MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

AB postulated when complainant staying in matrimonial home & removing maintenance


Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog

STATE On 19 Jul 2005


Petitioner No. 1 was married to Ms. Snehlata Bhardwaj. Petitioner No. 2 is a mom of postulant No. 1.

2. The matrimony was not too happy. FIR in doubt has been purebred on a censure done by a mother alleging dowry nuisance during a hands of her husband.

3. Two children have been innate to a postulant and a complainant. The children are with a complainant.

4. It is not in brawl that a complainant is staying in a matrimonial house, though in a apart partial thereof. It is also not in brawl that a postulant No. 1 is profitable Rs. 4,000 p.m. to a complainant towards upkeep for a dual children. It is also not in brawl that a complainant is not spending any volume towards H2O and electricity consumed by her as also on a upkeep of a apportionment of a residence in her possession.

5. Petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 10,500 p.m. Complainant is earning Rs. 9800 p.m.

6. we have perused a FIR that is a common story of an unfortunate marriage. Usual allegations opposite woe and mental nuisance are set out.

7. Proceedings underneath Sections 498A/406/34, IPC are not to be converted into liberation proceedings. However, it is a enterprise of a Court to try and safeguard that matrimonial disputes are resolved. Attempts were done in a benefaction box in this direction, though unfortunately have failed.

8. Considering a fact that a complainant is still staying in a matrimonial house, though in a apart apportionment thereof and a fact that she and her children are differently being supposing with upkeep by a postulant No. 1, we am prone to acknowledge a petitioners to anticipatory bail as prayed for. It has to be additionally remarkable that a petitioners have cooperated with a questioning officer during enquiry. Since 6.2.2004 petitioners are underneath halt protection.

See also  Maintenance u/s.125 dismissed for wrong jurisdiction

9. Petition stands likely of with a instruction that in a eventuality of arrest, on petitioners furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with one collateral in a like volume to a compensation of a Arresting Officer, postulant would be expelled on bail in FIR No. 39/2004 P.S. Narela.

10. It would be a condition of a benefaction sequence that a petitioners would join a review as and when required.

11. Needless to state that a anticipatory bail postulated would be coterminous with a preference on a focus for unchanging bail, if any, compulsory to be filed by a petitioners, shold a challan be presented opposite them.

Petition likely of.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Maintenance u/s.125 dismissed for wrong jurisdiction
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation