Madra Daughter Of Samer vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6777 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6903/2021

Madra Daughter Of Samer, Resident Of Village Tusari, Tehsil
Kathumar District Alwar (Raj).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Station House Officer, Police Station Kathumar, District
        Alwar.
3.      Laxam Son Of Mithu, Resident Of Sablana, Police Station
        Kama, Bharatpur.
4.      Mithu Son Of Bhappu, Resident Of Sablana, Police Station
        Kama, Bharatpur.
5.      Hardam Son Of Laxman, Resident Of Sablana, Police
        Station Kama, Bharatpur.
6.      Naresh Son Of Karan Singh, Resident Of Sablana, Police
        Station Kama, Bharatpur.
7.      Satish Son Of Karan Singh, Resident Of Sablana, Police
        Station Kama, Bharatpur.
8.      Mahesh Son Of Karan Singh, Resident Of Sablana, Police
        Station Kama, Bharatpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma for Mr. Anuj Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

22/11/2021

1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition seeking

protection to petitioner from unwanted restrain and causing

annoyance in life of petitioner by respondent no. 3 and 8 and in

the matter of life and liberty and under natural justice.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6903/2021]

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner

got married to respondent no. 3 and after marriage she never

stayed with him with peace and no marital love relation was

developed with the respondent no. 3. It is also contended that

petitioner has been beaten by her husband and the husband of the

petitioner has found it difficult to live with her. The respondent no.

3 is the husband and other respondents are relative in laws of the

petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition. It

is contended that Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005(hereinafter called as the 'Act') has been enacted and

the relief that the petitioner wants to claim can be claimed under

the Act.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. There is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. As per

Section 18 of the Act, the Magistrate after giving the aggrieved

person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on

being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place

or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the

aggrieved person. Also, under Section 19 of the Act, a residence

order can be passed in favour of the aggrieved person. The relief

that the petitioner wants to claim can be claimed under Sections

18 and 19 of the Act, hence, I am not inclined to entertain the

misc. petition.

6. However, taking note of the fact that petitioner is

apprehending threat from her in-laws relatives, respondent No.2 is

directed to ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners.

However, it is made clear that the protection order shall remain in

force for a period of two months from today.

                                                                             (3 of 3)                        [CRLMP-6903/2021]



                                   7.    In    the   meantime,        petitioner        would          be   free   to   move

application under the Act, before the concerned Magistrate for

appropriate orders.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. petition stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /138

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)