KULDESH Vs. HARIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - Smt.Kuldesh had brought a petition against respondent Haripal under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the averments that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 18/1/2018 at Meham as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; that a huge amount was spent on her marriage and considerable dowry articles were given; that the respondent had played a big fraud with the petitioner since he had represented that he was a widower, but later on it came out that his first wife is still alive and he was having children from that wedlock; that from the very beginning, the respondent and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles, therefore, they started harassing, humiliating, taunting and abusing the petitioner on trivial matters; that the respondent had opened a bank account in the name of petitioner and deposited a cheque in the sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs in the said account but after some time he had taken the thumb impressions of the petitioner and withdrew the amount; that he was having illicit relation with Bhaila, who had expired in an accident; that the respondent is a retired Colonel and getting Rs.25,000.00 per month as pension and he has recently purchased one house at Surya Nagar, Hisar.

(2.) On notice, the respondent appeared and filed reply denying the relationship between the parties labelling the other allegations levelled by the petitioner as concocted denying that the parties ever resided together as husband and wife. It is further submitted that the petitioner has shown herself as wife of the respondent but in the bank record, she has submitted her voter identity card issued by Election Commission of India dtd. 11/10/1994, showing herself to be wife of Ram Dhari; that an account was opened with PNB Satrod and cheque obtained from the respondent by committing fraud, has been got encashed; that the respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other persons and FIR No.666 dtd. 8/7/2009 under Ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC has been lodged against the petitioner. Refuting the remaining allegations the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

(3.) After affording the parties opportunities to lead evidence and hearing arguments Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar vide judgment dtd. 6/12/2011 dismissed the petition.