HUSBAND IS NOT BOUND TO PAY MAINTENANCE TO QUALIFIED WIFE WHO IS SITTING IDLE

The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated that the applicant/wife is a well-qualified graduate Engineer in the field of Information Technology and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome salary as initially, she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Nowadays she is competent and qualified to earn thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/ husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed by her for any purpose in any manner.

IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN 
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ROHINI COURT : DELHI
M No. 28/07 Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal –
Petitioner Vs.
Mrs. Veeka Aggarwal – Respondent

ORDER

1.. This is an order on application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant wife, respondent in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) against the non-applicant husband, petitioner in the main case (hereinafter referred to as the non-applicant) for grant of maintenance pendentelite and for litigation expenses.

2.. In the application it is stated that the applicant/ wife has no independent source of income and she is not given any kind of maintenance by the non-applicant/ husband to live her life properly and therefore she is facing much hardship in the life. The non-applicant/ husband has flatly refused to maintain her. The non-applicant/ husband is working in a private sector as a Senior Software Engineer HPC in STM Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1 A, Knowledge Park-2 (near LG Gol Chakkar), Greater Noida and is earning about Rs. 80,000/-pm.

He has no other liability and he is not discharging his responsibilities towards the applicant/ wife with ulterior motives to harass and humiliate the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is the legally wedded wife of the non-applicant/ husband and, thus, being a husband, he is bound to maintain the applicant/ wife. The applicant/ wife is fully dependent on the mercy of her parents, who are having other liabilities also and she has no independent source of income to maintain herself. It is, therefore, prayed that the non-applicant/ husband be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/-pm as maintenance allowance pendentelite to the applicant/ wife and expenses of proceedings.

3.. The application has been contested by the non-applicant/ husband, who in his reply has stated that the applicant/wife is a well qualified graduate Engineer in the field of information Technology and just after the marriage she had joined the service of a private firm and was drawing a handsome salary as initially she was taking Rs. 5000/-pm. Now-a-days she is competent and qualified to earn thousands of rupees per month. She is a qualified trained engineer and she is self stand financially in all respects. The non-applicant/ husband has never neglected or refused to maintain her in any manner and she was duly maintained during her stay in her matrimonial home. The non-applicant/ husband is still ready and willing to provide financial assistance or maintenance if required or needed by her for any purpose in any manner.

 It is not denied that the non-applicant/ husband is also a qualified engineer and is employed in Greater Noida, U.P. but the actual amount of monthly salary being drawn by him is Rs. 45,000/-pm. It is stated that he has to maintain his retired father and ailing, diabetic mother and old grandmother and also to treat his two married sisters and to look-after his younger unmarried under-education sister of marriageable age as his younger sister is doing B.Ed. from a regular college. He is also paying loan premiums and other household expenses. The applicant/ wife has herself deserted her matrimonial home without any threats or atrocities caused to her by her in-laws and she is not returning to her matrimonial home despite the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the non-applicant/ husband.

It is stated that the non-applicant/ husband is publicly and openly as well as warmly welcoming the applicant/ wife to her matrimonial home but she has started demanding maintenance sitting in her parental home to feed her greedy parents and selfish relatives instead of returning to her matrimonial home and to assist the non- applicant/ husband and her other in-laws in her matrimonial home at the time of need. It is stated that the conduct, attitude and nature of the applicant/ wife is of such type that she is not entitled for any maintenance. Further more, she has also filed a separate petition U/s 125Cr. P.C. for maintenance only with a view to get the non-applicant/ husband harassed in a criminal court.

It is stated that the applicant/ wife is not a helpless or poor lady and she is not incapable to maintain herself as she is a well qualified engineer and is already an earning hand. She is handing over all her income to her parents. She does not require any monastery assistance from the non-applicant/ husband as she is already having a good bank balance in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur at Rohini, Sector-5, Delhi , bearing A/c No. 61005521399 and several other bank accounts also. She also has some immovable properties in her name. It is denied that she requires Rs. 30,000/- as maintenance and other charges as prayed. It is, therefore, prayed that the application be dismissed with heavy cost.

