URMILA Vs. RAMPRATAP & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 7 th January 2011 in Criminal Revision No. 102/2010 passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge Datia (M.P.), setting aside thereby the order dated 20 th October 2010 in MJC No. 17./2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander and remanding the case back to the inferior court to examine the maintainability of the petition in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domesticate Violence Act & Rules against the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order of the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this court for seeking a direction under inherent powers.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Also perused the record of the court below and the law applicable to the present case.

(3.) There is no dispute about the marriage took place between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. It is also not disputed about living the petitioner separate from her husband-respondent No.1 till 1996 in village Nobai, district Datia. On an application being moved under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., monthly maintenance was awarded by the court to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is working in govt. job and living at Datia. The petitioner filed the petition under Section Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 16 th May 2010, raising the grounds that the respondent No.1, i.e., her husband and his relatives visited her house and threatened her not to proceed against them in the court. They made pressure over her to enter into compromise in a pending matter. Under the circumstances, she requested by filing the petition to issue the direction against respondents. The aforesaid facts were controverted by the other side by filing an application. It is stated that the petitioner-wife suppressed the material facts from the notice of the court that the petitioner is not living in the house of the respondents since 1996 and she is getting maintenance from the court, hence, the petition was not maintainable.