AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be the daughter-in-law of the present respondents. The allegation is against the son of the respondents, of having married the petitioner for the third time suppressing the fact that, he had married twice earlier. Though he had divorced the first wife, he had not divorced the second and even during the subsistence of the second marriage, the petitioner had married the petitioner suppressing the fact. It is on those allegations, that the present respondents were also accused of having abetted the commission of the offence.
The Court below having taken cognizance against the present respondents, the same had been challenged in revision and the revisional Court having set aside the order taking cognizance, against the present respondents, the present petition is filed. Given the circumstances of the case alleged, it cannot be said that these respondents were responsible for the commission of the offence by their son and it is found as a fact that, these respondents were residing separately, away from their son. On the face of it, it could not be said that, cognizance could be taken of the offences alleged, on the basis of the allegations that, these respondents have joined their son in harassing and demanding dowry from the present petitioner. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference in the order passed in revision, as if this court is sitting in appeal.
Given the circumstances of the case, there is no warrant for interference and the petition is rejected.