4.. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record.

5.. During the course of arguments it has not been denied by the Counsel for the applicant/ wife that the applicant/ wife herself is an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife submitted that the applicant/ wife joined the job for some time after the marriage but thereafter due to the marital disputes she is not in a position to pursue her job and has left the same. In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands.

It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:- “Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition.”

6.. In I (2001) DMC 19 titled Sangitaben Rasiklal Jaiswal Vs. Sanjay Kumar Ratilal Jaiswal, Mehsana, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has held that the wife is entitled for Free Legal Aid and therefore, the Court should keep in mind that wife is entitled for free legal services also.

7.. In the present case the applicant/ wife is a well qualified engineer and, therefore, there is no need for her to sit idle at home waiting for the maintenance from the non-applicant/ husband. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case since the applicant/ wife is well qualified and, therefore, can earn handsome amount by working and there is no need for her to be financially dependent upon her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband, she is not entitled for any maintenance. While hearing arguments on the application it was ordered that the maintenance shall be granted to the wife till the disposal of the petition. This sentence in order sheet dated 27.08.2007 only means that the wife is entitled for the maintenance from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition and not thereafter. It no where reflects that the wife shall be entitled to maintenance I every case come what may.

8.. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion, the application U/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act of the applicant/ wife is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost. File be consigned to Record Room. 
Announced in Open Court Dated : 19.09.2007

In her entire application the applicant/ wife has no where stated that she is also an engineer graduate in the field of Information Technology and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband.

The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party. In II (2000) DMC 170 titled as Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed as under:- “Section 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not meant for supporting idle (Qualified) spouses waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by her husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself/ herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his/her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed – How can such a lady remain without service – lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding – pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition.”

Filing A False Case is Punishable under IPC 182

Last year it has been noticed that number of fake cases are increasing in Rajasthan, it has seen that Jaipur police had found over 4206 fake cases within one year. They have found that 4,206 cases were reported in Jaipur between 2015-16. In most cases, a false complaint was filed with an aim to grab money or defame a person. These fake cases included allegations of molestation, cheating, harassment for dowry and rape.Which case are identified to be fake from point of view of police?: A B-Final report filed after investigation instead of charge-sheet to court for the further trial of accused.  Basically, the case gets closed after investigation due to it being considered non-worthy for trial, or outright fake.  The report is filed as per agenda underCrPC 173.4206 fake cases are huge for a single city in a single year.  The reason seems to be aggressive approach of Rajasthan police in registering the case.A senior official said that filing FIR in Rajasthan is not at all a difficult procedure unlike in other states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. “Rajasthan police immediately registers the FIR in cases related to molestation, rape, sexual harassment, and dowry demand. Even though it is a good step but during the subsequent investigation, it was found that allegations were made merely to implicate a person in cases in order to grab money,” police said.Being aggressive in registering FIR is not a bad thing, provided police is proactive in prosecuting those who file these false cases, too.  Due to such large number of fake case police has been directed to prosecute the complainants under IPC 182.False information, with aim to cause public servant to use his legal power to the injury of another person is a punishable offense.To omit or do anything which such public servant considered not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him or else to use the legal power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both under IPC 182.Zero tolerance for false CasesSince the various government agencies including law enforcement, corporate etc are from time to time stating about their “zero tolerance for crimes against women, sexual harassment, domestic violence” and so on;State police all around India will be filing more and more FIRs based on complaints rather than turning people away.  That is how police in a democratic country are supposed to work and it should attain that level over a period of time or we will remain a democratic country just in name.  Let’s go with the optimistic scenario.  Filing of FIRs is the stated goal of Supreme Court, high courts, politicians, polices them, which is already happening to a large extent in crimes against women cases at least.  The workload on police will increase.As many people want to take advantage of leniency in false case prosecution, they will file fake cases for purpose of extorting money and humiliating someone. This false case will ultimately increase the workload on. Since they are spending their time and effort in investigating these false cases, thereby reducing time and effort from pursuing other duties.As of now the broad of police says that “our job is to file FIRs”, and let the truth be found in the criminal court trial.  That leads to low assurance rate, and again some blame is put on police, but as of now there is no major confusion in public since most Indian government agencies are adept in the art of finger pointing the ,  to some other department, and the public is also used to all those excuses. The SC has already issued some advisory on putting an onus on police for low assurance rates that will be part of a separate article about zero tolerance for false case.It is in the interest of the public to let all complaints be taken as FIR, and then the false ones are pulled out as B final reports.  The ones which get to charge-sheet and then the trial, should have high conviction rates.  The high conviction rates shouldn’t be secured by convicting all the poor/illiterate accused without a good defence lawyer, but that is a separate topic by itself.In order to avoid wasting time and effort as well escape from bad publicity, police will be forced to prosecute false cases in future.  Because if they create a charge-sheet instead of B final report, it will lead to lower conviction rates due to BOTH false cases leading to zero conviction, and even true cases leading to low conviction because police had wasted time and effort on investigating false cases and creating dubious charge-sheets, so the quality of investigation on true complaints will be poor.  These poor quality charge-sheets will not stand in court.So if police will be forced to prosecute false cases in future, then it is the duty of the public to bring that future forward as soon as possible.Send RTI to police about false cases and number of prosecutions under IPC 182The simple way this process can be brought about in all States’ police of local police station, or PIO of city, region police departments asking about number of false final reports, and also how many of these were prosecuted under IPC 182To find PIO to which RTI has to be sent, one can try a google search with “ police RTI”, and doing that one can often get the direct link to RTI and PIO related information of the city’s police.  E.g. following page is the first result for “Bangalore police RTI” It’s not that difficult to find details about PIOs in police, and in the case of doubts one can call their numbers too on the website to confirm the details like an address to send the RTI too

