IN RE Vs. PARUL KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arose out of an order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Suri, Birbhum in CRA No. 29 of 2011 by confirming the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Suri, Birbhum in C 57 of 2010 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the background of this revision the fact in a nutshell is that the petitioner complainant is a legally married wife of the respondent No. 1 who is working at the ICCI Bank. He has got a huge amount of land for cultivation. He also acts as middleman for selling of property. He has got own house and is having an income of about Rs. 20000/ - to Rs. 30000/ - p.m. from different sources. The petitioner is a poor lady. She had to pay Rs. 70000/ - to Respondent No. 1 as dowry, besides one wooden cot, gold ornaments of six vorries and other furniture etc. After some days, respondent No. 1 started pressurizing her to bring Rs. 10000/ - from her father's house but the petitioner expressed her inability. So, she was tortured by respondent No. 1 and his family members. An order for payment of maintenance of Rs. 5000/ - was granted to her in a separate case but that amount was not paid on regular basis. The petitioner is in ill -health but die to financial constraint, she could not make proper treatment. She has to live at the mercy of her maternal uncle. The learned court below failed appreciate the main purpose of the said Act and dismissed the application without considering the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29 of the said Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Suri, Birbhum but he too confirmed the order of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) HENCE the case.

(3.) NOW , the point for consideration is if the impugned order calls for any interference or not. A careful examination of the impugned judgment in CRA No. 29 of 2011 as well as the judgment dated 6.4.2011 shows that the allegation of the appellant/ complainant was that she was subjected to domestic violence in her matrimonial home at the instance of her husband and in -laws. But her evidence did not inspire confidence at both the learned courts below. Moreover, from the evidence of respondent No. 1 the husband, it appears that he went several occasions to bring back his wife but in vain.