VIMLA KAPOOR Vs. RAJINDER KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Srinagar, dated 29-7-1970 whereby he has ordered- the prosecution of the petitioner Under Section 191/193, RP. C.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of this case are that oae Rajinder Kapoor brought an application Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner in the Court of the District Judge, Srinagar. On the pleadings of the parties a preliminary- issue of jurisdiction was framed by the learned Judge and it was decided in favour of the husband. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the husband that the petitioner be prosecuted for perjury on the following grounds: In her written statement dt. 12-7-1969 in para 6 the petitioner had stated: the respondent after marriage was brought to Srinagar where she stayed with her husband upto July/aug. , 1966 and then they shifted to Varanasi. In para 7 of her written statement it was stated by her:. For the respondent it became daily routine to receive shower of abuses, criticism of her parents at the hands of her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law and used to receive kicks and beating off and on from her husband. She was not permitted to go to her parents in Delhi so much so if the father of the respondent came to Srinagar to meet her, he was not permitted to see her. . . . In about the year 1965-66 the petitioner fought with one of his brothers and left Srinagar with his family to settle down at Varanasi. Since August 1966 the petitioner and respondent have been residing in Varanasi. (Quoted from the interim order of the Court below ). On the other hand in her statement which was recorded by the Commissioner on 15-1-1970 she has stated:

(3.) APART from this aspect the learned Counsel for the. petitioner has pointed out that the order under revision suffers from legal defects in so far as there is ,no finding by the learned Sessions Judge that, it is expedient that this lady should be prosecuted for perjury for the eradication of the evils of perjury. Although there is no clear finding in these words but the order of the Sessions Judge can be understood to have fulfilled this requirement, as on page 6 of the order he says that :