LAWS(J&K)-2019-2-19

RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. NIRJALA KUMARI

Decided On February 01, 2019
Raj Kumar And Others Appellant
V/S
Nirjala Kumari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition filed under 561-A Crimial P.C. petitioners seek quashing of order dated 05.07.2017 passed in an application under Sec. 23 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act, titled, Nirjala Kumari Vs Raj Kumar and ors. and also order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in appeal under Sec. 29 of the Act 2010.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 16.06.2012 at Doda, in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies in presence of the respectable persons and relatives of the parties. A son, namely, Ayush has been born from the said wedlock on 28.04.2013. After marriage, the petitioner no.1 and respondent stayed together as husband and wife, firstly at Doda for about two months and thereafter, at Beli Charna, Jammu, where they have constructed a house. The petitioner no.1 had high hopes and aspirations of a peaceful married life with the respondent. This apart, the petitioner No.1 was not only hoping but anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion. However, the high hopes entertained by him dashed to ground when the respondent on one pretext or the other started treating him with both mental as well as physical cruelty.

(3.) It is further contended that after the marriage, family members of the respondent, particularly her father started interfering in the domestic life of the petitioner no.1 and respondent as he is a very influential person and retired from prestigious post. Petitioner no.1 made every effort to save the matrimonial bond between him and the respondent, but it is the respondent who has failed to fulfill her matrimonial obligations towards the petitioners and filed different cases against petitioner no.1 and his family. After marriage, the petitioners performed all the obligations towards the respondent to the best of their capacity and ability. It is contended that petitioner No. 1 fulfilled all the marital obligations and did every needful Act for her convenience; and that the respondent on 25.10.2013 filed petition under Sec. 488 Crimial P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur and the Court vide its judgment dated 27.09.2017 announced a monthly maintenance of Rs.4,500.00 in favour of the minor son. It is submitted that the petitioner no.1 is working as daily wager and getting Rs.4,500.00 only per month, even then he did not prefer any appeal against the above said judgment, which clearly shows that he is very much concerned about the respondent as well as their minor son.