LADURAM Vs. DEWLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition assails the order dtd. 11/1/2016, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Appellate Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 124/2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed, while affirming the order dtd. 3/12/2011 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 321/2011 whereby the application under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2005 preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein, was allowed. Thus, both the aforementioned orders are under challenge in the present petition.

(2.) As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the respondent no. 1-Dewli preferred an application under Sec. 23 of the Act of 2005 before the learned Trial Court, stating therein that she was married to the elder brother, Ramuram, of the petitioner no. 1-Laduram 20-25 years prior, as per Hindu rites. and that, about 20 years ago, Ramuram passed away and she continued to reside in her matrimonial home. and that, of the wedlock, only 1 daughter was born to the couple, who also passed away. and that, upon the passing of her father-in-law as well, the petitioners began harassing her with the intent of usurping the agricultural land accorded to her by her late husband and father-in-law. and that, the petitioners physically assaulted her in front of neighbours and ousted her from her matrimonial home. She prayed, amongst others, a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 from the present petitioners, being her husband's younger brother and other close family members.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments made by the respondent no. 1 before the learned Court below, as already discussed hereinabove, are false. That she was not physically assaulted by them in front of the neighbours nor did they oust her from her matrimonial home. It was further submitted that she was already residing separately from her husband even during his lifetime, and the present petitioners had no role to play in the same.