RAGHUBIR SINGH BAL Vs. SARABJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision by the aggrieved petitioner father-in-law Raghubir Singh Bal has been filed challenging an order dtd. 8/8/2016 of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in which earlier orders dtd. 3/9/2012 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had merged and in the impugned judgment passed in the appeal of the daughter-in-law Sarabjit Kaur and cross appeal filed by the father-in-law Raghubir Singh Bal, the Court below dismissed both the appeals.

(2.) Heard Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr.B.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 and perused the records of the case.

(3.) The facts are that Sarabjit Kaur filed against her husband Gurpreet Singh Bal, his father Raghubir Singh Bal, mother Rajwant Kaur, brothers namely Balwinder Pal Singh Bal and Jarmanjeet Singh Bal, and sister-in-law Gurjeet Kaur wife of Jarmanjeet Singh, a petition under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, 'the Act'). The allegations levelled by the wife fall within the compass that a marriage between the couple took place on 8/9/2002 and out of this wedlock a female child Harpreet Kaur was born to the couple on 1/8/2003 and who is living with the mother. There have been allegations by the wife levelled against the husband and the in-laws which need not be reiterated here and which led to this matrimonial dispute necessitating institution of the complaint in which the impugned orders have come about whereby the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had passed the following orders: "... ... ... Whatever relief she is having, she is having against her husband, who has gone abroad and there is nothing on the record about his where abouts, so the petitioner has not be be (sic) considered as a destitute and she is entitled to the relief of residence in the matrimonial home with two proper rooms, one kitchen and one bathroom as suggested by the petitioner herself. Hence, the petition is hereby partially allowed. Here, the petitioner is informed that she is liable to pay electricity charges as directed by the Court on 12/6/2010 and the respondent is not liable to pay electricity charges on her behalf. The petitioner is claiming reliefs of monetary compensation or damages from the other respondents to which the other respondents are not liable to pay to the petitioner and only respondent No.2 is directed to provide her with residential accommodation as suggested earlier. Accordingly, petition stands disposed off. File be consigned to the record room." The same was challenged in the appeal and by the impugned judgment both the rival appeals of father-in-law and the wife stood dismissed.