HARBANS KAUR Vs. JOGINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 30/8/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal in HMA case No.33 of 2014 titled as Harbans Kaur v. Joginder Pal thereby affirming the order dtd. 26/2/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karnal dismissing the Criminal Petition No.24 of 2012 of the same title filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short "DV Act") by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the present petition are that the petitioner filed the aforementioned petition on the averments that she was married with the respondent No.1 on 13/12/1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Four children were born out of the wedlock. Her parents had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage but the respondent No.1 and his family members were not satisfied with the same and they started subjecting the petitioner to mental as well as physical cruelty on account of the same. Previously, a divorce petition had also been filed by respondent No.1 but a settlement had been effected. She alleged that on 2/11/2010, the respondent No.1 along with respondents No.2 and 3 who are her brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively, caught hold of her and she was extended beatings. She was kept confined without providing any meals. On reporting matter to the police, a Calandra under Ss. 107 and 151 of Cr.P.C. was presented against the respondents No.1 to 3. She also alleged that the respondent No.1 had thrown her out of her matrimonial house and was not returning her istridhan. She prayed for granting relief to pass orders for letting her reside in her matrimonial house for her safety, for grant of monetary relief to her, for grant of litigation expenses, for return of her istridhan and further from restraining the respondents from alienating the shared household.

(3.) The respondents No.5 and 6 were given up by learned trial Court. The remaining respondents initially appeared in response to the notice of the petition and filed a joint reply refuting the allegations as levelled in the petition and claiming that the petitioner herself had left the company of respondent No.1 and refused to join the same. She used to have illicit relations with her neighbourers and remained absent from her matrimonial house for days together without giving any intimation to him and whenever objected by him, used to extend threat to commit suicide. All the children of the petitioner and respondent No.1 had been looked after only by him. Besides this, the pleas as to maintainability of petition, cause of action and locus standi were also taken and dismissal of the petition had been prayed for. The respondents No.2 to 4 subsequently absented themselves and were proceeded against ex parte.