SH. SUBHASH CHAND vs SMT. MAYA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 13.02.2025 + CRL.REV.P. 1115/2024 SH. SUBHASH CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.B. Yadav and Mr. Sauraj Yadav, Advocates versus SMT. MAYA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Counsel (appearance not given) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUDGMENT SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J 1. The present revision petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, seeking setting aside of the order dated 25.04.2024 [hereafter „the impugned order‟] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] in MT No. 221/2017. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 13.04.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Delhi. At the Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 1115/2024 Page 1 of 11 Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Date:13.02.2025 18:44:08 time of marriage, the petitioner was aged about 30 years and respondent no. 1 was aged about 18 years. The marriage was duly consummated and two children i.e., one son and one daughter (respondents nos. 2 and 3) were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent no. 1 had alleged that her parents had spent Rs. 15 lakhs at the time of marriage; however, from the very beginning of the matrimonial life, she was not provided with basic amenities of life. It is alleged that the petitioner, his parents, sister and brother-in-law used to taunt respondent no. 1 for bringing only a meagre amount as dowry, and for that reason, they had also mercilessly beaten up respondent no. 1. It is also alleged that the said in