MADHUSUDAN BHARDWAJ Vs. MAMIA BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved with an order dated 6/9/2007 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Criminal appeal No. 164/07, this revision has been preferred by all the three petitioners. Vide impugned order, the learned Judge has affirmed an order dated 9/7/2007 passed by judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in criminal case No. 5279/2007, whereby the learned Magistrate has partly allowed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "act")filed by respondent-Mamta Bhardwaj, the wife of the petitioner No. 1-Madhusudan bhardwaj and has- (1) restrained the petitioners not to create any domestic violence with the respondent, (2) directed the petitioners to permit the respondent to share her residence in family house or in alternate, petitioner No. 1 to arrange suitable house of the same status for her, (3) directed the petitioners to execute their bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) each for a condition not to create domestic violence with the respondent, and (4) directed the petitioners to pay Rs. 10,000/-as compensation to the respondent in lieu of the cruelty played by them on her. Vide impugned order, the prayer of providing stridhan to the respondent has been negated.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent has filed aforesaid application dated 17/5/2007 in the Court of learned magistrate mentioning therein that she is wife of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is her sister-in-law (Nanad) and petitioner no. 3 is her mother-in-law. Respondent was married with the petitioner No. l on 2/6/2006. After marriage, she started living with the petitioner No. 1 in his family house situated at 3-Saraswati Nagar, University Road, thatipur, Gwalior. In the same house petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are also living. Petitioner no. 2 is living alongwith her two minor children. Petitioner No. 2 has been deserted by her husband. On account of her desertion, she is jealous of happy family life of respondent and petitioner No. 1. After marriage, on demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a car, the behaviour of the petitioners was cruel with the respondent. She was usually beaten by them. When the cruelty could not be tolerated by the respondent, she lodged a criminal case No. 26/2007 against the petitioners under Section 498-A of IPC. On 1/4/2007 petitioners left the respondent in the aforesaid family house and left the house after locking the rooms along with jewellery and valuables on the pretext that they are going to attend some marriage in the relationship. Thereafter, on 16/4/2007 at 11:00 p. m. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 along with two unknown persons came and uttered filthy abuses to the respondent. They gave a threat to the respondent to leave the house else she will be killed. She informed about it to superintendent of Police. On 26/4/2007 at about 6:40 p. m. when respondent was alone at the family house, all the three petitioners came, started beating to the respondent and forcibly deserted her from the house. At about 8:00 p. m. on the same day she lodged fir at University Police Station, which was registered at Crime No. 57/2007. Again she was beaten by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 at the family house. At the time of desertion petitioners kept all stridhan of the respondent amounting to Rs. 13,74,500/-with them.

(3.) VIDE reply, all the allegations, except the fact of marriage, have been denied by the petitioner No. 1. It was further mentioned in the reply that false allegations have been made on behalf of the respondent to cast aspersion on the pious relationship of brother and sister. On the ground of false allegation petitioners were to be arrested. The relation of wife and husband has become dead and now there is no possibility of living together. On account of the cruelty played by the respondent, the petitioner no. 1 has been compelled to live separately from his family house. The respondent brought antisocial elements at the family residence of the petitioners for the purpose of hooliganism. In these circumstances, petitioner No. 1 has been compelled to file a petition for divorce, which is pending.