SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(MP) 68

IN THE HIGH OF MADHYA PRADESH
Brij Kishore Dube, J.
Meenakshi Jatav (Smt.) v. Dr. Smt. Seema Sehar
Miscellancous Criminal Case No. 9243 of 2012 (G);
Decided on 28.1.2013.*

Advocates:
S.S. Rajput for petitioners; R.B.S. Tomar for respondent No. 1; R.K. Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.2/State.

Headnote:Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Ss. 19, 20 and 22 -- petitioners are Nanads and Nandois of complainant -- they are separately residing at Shivpuri and Bhopal -- relief sought for cannot be granted against them. 2010 (I) MPWN 84 relied on. (2012) 10 SCC 741, 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 113 and (1992) Supp. (I) SCC 335 followed. 2011 (II) MPWN 33 (SC) and (2009) 4 SCC 49 distinguished. [Para 11

       ?kjsyw fgalk ls efgykvksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2005 & /kkjk 19] 20 rFkk 22 & ;kphx.k ifjokfnuh ds uun vkSj uUnksbZ gSa & mudk i`Fkd~r% f’koiqjh rFkk Hkksiky esa fuokl djuk & bZfIlr vuqrks”k muds fo#) iznku ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 2010 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 84 voyafcrA ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 741] 2007 lhvkj ,y vkj ¼,l lh½ 113 rFkk ¼1992½ lIyh ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335 vuqlfjrA 2011 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 33 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk ¼2009½ 4 ,l lh lh 49 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 11½

       

ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners for setting-aside the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by J.M.F.C., Ambah, District Morena in Criminal Case No. 109/12 whereby, the learned Magistrate had issued notices to the petitioners on an application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) after registering the application.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent No. 1, Dr. Seema Sehar got married with one Rahul Sehar on 27.11.2010 as per Hindu rites at Guna. Rahul Sehar and his family members started harassing her by demanding Rs.4 lacs and one four wheeler from her parents. Her father gave Rs.20,000/-, but could not fulfill their greed. Thus, there was matrimonial discord between respondent No.1 and her husband, therefore, respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint against her husband and his family members on 24.6.2012 and filed an application dated 17.7.2012 under section 12 of the Act against petitioners and her husband, Rahul Sehar as well as parents-in-law, Hari Ram and Smt. Rajni in th Court of J.M.F.C., Ambah, District Morena seeking relief under sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act. Relevant paras of the application reads as under:-

^^7- ;g fd /kkjk 18 ds rgr eq> vkosfndk ds fgr esa vukosndx.k ds fo#) ;g vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkos fd vukosndx.k eq> vkosfndk ds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ Hkh ekjihV u djsa rFkk eq> vkosfndk ls ,oa esjs ekrk firk ls ngst esa 4 yk[k #i;s ,oa pkj okgu xkMh bR;kfn dh ekax vukosndx.k u djsa vkSj uk gh eq> vkosfndk dks dksbZ Hkh ‘kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld izrkMuk igqpkos vkSj eq> vkosfndk ds lkFk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vHknz O;ogkj u djs rFkk esjs lkFk xkyh xykst u djsa rFkk esjs dks v’yhy xkfy;ka u nsa ,oa esjs fj’rsnkjh esa esjs fo#) vHknz ykaNu u yxkos ,oa esjs dks v’yhy lekxzh ns[kus gsrq etcwj u djsA rFkk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls dksbZ Hkh Øwjrk esjs lkFk dkfjr u djsaA rFkk eq> vkosfndk dk L=h/ku tks lwph esa of.kZr gS tks fd ‘kknh ds le; ngsTk esa esjs ekW&cki }kjk fn;k x;k Fkk mlls vukosndx.k eq>s oafpr u j[ksA

8- ;g fd /kkjk 19 ?kjsyw fgalk ls efgykvksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr vukosndx.k ds fo#) eq> vkosfndk ds fgr esa ;g vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkos fd vukosndx.k eq> vkosfndk dks 27@258 NkoMk dkWyksuh xquk e-iz- esa fLFkr llqjkyh lkfeykrh dkSVfEcd x`g esa ;k vius lkFk Bhd izdkj ls j[ksa rFkk eq>s mDr lkfeykrh dkSVfEcd x`g ls ckgj u fudkysaA rFkk eq>s vkosfndk ds fy;s orZeku esa tc rd vukosndx.k eq>s lkfeykrh x`g esa ugha j[krs gSa ;k vius lkFk ugha j[krs gS rc rd fuokl xzg gsrq 7]000@& #i;s izfrekg fdjk;s ds :i esa nsosa ftlls fd esa vkosfndk vius fuokl ds fy;s mPp f”k{kk ds fglkc ls mfpr lqfo/kk okys fuokl esa jg ldwaA

9- ;g fd esa vkosfndk ,d mPp f’k{kk izkIr efgyk gaw rFkk orZeku esa ‘kkldh; ek/;fed fo|ky; NksVh ekyiqj rglhy Hkkojk ftyk vyhjktiqj e-iz- esa v/;kfidk ds in ij inLFk gw¡ rFkk esjk LFkkukUrj.k orZeku esa Xokfy;j gks x;k gS eq> vkosfndk us mPp f’k{kk izkIr dh gS rFkk esa ,d vPNs ifjokj esa iyh cMh gqbZ efgyk gw¡A eq>s vius lekt ds fglkc ls vkSj vius vPNs Hkfo”; ds fy;s ,d vPNs ekgkSy dh t:jr gS eq> vkosfndk dks vius vkxs dh i<kbZ ds fy;s Hkh i;kZIr lkexzh dh vko’;drk jgrh gS rFkk dEI;wVj bUVjusV bR;kfnr f’k{kk dh Hkh vko’;drk izfrfnu jgrh gS rFkk esa vkosfndk vfl- izksQslj cuuk pkgrh gw¡ ftlds fy;s esa vkosfndk ih ,l lh dh rS;kjh dj jgha gw¡ iwoZ esa Hkh dqN vkosfndk }kjk ih ,l lh dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dh xbZ gS ysfdu bUVjO;w esa esa vkosfndk mRrh.kZ ugha gks ikbZ Fkh ysfdu esa vkosfndk vfl- izksQlj ds fy;s ih ,l lh dh rS;kjh dj jgha gw¡A eq> vkosfndk dks vius mPp Lrj dks cuk;s j[kus gsrq vPNs [kku iku] nokbZ] nw/k] twl] Qy] bR;kfn dh ,oa vU; ?kjsyw [kpsZ dh vko’;drk jgrh gS ftudh iwfrZ djuk vukosndk Øekad 1 iw.kZ nkf;Ro gS tks vukosndkx.k }kjk esjs izfr drbZ ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA bl dkj.k /kkjk 20 ?kjsyw fgalk ls efgykvksa dk laj{k.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr vukosndx.k ds fo#) eq> vkosfndk ds fgr esa fuEu ekSfnzd vuqrks”k ikfjr fd;k tkos fd &

d& Hkfo”; esa































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top