Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011
The
learned counsel for respondent has taken to this court to the
facts of the case in Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and
he has submitted that in the said case there was a consent
divorce between the husband and the wife. Even after consent
divorce parties are started residing in the same house and
having regard to these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
7 Crl.A.No.732/2019
stated that the petition was filed by limitation. He has further
argued that the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the
argument of the advocate for appellant are not tenable one, and
there was a continuous domestic violence by the appellant
against the respondent, and it is not possible to ascertain
causing domestic violence by the appellant against the
respondent at this stage, and the same requires detail trial.
Smt. Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanke Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April, 1990
14. That it is the prime contention of the appellant that the
application filed by the respondent wife cannot be entertained as
the same is filed beyond the period of limitation as a counter. It is
the argument of the advocate for respondent that the law of
limitation i.e. Section 468 Cr.P.C., which puts a bar of limitation
on prosecution and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a
long time cannot be extended to matrimonial offences, where the
allegation are of cruelty, torture and assault by the husband or
other members of the family or continue one. At the outset, I
would like to mention here that it is true that the respondent has
left the matrimonial house prior to the three years from the date of
filing of the revision petition. However the same has to be looked
into, having taken into consideration the other factual aspects of
the case as it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
10 Crl.A.No.732/2019
Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt) vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy and
others. One cannot say that this is the date on which the cruelty
is caused which includes mental and physical torture and which
date the domestic violence has been caused, and it is subject of
the mental torture and mental agony caused to the aggrieved
person. Here in the present case, the petition has been filed
after lapse of three years and husband and wife were not residing
together in one roof, there cannot be instances of domestic
violence, will not come in the way to proceed against the
appellant herein. Because when the petition is filed by the wife
the same needs an enquiry. Without conducting any enquiry on
the actual domestic violence alleged to have been caused by the
appellant husband to the respondent wife it would be in
appropriate to say that the petition has been filed beyond the
limitation and to reject the appellant filed by the respondent wife.
In my view, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order
dismissing the memo filed on behalf of the appellant. Hence, I do
not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed
by the trial court. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the
'Negative'.