KANWALDEEP SINGH MONGA & ORS Vs. SIMRANPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the the complaint No.14/3 of 2017 titled Simranpreet Kaur Versus Kanwal Singh Monga & ors., pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act').

(2.) The main ground for allowing the petition as taken in the petition is that the dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute and settlement whereof was tried by the petitioners, but on account of adamant attitude of respondent, it could not be settled and the respondent had willfully left the company of the petitioner No.1, as is evident from the compromise dated 26th July, 2016, arrived at between the parties before Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, H.P. (Annexure P2), wherein it is recorded that respondent was taken by his father on his own volition, without any pressure and with healthy mind, along with car and gold items and clothes with understanding that she will stay with her parents till the settlement of dispute. It is further case of the petitioners that as the respondent is not living with the petitioners and has left the matrimonial house at her own in July, 2016, hence there is no question of beating or abusing her or neglecting her. It is also submitted that respondent has herself proclaimed not to live in the company of the petitioner No.1 or his father and therefore, prayer in her complaint made for providing shared household is also a tactics to create pressure upon the petitioners. It is also submitted that petitioners have never neglected the respondent and are still ready to take her back to her matrimonial house and are ready to maintain her and therefore, petitioners are not liable to pay any amount as maintenance to the respondent and false allegations of keeping the 'stridhan' by the petitioners have also been made in the complaint so as to drag them in unnecessary litigation in order to pressurize them so as to succumb to her illegal demands. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from orders dated 16th Oct., 2016, 16th Nov., 2016 and 29th Nov., 2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, it is evident that during pendency of the bail application of the petitioners as recorded unambiguously in the list of articles prepared by the police during investigation of the said case, that items of 'stridhan', handed over by the petitioners to the police, were further handed over to respondent Simranpreet Kaur on supurdari. Therefore, it is pleaded that the trial Court has wrongly taken the cognizance of the case under Sec. 12 of the Act in the complaint filed by the petitioners.

(3.) On perusal of the record requisitioned from the trial Court, it transpires that the complaint was filed by the respondent on 14th March, 2017, whereafter report from Protection Officer was called upon by the trial Court and after receiving the report, notices were issued to the petitioners on 23rd March, 2017 and thereafter petitioners had appeared in the case and had defended themselves through counsel engaged by them. During pendency of the complaint, interim maintenance was also allowed in favour of respondent vide order dated 8th Nov., 2017. The respondent has also produced her witnesses, who were also crossexamined on behalf of the petitioners and evidence of complainant was closed on 23rd Dec., 2017, whereafter case was listed for recording evidence of petitioners on 15th Jan., 2018, on which date it was further adjourned on the request of counsel for the petitioners for recording evidence on 20th March, 2018. On 20th March, 2018, adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioners/respondents, on the ground that they were consulting with the other advocate and case was fixed for recording evidence of the petitioners on 18th April, 2018.