving since 1974. The whole tenor of her evidence is that she was forced to serve as a teacher.

(3.) She was relentlessly pressing for return of all those ornaments and the is-laws avoided returning the same under some pretext or other. According to her, these ornaments were presented to her in Kanyadan and they were her absolute property. She has also stated on oath that her husband promised to return the ornaments, for which he was persuading his father, i.e. respondent No. 2, but all these persuasions failed and she ultimately came out with a notice through her counsel given to both the respondents on 4-11-89, which has been exhibited as Ex.P/11 before the trial Court. This notice has been returned with an endorsement "refused" and in absence of even a suggestion in cross-examination when this notice was tendered in evidence to the complainant Kamlabai, it would not be wrong to impute knowledge of the contents of' this notice to the respondents. During the course of' her cross-examination Kamlabai was questioned as to when she made her first demand and her reply to this question was "when she started serving" and just in the next breath she added that 'she had started serving in the year 1974'. When pressed further she stated that it was in the year 1974 that I demanded the necklace and have been ever since continuously demanding the ornaments and at times it resulted in wordy duel. She has further stated that although initially she did not talk to her father-in-law (as is customary amongst some families), but after having started serving she also started talking to her father-in-law.