KULBUSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for both the sides.

(2.) So far as the second petitioner is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that she is widowed sister-in-law, while the third respondent is the mother-in-law.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage had taken place on 29.5.1994 and general and vague allegations have been made that the petitioners herein alongwith father-in-law used to trouble her for bringing less dowry, used to beat her and that they turned her out of the house, but there is no specific allegation. He also points out that for the first time, it is stated specifically that on the date of the complaint namely, 23.3.1999, the petitioners allegedly gave beatings. He also contends that there is no allegation that there was any demand for dowry at that time. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that the petitioners have been given separate ration card also as is evident from Annexures P1 and P2, which according to him shows that they were living separately.