Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the day of Dussehra dated 13.10.2013 when she along with her husband had gone to the petitioners house at Ahmednagar, on the very next day they started quarreling with her, abused her and driven her out of their house along with her kid. She went to her parents however, her husband tendered apology and requested her to come back for cohabitation. Accordingly, when she went to the house of the petitioner on the next day she was not allowed to enter into the house and on the contrary they tried to snatch away her son. The petitioner no.1 also told her husband to divorce her if he wanted to maintain relations with the petitioners or else to leave the house. It is then alleged that even the petitioners did not allow her to go with her husband to Aurangabad on that day i.e. 14.10.2013 and she had to lodge a complaint with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar. It is then averred that on the same day i.e. 14.10.2013 her husband committed suicide by hanging himself at Aurangabad. The petitioners even did not allow her and her relations to even have a last look and were not allowed to attend the funeral.

15. He would further point out that there has been no delay and no ulterior motive on the part of the respondent no.2 to initiate the proceeding. He would point out that even before her husband committed suicide at Aurangabad, on the same day in the morning she had lodged a written complaint with the police making allegations that the petitioners were not allowing her to go with her husband. She has also alleged the kind of harassment she was subjected to. Since, as alleged in the complaint, the harassment had been persistent right from 9 901 cri wp 110.15.odt the date of marriage till the death of her husband and even thereafter, the question of limitation would not arise. The petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the brother-in-law and the latter has even texted her messages apparently to harass her mentally and the petitioner no. 4 being his wife staying in the same household, the complaint is maintainable against them all. He also places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury and Another; (2016) 2 SCC 705 and submits that being a continuing offence, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

18. It is being alleged that she has filed the complaint to wreak vengeance merely because she was implicated for abetting suicide of her husband. However the complaint filed by her with Kotwali Police Station on 14.10.2013 (Exhibit- R-3), incidentally on which date unfortunately her husband committed suicide, she had specifically alleged that the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 were harassing her since the date of her marriage. They had beaten her and had sent her back to her parents. She had specifically alleged that her husband had promised her that she would not be harassed and they would stay together at Aurangabad but still the petitioners harassed her. More importantly, she had specifically alleged that on 13.10.2013 when she along with her husband had come to the house of the petitioners, the petitioner nos. 1 to 3 had abused her in filthy language. Even her husband had 13 901 cri wp 110.15.odt threatened her and she was driven out of the house of the petitioners. She went back to her parents but did not lodge any complaint hoping for the better. She then alleged that in the afternoon her husband came to her and tendered an apology. On the next day i.e. 14.10.2013 when she along with her husband started for going to Aurangabad the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 did not allow her to accompany her husband and instead she was beaten and she was asked not to go to Aurangabad. In view of such stand of the petitioners even her husband did not take her along. It is apparent that unfortunately, it seems that after coming to Aurangabad her husband committed suicide. If such was the state of affairs, when the alleged domestic violence had continued even till the date when her husband committed suicide and there is sufficient material to prima facie corroborate the allegations, that in my considered view is sufficient to conclude that the impugned complaint has not been lodged with any vengeance and even cannot be said to be an afterthought. The allegations do not seem to be improbable.

14 901 cri wp 110.15.odt

20. As regards the legal aspects are concerned, having considered the aforementioned facts and circumstances it can easily be discerned that the respondent no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence, the violence had started soon after the marriage in the year 2011 and had lasted not only till the date her husband committed suicide but even thereafter. It has been alleged that initially they were staying in the same household which belongs to the petitioner no. 1 at Ahmednagar and it is only in the year 2013 that the couple had migrated to Aurangabad and still had continued to visit the household weekly and even on the day of festivals. It can easily be said that prima facie the respondent no. 1 is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act who was having domestic relationship with the petitioners as contemplated under Section 2(f) of that Act and was sharing the same household as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Act.