ROSALYN BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is one of the Respondents in C.M.C. No.155/2023 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (O), Bhubaneswar filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Do0mestic Violence Act, 2005 ("PWDV Act'). In the present application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner prays for quashment of the said proceedings on the ground that no case is made out against her.

(2.) The facts, relevant only to decide the present application are that the aforementioned application under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act was filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 as aggrieved person claiming reliefs under Ss. 18,19,20 and 22 of the Act against the Petitioner and others. It is stated that the aggrieved person married Debadutta Behera on 8/2/2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals and such marriage was duly consummated. No dowry was demanded by the husband and other in-laws. After such marriage however, the respondents demanded gold ornaments and other valuable articles worth Rs.10.00 lakhs which was fulfilled by the father of the aggrieved person. In spite of such fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the in-laws of the aggrieved person subjected her to verbal abuse on multiple grounds. It is also alleged that the husband of the aggrieved person was a drunkard and misbehaved with her time and again. Though such fact was brought to the knowledge of her in-laws, they did not do anything about it. Further, she was not even allowed to take her meal twice a day and was always forced to cook separately for herself. Subsequently, the aggrieved person became pregnant, but her pregnancy was aborted by her husband who administered certain medicines to her. Her health condition deteriorated because of such fact and continued so for a long time. She was admitted to a Clinic at Jajpur Town but neither Respondent No.1 (husband) nor his in-laws visited her at any point of time. Her husband consumed alcohol and demanded car and other property from her and also physically assaulted her. Further, the husband and in-laws have been threatening her and her family members over phone using different phone numbers. On such facts, more or less, the application under Sec. 12 of PWDV Act was filed. As required, a Domestic Incident Report was also submitted by the Protection Officer, Khordha. Considering the averments in the application under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act and the Domestic Incident Report, the Court below issued summons to all the Respondents including the present Petitioner.

(3.) Heard Mr. S.K.Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved person (Opposite Party No.2).