SURAJ SINGH SOLANKI Vs. SEEMA SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 03/03/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mhow, District Indore in MJC No.119/2013.

(2.) Counsel for the applicants vehemently urged the fact that the applicants are unnecessarily being roped in by the respondent /wife -Seema Solanki. Counsel submitted that the applicants Suraj Singh/father -in -law, Tejubai/mother -in -law, Kavita Chawda/sister -in -law are the family members who are not members of the same shared house -hold and have been falsely implicated. Counsel however, candidly admitted that the husband -applicant no.3/Jaswant Solanki was living separately with the respondent /wife -Seema and the expenses were also borne by the wife's father. Counsel submitted that the Trial Court had erred in considering the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and implicated the applicants and they have to unnecessarily undergo rigors when there was ample evidence on record to indicate that they were not members of the shared house hold. More so she submitted that applicant no.4/Kavita Chawda was married sister -in -law and unnecessarily being put to embarrassment and trouble to attend the Court proceedings though she has nothing to do with the mater. Counsel placed reliance on Meenakshi Jatav & Ors v. Seema Sehar (DR) Anr. [II (2013) DMC 622 (MP)] to indicate that this Court has also held that no specific allegations were made against the petitioners and the petitioners were sister -in - law and brother -in -law of the respondent/wife and living separately and marriage has also taken place much before the marriage of the respondent /wife, then the relief under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Act cannot be granted and hence the proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC were quashed and prayed that same relief be extended to the present applicant also.

(3.) Per contra, Counsel for the respondent /wife submitted that the applicant no.3/husband was living with the wife, even if the contentions are considered regarding separate resident, it was a matter of evidence to consider is whether the father -in -law and mother -in - law are separate in residence and mess and prayed for dismissal of the application.