BANARSI LAL ANAND Vs. SONALI BHAGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have thrown challenge to the maintainability of an application filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short Act of 2005") filed by the respondent 1 herein besides against the proforma respondents herein as also the petitioners herein being respondents 4 and 5 in the aforesaid application.

(2.) The facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed an application under Sec. 12 read with Ss. 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act of 2005 against the proforma respondents herein amongst them Davinder Singh being her father-in-law and Namrata Chambyal as her mother-in-law impleading the petitioners herein as respondents 4 and 5 therein in the said complaint besides one Krishan Devi, widow of one Naseeb Singh alleging therein in the said application that she was married to one Koushik Singh Chambyal S/o proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein in the year 2022 with no issue born in the said wedlock and that she has been working with her husband in a private company and her father-in-law is working in the police department and that at the time of entering into marital wedlock with the above named son of the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein, she brought gold and silver ornaments with her and started living with the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein along with her husband in their residential house situated at Roop Nagar, Jammu, however, after some time, the said respondents started insulting her and committing physical assault upon her inasmuch as at the instigation of the respondents 3 to 5 therein in the aforesaid application who supported the illegal activities of the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein and never tried to take corrective measures and that even the respondents 4 and 5 being the petitioners herein used to threaten and pressurize the respondent 1 herein by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty in order to have her thrown out from her matrimonial house and that the respondents 4 and 5 being the petitioners herein had taken money from her and her husband as loan and did not return back the same to her and instead started threatening her of dire consequences.

(3.) The petitioners herein have challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid application filed by the respondent 1 herein on the grounds urged in the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.