Why No 'Human Rights Court' Yet? SC Pulls Up States [Read Order]

Section 30 of the Protection of Human rights Act, 1993 mandates the states for specifying for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try offences arising out of violation of human rights. 
Later, in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (2015), the Supreme Court had directed the State Governments to take appropriate action in terms of Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in regard to setting up/specifying the Human Rights Courts.

ITEM NO.102, 102.1-102.10    COURT NO.3  SECTION IV

S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I N D I A

Civil Appeal No(s). 5912/2012

PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

JATT RAM & ORS.

Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 6236/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6237/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6232/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6230/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6233/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6235/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6234/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6231/2012 (IV)

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 222/2005 In C.A. No. 6236/2012 (IV)

C.A. No. 6244/2012 (IV)

Date : 10-01-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

For Appellant(s)

Mr. Aseem Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR 

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Singh Dubey, Adv.

Ms. Sundri, Adv.

Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR 

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR 

Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR

Ms. Navkiran B., Adv.

Mr. Siddhant Roy, Adv. 

Mr. Mohan Pandey, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG

Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Balendu Shekhar, Adv.

Mr. Akansha Kaul, Adv.

Ms. Prerna Kumari, Adv.

Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv.

Ms. Sushma Suri, AOR

Mr. B.K. Prasad, Adv.

Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR

Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.

Mr. G.K. Bansal, AOR

Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR

Mr. Debasis Misra, AOR

Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR

Mr. Navkiran Bolay, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth S Ray, Adv.

 Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR

Mrs.K.Sarada Devi, AOR

Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR

 Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR

 Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv.

Mr. Jayashree Wad, Adv.

Mr. Sidharth Mahajan, Adv.

Ms. sukriti Jaggi, Adv.

for M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

At the time of hearing of these matters, Section 30 of the Protection of Human rights Act, 1993  (for short,  "the Act")  was pointed  out to  this Court which reads as under :

"For the purpose of providing speedy trial of offences arising out of violation of human rights, the State Government may, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Human Rights Court to try the said offences.

Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply if

(a)                           A Court of Session is already specified as a special court; or

(b)                           a special court is already constituted, for such offences under any other law for the time being in force."

