RINA SAHA Vs. NETAI CHANDRA SAHA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the impugned judgement and order dated 21.03.2011 under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in M. Case No. 113 of 2009, whereby the Learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that she was married with the O.P. No.I in the year 2005 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, petitioners father met all the demands for dowry made by the O.P. including cash of Rs. 50,000/- and other articles. Thereafter, the petitioner started residing in her matrimonial home, but after a few days the O.P. started committing torture upon her both mentally and physically and her condition there became miserable. After a few months, the petitioner went to a rented house and started living with her husband. On 13.09.2008 in the morning the petitioner went to her matrimonial home, but she was abused and beaten mercilessly by the inmates of the house of the O.P. The petitioner somehow managed to escape therefrom. Thereafter, the O.P. came to the rented house and started creating pressure upon the petitioner to bring cash of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents or from the brother. At last the petitioner was driven out from the rented house by the O.P., the sisterin- law and brother-in-law. The petitioner lodged G.D.E. Entry with Madhyamgram P.S. vide No. 997 dated 14.09.08. The petitioner also filed a case under Section 498A/406 Indian Penal Code before Ld. C.J.M. Barasat. The petitioner has no source of income. The O.P./husband is an employee of Health Department of Kolkata Municipal Corporation earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. He has also landed property and has no liability.

(3.) The O.P. contested the case before the Learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the case holding, inter alia, that the contention of the petitioner that she was driven out by the O.P. was not acceptable and there was no compelling ground or any situation which compelled her to reside separately from the O.P. The learned Magistrate further held that from the evidence it appeared that the petitioner had some income of her own. The Learned Magistrate held that the allegation of negligence and refusal to maintain the petitioner has not been proved.