Back
Grants To Husband Accused Of Domestic Assault
In a recent order, the has granted to a 35-year-old man accused of assaulting his pregnant wife. Justice Sanjay Vashisth presided over the matter, balancing the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner's ongoing period of incarceration and the status of the investigation.
A Matrimonial Dispute Escalates
The petitioner, Gurbans Singh, was arrested following a police complaint filed by his wife, Joginder Kaur. The couple, married since , have two daughters. According to the , the incident occurred in , when the complainant was three months pregnant. The allegations suggest that the petitioner frequently resorted to physical violence after consuming alcohol and pressured his wife to undergo an illegal ultrasound scan to determine the sex of the foetus, specifically expressing his refusal to have a third female child.
Legal Arguments and Judicial Deliberation
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was an unexplained five-day delay in filing the and emphasized that the eleven injuries sustained by the complainant were certified as "simple" in nature. Conversely, the State counsel opposed the bail, contending that the nature of the assault—using a sharp-edged weapon—and the intent to prevent the birth of a child, attracted serious provisions under the .
The High Court acknowledged the seriousness of the domestic situation. However, noting that the investigation was complete and the petitioner had already spent over three months in , the court determined that further detention was not required during the .
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice Vashisth underscored the need for within the domestic framework, stating:
-
"Conduct attributed to the petitioner, if ultimately established, is undoubtedly reprehensible."
-
"It would also be in the larger interest of the family, if the petitioner makes sincere efforts to overcome his habit of consuming liquor and takes due care of his aged mother and family responsibilities."
-
"The complainant/injured, if she so desires, may continue to reside at her parental home (mayka), till the delivery of the child and until she regains her normal physical and mental condition."
Final Ruling
The Court ordered the release of the petitioner subject to standard bail and . To protect the integrity of the ongoing trial, the Court strictly cautioned the petitioner against influencing any . The has been directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously to ensure a fair and timely resolution. This decision highlights the judiciary's role in addressing the underlying social issues present in matrimonial disputes while adhering to established .
