A Delhi court has refused to grant any relief to a woman against framing of dowry harassment charges saying that only because her son and daughter-in-law were residing separately, it cannot be concluded that dowry demands was impossible or improbable.<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Jain dismissed the revision petition filed by woman against whom a magisterial court had framed charges under section 498(A) (subjecting\u00a0married woman to cruelty) of IPC after finding prima facie evidence against her.<\/p>\n
The woman had filed the revision petition seeking quashing of framing of charges claiming that her daughter-in-law was living separately from her son and other family members since 2009 and therefore, there was no question of alleged dowry demand.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnly because wife and husband were residing separately in rented accommodation, it cannot be concluded that dowry demands by mother\u00ad-in-law was impossible or improbable,\u201d the court said.<\/p>\n
It said that, \u201cin the given facts and circumstances, without a full dress trial, the probative value of the allegations in respect of demand by mother-in-law cannot be assessed.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court also held that at this stage of the case, it was not permitted to go into the roving enquiry of the merits of the allegations and the strength or weakness of the evidence.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn my opinion, the allegations are with the date, place and specifications and, therefore, it cannot be said that allegations are vague,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n
According to the petition filed by the woman, her daughter-in-law had in December 2007 told the police that there was demand of a car and Rs 10 lakh as dowry.<\/p>\n
The trial court while framing charges under section 498 (A) of IPC against husband and mother-in-law had observed that there were specific allegations against them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A Delhi court has refused to grant any relief to a woman against framing of dowry harassment charges saying that only because her son and daughter-in-law were residing separately, it cannot be concluded that dowry demands was impossible or improbable. Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Jain dismissed the revision petition filed by woman against whom a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14833,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[31127,31126,2671,11576],"class_list":["post-36450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-law-news","tag-additional-sessions-judge-sanjeev-jain","tag-couple-staying-separately","tag-delhi-court","tag-dowry-demand"],"yoast_head":"\n