Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 498-A , Section 406 , Section 34 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 125 , Section 482 , Constitution of India, 1950  - Section 32

Dowry harassment - Cognizance - Legality - Respondent (wife) filed a complaint u/ss. 498A, 406 r/w s. 34 of IPC against appellants (In- laws) - Appellants were summoned by Trial Court - Aggrieved appellants filed a petition u/s. 482 of CrPC before HC for quashing the complaint, which was dismissed- Aggrieved appellants filed appeals before SC, which was allowed on 27- 7- 2009 holding that no offence was made out against either of the appellants, the offence u/s. 406 of IPC, as alleged, was prima facie made out against appellant no. 2 alone - Aggrieved respondent filed review petitions before SC, which were dismissed on 1- 9- 2009 - Thereafter, respondents filed curative petitions, which were allowed - In the meantime, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before SC seeking enforcement of maintenance order against respondent No. 2, who was at abroad - Hence, instant appeal as well as writ petition - Statements made in the relevant paragraphs of the complaint could be understood as containing allegations of mental cruelty to complainant - Complaint, thus, could not be rejected at the threshold - It was clear from the averments made in complaint petition that it was alleged that appellants were entrusted or had exercised dominion over the property belonging to respondent and further that appellants had unlawfully retained the same - Statements made in para 6 of the complaint also alleged retention of cash and other gifts received by respondent at the time of her marriage to accused (appellant no. 2) - In the face of said averments made in complaint petition, it could not be said that complaint filed by respondent was shorn of the necessary allegations to prima facie sustain the case of commission of the offence u/s. 406 of IPC by appellants - Trial Court was directed that trial be completed expeditiously - Order passed u/s. 125 of CrPC was attained finality in law and fact that respondent no. 2 (husband) against whom the order of maintenance was required to be enforced lives outside the territory of India, that could not be a reasonable basis for invoking the extraordinary remedy u/art. 32 of Constitution - S. 105 of IPC made elaborate provisions for service of summons in case the person summoned by Court resides outside the territory of India - In view of remedy that was available to petitioner under IPC and having regard to fact that resort to such remedy was already made, Court declined to invoke jurisdiction u/art. 32 of Constitution in facts of instant case - Family Court was directed to pass appropriate final order in application for payment of arrears of maintenance - Appeal dismissed.

Topic(s)-Dowry harassment