Court's dismissal of petition emphasizes the necessity for investigation of serious allegations in family disputes without presuming falsehood.

ORDER :

2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the brother and sister-in-law of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 06.12.2019 at Shiva Shanthi Wedding Hall, Tiptur. They are having a son who is now aged 4 years. After the delivery when respondent No.2 failed to return to the matrimonial home, petitioner No.1 filed MC.No.214/2023 for restitution of conjugal rights. Making false allegations of demand of dowry and other allegations, respondent No.2 has filed complaint which is registered in Cr.No.61/2023.

2.1 Petitioners have not committed the alleged offences. They are innocent and law abiding citizens. Only to tarnish their image and reputation and to harass and humiliate them, false complaint is filed. After petitioner No.1 filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights, as an after thought false complaint is filed. The allegations made are vague and bald. Petitioner No.2 is a practicing advocate. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

3. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed on 06.12.2019 at Tiptur. It was an arranged marriage. Before the marriage, on the insistence of petitioners engagement ceremony was held on 13.06.2019 in a grand manner, spending Rs.2 lakhs. Petitioner No.4 insisted for payment of Rs.2 lakhs towards down payment for purchase of a new car. He took initiative of the marriage. Wedding was celebrated by spending more than Rs.50 lakhs giving gold ornaments and silver articles and cash of Rs.8 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of the groom side. For Honey moon they went to Malaysia and its expenses in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was also borne by father of respondent No.2.

3.1 After the honey moon when they visited the house of parents of respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 left her there for a period of 40 days. Petitioners did not respond to the franatic calls made by her parents to take her to the matrimonial home. On 19.01.2020, petitioner No.3 made a call to the mother of respondent No.2 and said that respondent No.2 is not suitable for her son and she looks like an old lady. Ultimately, with great difficulty respondent No.2 was sent to the matrimonial home by her parents.

3.2 However, immediately, petitioners started harassing respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 was shamelessly discussing their personal matters with his father, including the clothes which she was wore on the previous night. He was demanding whether she was having any boy friends and had physical relationship with them. Petitioner No.2 was very abusive and used to talk very low of her parents. Petitioner No.2 was commenting on her. They were not satisfied with the money spent for her marriage. She was forced to do all the household work. Petitioner No.1 used her as a sex slave. Petitioners were demanding respondent No.2 to get a Toyota Innova Crysta or a site. When petitioner No.1 decided to shift to Bengaluru, they, more particularly petitioner Nos.4 and 5 started demanding respondent No.2 to ge