PRINCE KALRA Vs. HEENA KALRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 (petitioner's wife) has been disposed of while upsetting the directions given by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad vide order dated 06.01.2017 on an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Domestic Violence Act' for short).

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that respondent No. 1 wife of the petitioner, filed a petition under Sections 12, 17 to 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act with the averments that her marriage was solemnised with the petitioner on 15.08.2014 at Faridabad. It was their second marriage, both of them being divorced prior to their marriage. Applicant-respondent No. 1 had a son from the first marriage and she had custody of the said child. The petitioner, it was stated, expressed eagerness to adopt the child of respondent No. 1 from the first marriage. Accordingly, the child was adopted by the petitioner on 16.08.2014. Adoption deed No. 1089 was registered on 16.01.2015. However, after marriage, behaviour of the petitioner and his parents i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 was rude towards the son of respondent No. 1. The couple was blessed with twins (both sons on 21.06.2015).

(3.) It is pleaded that the behaviour of the petitioner and his parents became worse after the birth of twins. Respondent No. 1 was pressurised for cancellation of adoption deed and in order to save her matrimony she was compelled to give her consent for cancellation of the adoption deed. Civil suit was filed on 17.09.2015 wherein respondent No. 1 and her father admitted the claim set forth by the petitioner. Adoption deed was, accordingly, declared null and void. Respondent wife, it is stated, was compelled to hand over the custody of her child from first marriage to her parents. CCTV cameras were installed in the matrimonial house. Respondent wife was allegedly restrained from meeting her eldest son. Allegations regarding demand of dowry as well as unnatural sexual intercourse, sodomy etc. were raised against the petitioner. Immoral and illicit relations with other woman by the petitioner were also alleged. It was pleaded that on 17.12.2016 respondent wife had gone to parental home to see her eldest son (from first marriage), however, when she returned to her matrimonial home the house was found locked. The petitioner, his parents alongwith twin children had fled from the house. Lock of the house was not opened despite information to the police. The respondent - wife, it is stated was compelled to live in veranda of the house. Thus aggrieved, above said