PAWAN SINGH Vs. BABITA KUMARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 19.10.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2013, whereby he has upheld the order dated 22.3.2013 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Barasar, District Hamirpur, H.P. in complaint No. 144 -1 of 2012.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Babita Kumari, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1 for the sake of convenience) has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against Pawan Kumar, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner" for the sake of convenience) and respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "proforma respondents No. 2 to 4" for the sake of convenience). According to respondent No. 1, she was married to the petitioner in the month of May 2006 as per Hindu rites. They lived together as husband and wife at Village Nanawan and thereafter at Mohali (Punjab). After few months of marriage, behaviour of the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 changed and they started maltreating her for demand of dowry and money. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 had been demanding money from her father. Her father gave a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/ - to them. The petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 assured to return the money. The father of respondent No. 1 retired as Principal in the month of March 2012. At that time also, the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 demanded money and took a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - from her father. However, the petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 continued maltreating respondent No. 1. In the month of April 2012, she was beaten up by petitioner and ousted her from the matrimonial house. Father of respondent No. 1 reported the matter before the local Gram Panchayat, but petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 did not appear before the Gram Panchayat. She started living with her parents at village Kulhera since April 2012. According to her, at the time of fixing of marriage, they had told that petitioner was a software engineer, however, fact of the matter is that he was simply 10+2.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed rejoinder to the reply filed by petitioner and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4.