KARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KARAMJIT Singh, husband of respondent-Balwinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh and Smt. Gurdial Kaur, father and mother-in-law respectively of respondent, through present petition filed by them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of complaint dated 20.12.1991, Annexure P-2, under Sections 406/498-A read with Section 102-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE facts as disclosed in the petition reveal that Karamjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur were married according to Sikh rites on 29.5.1986 at village Sataur, Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur. They lived as husband and wife at Ropar for about one month. The wife thereafter joined the husband at district Sidhi, where the latter was posted. After some time, Satnam Singh, brother of respondent, came Jayant for taking her for performing the festival of Karwa Chauth as according to custom and family traditions, first festival of Karwa Chauth was to be performed at her parental house. He, however, later learnt through a letter that his wife was on the family way and would be staying at her parental house till delivery. On 17.6.1987 respondent gave birth to a child who expired on 17.7.1987. After the death of the child, husband was keen to bring back the respondent-wife to Jayant but Harbans Singh, her father, flatly refused. Petitioner came to know of the same through a letter written by her father. Petitioner, however, sent a letter to the respondent to take her back but her brother refused. There are further averments in the petition with regard to petitioner-husband endeavoring to seek company of his wife which, however, proved abortive. He was, thus, constrained to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was filed on 25.4.1988 in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Sidhi (MI). It was contested by the respondent but the Court after resultant trial passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.1991. Being aggrieved, respondent-wife filed an appeal which is pending in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Petitioner-husband also filed an application for execution of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights as envisaged under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC which is still pending in the executing court. However, the wife meanwhile, it is pleaded, as a matter of counter-blast filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 11.11.1988 in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. It is averred that husband was not served in those proceedings and still was proceeded against ex parte and a monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- was fixed to be paid to respondent-wife by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. However, an application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed by petitioner-husband which was dismissed resulting into revision against the said order in the Court of Sessions Judge. The wife then filed a complaint, subject matter of challenge in this petition under Sections 406/498/120-B IPC read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. This complaint is not only against the petitioner-husband but there are eight other persons arrayed as co-accused in the said petition.

(3.) IN pursuance of notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondent-wife controverting the allegations noted above.