Urmila Devi Wife of Sh. Krishna Dev Narayan Singh vs State of Bihar

As both the petitions arise out of the same impugned order

taking cognizance dated 05.08.2013, so they are being disposed of by

this common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In first petition, petitioners are mother-in-law and

father-in-law of the informant/O.P. No. 2 and in the second petition,

petitioner is the husband. The petitioners are aggrieved with the order

taking cognizance dated 05.08.2013 passed by the S.D.J.M., Dehri,

District-Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Dehri (Mahila)

P.S.Case No. 1 of 2012, whereby he has taken cognizance against the

petitioners under Sections 498A / 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Informant/IO.P. No. 2,

Jyoti Kumari, has filed this police case against her husband, father-in-

law, mother-in-law and others.

The case of the informant is that her marriage was not

consummated since the date of solemnization of her marriage on

04.12.2011. Whenever she made an attempt for consummation of

marriage, she was used to be harassed and assaulted by her husband.

She made complain to mother-in-law and father-in-law, but father-in-

law made demand of Alto car and two kathas of land only thereafter

marriage will be consummated. F.I.R. was lodged within a year of

marriage.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submits that it is wife/informant/O.P. No. 2 who does not want to live

with her husband and has levelled false allegation that her husband is

impotent. However, it is not a fact. He submits that the husband has

filed a case for restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act in the Family Court and by the order of the said

court, husband was examined by a Medical Board and after his

examination, the Board opined that husband is potent. Further

submission is that there is no specific allegation against father-in-law

and mother-in-law with regard to making demand of dowry and

torture.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2

submits that cruelty was being perpetuated by husband, father-in-law

and mother-in-law continuously after marriage for realizing more

dowry so husband did not consummate the marriage as such she

suspected about his impotency. Moreover, there is specific demand of

dowry by way of an Alto car and land against father-in-law and

mother-in-law kept her entire jewellaries and belongings.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

of record, it appears that only after lapse of seven months since

solemnization of marriage between the informant and Raju Ranjan,

this police case was lodged. Specific allegation is that husband

(petitioner) since then never consummated the marriage and not

established any physical relationship, despite attempt being made by

wife repeatedly. Though the factual position emerges after

examination of the Medical Board is that he is not impotent. So denial

of sexual relationship by the husband with wife is itself constitutes

cruelty. Moreover, there is specific allegation at this stage against the

father-in-law of making demand of Alto car and two kathas land and

mother-in-law used to torture her and kept her all jewellaries and

belongings. The evidence collected during investigation also

supported the case accordingly, charge sheet was filed by the police.

Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any

ground for interference in the order taking cognizance dated

05.08.2013. Hence, both the petitions stand dismissed.