AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
One of the old proverb is "Marriages are made in Heaven". As the 20th Century is drawing to a near close the saying of Southern in "The fatal marriage" is coming true that "if marriages are made in heaven they should be happier" facts of the present case are a pointer.
The complainant was married to the son of the applicantpetitioners. It is alleged that before the marriage and at the time of the marriage very costly articles of dowry had been given in the form of jewellery, cash worth lacs and other articles. Certain, gifts were also given by the applicants to the complainant. From the second day of marriage, the complainant daughterinlaw of the petitioners was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry by the petitioners and others. After few days of their stay in India, the complainant and her husband left for Canada. The complainant requested her fatherinlaw and sisterinlaw to hand over the jewellery to her but they refused stating that those articles would be of no use for her at Canada. The complaint filed by the complainant recites woeful tale of harassment by her husband at Canada. The petition for divorce was filed and the same had been granted at Canada. It is alleged that even when the complainant came back to India, the said dowry articles have not been returned.
The petitioners seek anticipatory bail.
The disparity between the parties is large but learned counsel for the petitioners urged that all the dowry articles available with the petitioners and even with the relatives of the petitioners have since been returned. The learned counsel of the State on the contrary pointed that this assertion is not correct and huge recovery has yet to be effected. He referred to the fact that petitioners even operated the lockers which were subsequently found to be containing nothing.
While it is improper to express any opinion on merits. It has to be taken care of by the concerned Courts with whom the litigation may finally come up for hearing, but certain salient facts that were brought to the notice of the Court cannot be ignored. The complainant and her husband started living separately since 1993. It was not disputed that complainant came to India and operated her lockers in the beginning of the year 1994, that is to say even when she had been residing separately from her husband. The complaint as such was filed months thereafter when she had already operated the lockers and was living separately from her husband.
At this stage, therefore, when even in Canada no specific relief was claimed, as such, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they be released on bail on their each executing a personal bond to a sum of Rs. 10,000/ with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Officer Incharge/Investigating Officer. They shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required during this period.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.