SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritu Jaglan vs State Of Haryana And Another on 1 June, 2018

CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: June 01, 2018.

RITU JAGLAN …… PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ANR. …… RESPONDENTS

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashok S.Chaudhary, Addl.AG, Haryana.

Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2

*****

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 15.05.2018

(Annexure P-4) in case FIR No.1013, dated 07.12.2013 under Sections 323, 494,

354, 498-A, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal,

whereby permission has been afforded to respondent No. 2 to go to United

Kingdom for treatment of his wife till 12.08.2018 for a period of two months

subject to furnishing a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in the shape of an FDR.

Respondent No.2 is an accused in FIR No. 1013 dated 07.12.2013,

under Sections 323, 494, 498A, 354 and 506 IPC. He is the father-in-law of the

petitioner.

It is averred that CRM-M-2636-2016 has been filed by respondent

No. 2 and his son-Dr. Satvinder Singh Choudhary (husband of the petitioner) for

1 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 2

quashing of the aforementioned FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising

therefrom. In the said petition the learned trial Court was directed to adjourn the

case beyond the date fixed in the said petition. Another petition bearing No.

CRM-M-38882-2016 has been filed by the present petitioner for quashing of the

proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2

It is contended that there is no requirement of the petitioner

accompanying his wife (not an accused in the FIR) aged 70 years in United

Kingdom in connection with her treatment as two of their sons are already in

United Kingdom and can very well look after her. It is thus prayed that this

petition be allowed.

It is relevant to note that the petitioner and son of respondent No. 2

were directed to remain present in Court to explore the possibility of an amicable

resolution of the dispute. The entire dispute between the couple could however,

not be settled, at this stage.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent

No. 2 is delaying the proceedings in the matter. Arguments are not being

addressed in CRM-M-2636-2016 due to the interim order in their favour.

Moreover, an affidavit by way of evidence has been tendered in proceedings

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence by respondent No. 2

who is yet to be cross-examined. The said matter is listed before the trial Court

on 25.07.2018. It is informed that the son of respondent No. 2 is to be cross-

examined on 25.07.2018.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has refuted the allegations.

Respondent No.2, it is submitted is a retired XEN from the Department of

2 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 3

Irrigation in the State of Haryana and is a responsible senior citizen. It is stated

that no such affidavit has been tendered before the learned trial Court in the

proceedings as above. An affidavit dated 29.05.2018 of respondent No.2 has been

furnished in Court. Specific averments in this respect have been made in para 3 of

the affidavit dated 29.05.2018, which is taken on record subject to just

exceptions.

It is further submitted that respondent No.2 shall not seek an

adjournment in any of the proceedings which are pending between the parties. He

undertakes that no adjournment whatsoever shall be sought by him or his counsel

in CRM-M-2636-2016, which is fixed for 08.08.2018. It is further undertaken

that respondent No. 2 shall not raise any objection whatsoever to any of the

proceedings pending between the parties on account of his absence. He would not

raise objection to any evidence being led in this absence though in presence of his

counsel. Respondent No.2, it is urged merely wishes to take his wife to United

Kingdom for seeking better treatment of his wife who is an illiterate lady

suffering from various problems. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is

receiving pension from the department. There is no question of his fleeing the

country. FDR of Rs.5 lakhs stands deposited before the learned trial court on

18.05.2018. It is thus prayed that he should be permitted to accompany his wife

to United Kingdom till 12.08.2018.

The petitioner, duly identified by her counsel, is present in Court.

She states that in view of the specific undertaking of respondent No.2 in not

stalling any of the pending proceedings between the parties, she would not have

any objection in case respondent No. 2 is permitted to go to United Kingdom for

3 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::
CRM-M No. 22263 of 2018 4

the purpose of the treatment of his wife till 12.08.2018.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of the

petitioner, respondent No.2 is permitted to travel to United Kingdom alongwith

his ailing wife till 12.08.2018 in terms of order dated 15.05.2018. It is however

directed that in case respondent No. 2 does not return till 12.08.2018, the amount

of Rs.5 lakhs deposited with the learned trial Court on 18.05.2018 in terms of

order dated 15.05.2018 shall be released to the petitioner. The said amount shall

not count towards any maintenance or any other claim which she may have

towards her husband and respondent No.2.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(LISA GILL)
June 01, 2018 JUDGE
jyoti-3

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
07-07-2018 23:08:23 :::

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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation