PEHLAD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order I dispose of two Criminal Misc. Petitions No. 5135 -M/1994 and 5441 -M/1994 filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, for quashing the Complaint Case No. 198/1993 filed under Sections 406 and 498 -A, Indian Penal Code, and also for quashing the consequential proceedings including the summoning order dated 25.9.1993 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) THE complaint has been preferred by Dazy against her husband Pehlad her mother -in -law Piar Bai (Ram Piare), her brother -in -law Ravi Kumar and his wife Usha, her other brother -in -law Vijay Kumar and father -in -law Piare Lal. Cr. Misc. 5135 -M/1994 has been filed by her husband -Pehlad, father -in -law Piare Lal, and Usha, the wife of the brother of Pehlad. Cr. Misc. 5441 -M/1994 has been filed by mother -in -law Ram Piare, and the other brother -in -law Vijay Kumar.

(3.) I will refer to the wife as the complainant and the accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate by their relationship to her. The petitioners contended that prior to the marriage her husband -Pehlad and his father were residing in a house at Faridabad where none of the brothers of the husband -Pehlad were living. According to the petitioners, the wife used to pick up quarrel even on petty matters and after the birth of the daughter (on 13.1.1988) she forced her husband -Pehlad to take up a separate residence. The petitioners state that after April, 1988 the complainant and her husband never resided with the father of the husband also. According to them, the complainant was in the habit of abandoning the matrimonial home and going away, necessitating complaints to the police also. According to the petitioners, the complainant without the consent of her husband took away the gold ornaments, clothes and cash and left the home on 23.11.1991 and has ever since been living with her parents at Karnal. The petitioners' claim that the husband had even filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 4.6.1993 which was not even contested by the wife resulting in an ex -parte order on 13.12.1993. According to them, this complaint is only a counter blast to petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.