NEHA CHAWLA Vs. VIRENDER CHAWLA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges judgment dated 11.4.2019, passed by Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby an appeal filed by respondents against order dated 30.7.2018 passed by JMIC Ambala has been accepted and said order dated 30.7.2018, passed under provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, in short being referred to as Domestic Violence Act) granting maintenance, rental allowance and medical expenses to petitioner, has been set aside.

(2.) A few facts, necessary to notice for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act alleging therein that she is a resident of Jammu and that her marriage was solemnised with Surinder Chawla in the year 1995 who somehow expired on 24.3.2010. The petitioner alleged that her brothers-in-law namely the respondents Virender Chawla and Rajinder Chawla had, however, been harassing her and also been giving beatings to her on various occasions while stating that the petitioner had not brought dowry as per their expectations. It is alleged that when the petitioner was living in shared household she was not permitted to move alone out of home and the respondents used to threaten her that they would cause friction in her relationship with her husband. It is further alleged that earlier she had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000 per month by the Courts at Jammu and Kashmir which was later enhanced to Rs. 11,000 per month. However, after death of her husband the petitioner or her son had not been given a single penny towards maintenance out of the property of her husband and the entire business of her husband had been usurped by her brothers-in-law i.e. the respondents who had also misappropriated all the articles of her dowry. It is further alleged that when her husband was on death bed the respondents forged his signatures and got all the money released from banks and also operated the lockers and took out gold ornaments lying therein. The complainant alleged that she was not being allowed to enter into the shared household by respondents and was not given a single penny from the property or business of her husband.

(3.) The respondents, in their reply, opposed the petition. While the factum of marriage of the petitioner with Surinder Chawla i.e. the brother of the respondents was admitted but a stand has been taken that in fact Surinder Chawla was a divorcee and it was a simple marriage without any dowry. It is further stated therein that the marriage had been solemnized in a temple at Jammu in a very simple manner. The respondents asserted that the relations between the petitioner and her husband were strained right from the very beginning and she resided in her matrimonial home barely for 2-3 months after her marriage and thereafter left while taking away the valuables not only those belonging to her but also those of mother and elder brother of respondents. It has been stated in reply that the petitioner had never made any complaint either under section 406 or 498-A of IPC against her husband during his lifetime but after his death she started a tirade against the respondents in order to pressurise them to part with their properties. The respondents have further taken a categoric stand that the property i.e. house No. 109, the Mall, Ambala Cantt, was never a shared household and the petitioner had never resided in the said house. It is further the case of respondents that the petitioner had been residing at Jammu since last more than 15 years and was getting Migration Allowance from Jammu and Kashmir Government. It is thus alleged by the respondents that the present petition has been filed by levelling false and concocted allegations against the respondents.