When     this         provision            came      for        consideration

before a bench of this Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 744, in paragraphs 30 & 38.4 this Court observed as follows :

"30.There is, in our opinion, no reason why the State Governments should not seriously

consider the question of specifying Human Rights Court to try offences arising out of violation of human rights. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Governments have at all made any attempt in this direction or taken steps to consult the Chief Justices of the High Courts of their respective States and examine the feasibility of specifying Human Rights Court in each district within the contemplation of Section 30 of the Act. Beyond that we do not propose to say anything at this stage."

38.4- The State Governments shall take appropriate action in terms of Section 30 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in regard to setting up/specifying the Human Rights Courts."

Learned counsel for the National Human Rights Commission, fairly states that except in few States, there  is  no  compliance  of  these  orders  and  Session Judges  have  not  been  designated  as  Judges  of  Human Rights Courts created by the Act.        It is also clear that the setting up of these designated Courts, does not involve any        additional infrastructure or additional recruitment of Judges or the staff.

 We see no reason why afore-mentioned judgment of this Court has not been complied with.

Accordingly, issue notice to the             Chief  Secretaries  of  all  the  States,  calling  upon  them  to show  cause  why  appropriate  directions  should  not  be issued in this regard, returnable within eight weeks.

[ Indu Kumari Pokhriyal ]

Asstt. Registrar                                                                       [ Charanjeet Kaur ]

                                                                             A.R.-cum-P.S.

False Dowry Case - Choosing of Forum to Harass Mother-in-law - FIR Quashed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL 

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4666 OF 2016

Puttalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

By Sri Bhaskar D., Adv.

By Sri Nazrulla Khan, HCGP for R-1; Smt. Haleema Ameen, Adv., for Sri S.Vishwajith Shetty, Adv., for R-2

O R D E R

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of the JMFC III Court, Davanagere arising out of Crime No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, Davangere, are abuse of process of the Court causing failure of ends of justice is the question involved in this case.

2. Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, which is now pending in C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of the JMFC III Court Davanagere. Her son Puttaveera Venkata Varaprasad is the 1st accused in the said case. 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1staccused.

3. The marriage of 2nd respondent and Puttaveera Venkata Varaprasad (accused No.1) was solemnized on 13.10.2013 in Annavaram, Andhra Pradesh. At the time of marriage, 2nd respondent was residing with her elder sister (C.W.8) in Davanagere. C.W.7 is the husband of C.W.8. Out of the said wedlock, couple have a daughter.

4. 2nd respondent filed complaint dated 19.09.2014 as per Annexure-B before the Women Police Station, Davangere alleging that two months after the marriage, the 1st accused started harassing her demanding Rs. 30 Lakhs from her parents to start business. She further alleged that when she could not yield to his demand on that ground and suspecting her fidelity he started to harass her physically and mentally. She alleged that in December 2013, 1staccused set up house in Hyderabad and they shifted from Davangere to the said house at Hyderabad. She further alleged that at the instigation of petitioner, the 1st accused demanded Rs.30 Lakhs. At the time of marriage, Rs.7.5 Lakhs of cash and 3 tholas of gold was given to him. She alleged that 1st accused threatened that, if she fails to bring Rs.30 Lakhs, he will divorce her.

5. On the said complaint, 1st respondent Police registered FIR as per Annexure-A in Crime No.63/2014 and conducted investigation and charge sheeted the petitioner and accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code & Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

6. The trial Court on receiving such charge sheet took cognizance against the petitioner and 1staccused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114 of Indian Penal Code & Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

7. On receipt of summons, petitioner appeared in the said case and the trial court granted bail to her.

8. Sri.Bhaskar.D., the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned proceedings on the following grounds:

(i) As per the complaint itself, cash of Rs.7.5 Lakhs and 3 thola gold was given by the complainant’s family and there is no whisper in the complaint of any demand for such cash or gold;

(ii) As per complaint itself, 1st accused and 2ndrespondent soon after the marriage lived in the house of C.Ws.7 & 8 and thereafter they were residing in Hyderabad. Petitioner is the resident of Vadlamuru Village, East Godavari District, and she was residing with her husband;

