DAVINDER PAL MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are in-laws of respondent No.2, have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby, while admitting the petitioners on anticipatory bail and making the order dated 28.08.2010 (interim order- bail) as absolute, has put a condition that the petitioners would comply the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar with regard to payment of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the order of the trial Court and the petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

(2.) Pursuant to the order dated 07.08.2018, counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the judgment dated 10.11.2016, which is taken on record.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A of IPC against the petitioners and their son Nitin Malhotra wherein all the accused have been summoned to face trial. Respondent No.2 has also filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act as well as a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance against the son of the petitioners wherein maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month was awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 10.11.2016. He has further argued that the petitioners are parents-in-law of respondent No.2. The maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be recovered from the petitioners. Further, no such condition can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail except the condition as mentioned under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Moreover, respondent No.2 has already initiated proceedings against Nitin Malhotra, who is none else but her husband. He has further argued that the petitioners have already disinherited their son. Thus, their relations with their son are not cordial.