(iii) As per the complaint itself, petitioner was the occasional visitor to the house of 1st accused and 2nd respondent;

(iv) There are no specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner;

(v) Petitioner is 59 years old lady. She has to travel all the way from her native place in Andhra Pradesh to Davanagere to attend the case which causes her hardship and she is roped in the case to harass in that way;

(vi) 1st accused and 2nd respondent entered into a partnership to run professional Educational Training/Consultancy in the name and style of M/s Gomatha Educational Consultancy;

(vii) The payment of Rs.7.5 Lakhs was made as the share capital to the 2nd respondent in the firm and the petitioner is totally un-connected to that and she is falsely implicated in the case to bring the 1st accused to terms.

9. In support of his contentions, he seeks to rely upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

I) PREETHI GUPTA –VS- STATE OF JHARKHAND, (2010) 7 SCC 667;

II) VARALA BHARATH KUMAR –VS- STATE OF TELANGANA, (2017) 9 SCC 413.

10. Per contra, Smt. Haleema Ameen the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent seeks to justify the proceedings on the following grounds:

i) There is complaint and statements of witnesses to speak about the overt acts of the petitioner;

ii) There is statement of account in proof for transfer of Rs.7.5 Lakhs to the account of the 1staccused from the account of C.W.4, younger brother of the 2nd respondent;

iii) Petitioner has abetted 1st accused to demand money and to harass 2nd respondent.

11. This Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preethi Gupta’scase referred to supra, at paragraphs 14 and 35 held as follows:

“14. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent the abuse of process of court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent the abuse of process of court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

........

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

(emphasis supplied)

13. In Varala Bharath Kumar’s case referred to supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while holding that if the uncontroverted allegations made in the First Information Report/complaint and the material collected in support of the same prima facie do not constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused, such proceedings have to be quashed.

14. Para No. 6 of the judgment in Varala Bharath Kumar’s case read as follows:

“6. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the first information report/the complaint or the outcome of investigation as found in the chargesheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused; where the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged; where the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report or complaint and the material collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of offence alleged and make out a case against the accused; where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised.”

15. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments, this Court has to see whether there is prima faciematerial against the petitioner to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 114 of I.P.C. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

16. First of all, as per the complaint the petitioner was not residing with the couple, viz., 2ndrespondent and 1st accused. After the marriage admittedly respondent No.2 and her husband lived in the house of C.Ws.7 & 8 at Davanagere. As already pointed out, petitioner is/was resident of Vadlamuru Village, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. As per complaint allegations themselves, in December 2013, 1st accused set up a house in Hyderabad and 2nd respondent and 1staccused shifted to the house at Hyderabad. As per complaint averments during that time also petitioner was residing in her native Vadlamuru.

17. So far as the payment of Rs.7.5 Lakhs cash and 3 thola gold, in the complaint there is no allegation that the said cash and gold were paid on demand of 1st accused, much less the present petitioner. It is simply said in the complaint that they gave said amount and gold at the time of the marriage.

18. So far as the demand of Rs.30 Lakhs, the allegation against the petitioner is that she abetted the 1st accused to demand that. No where it is said that she demanded that amount. Even this allegation of abetment is too bald. It is not said when she visited the house of the couple at Hyderabad and when the demand was made. Not even the further statement of the complainant is forthcoming in the charge sheet to clarify that. 2ndrespondent is the alleged direct victim of the petitioner. She is not specific in her allegations in terms of date and time. Statements of other witnesses regarding the said abetment are all hearsay. They say they learnt about such abetment through the 2nd respondent.

19. In this context, choosing of forum is also significant. The alleged harassment took place at Hyderabad. Petitioner is aged about 59 years residing in remote place in Andhra Pradesh and the case is filed in Davanagere Women Police Station. Under these circumstances, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully cover this case. The proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court and their continuation against the petitioner amounts to failure of ends of justice.

Therefore, the petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.63/2014 of Women Police Station, Davanagere and consequent proceedings in C.C.No.870/2015 on the file of the JMFC III Court Davanagere, so far they relate to the petitioner are hereby quashed