Top
News Updates

Petitioner Failed To Explain Any Reason For Leaving Husband: P & H HC Imposes Rs. 25K Costs On Wife For "Frivolous" Plea For Protection From Husband, In-Laws [Read Order]

Mehal Jain
15 Sep 2020 5:38 AM GMT
Petitioner Failed To Explain Any Reason For Leaving Husband: P & H HC Imposes Rs. 25K Costs On Wife For Frivolous Plea For Protection From Husband, In-Laws [Read Order]
x
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Punjab and Haryana high court has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a woman for failing to explain why she had left her husband against whom she had approached the Court apprehending threat to her life.

The facts as pleaded in the writ petition before Justice Manoj Bajaj are that the petitioner no. 1-woman was married to the respondent in the year 2008 and two children were born out of this wedlock. Allegedly, the woman was dealt with cruelty by her husband and other members of her in-laws family. She gathered courage ten days back and left the matrimonial home with the help of another man (petitioner no. 2). According to the pleadings, the petitioner No.1 left the house as per her own will and is living at different places in the District Jhajjar, Haryana. The petitioners apprehended that the private respondents would
cause harm to them, therefore, they had given representations to the police respectively. However, the representations had not been looked into so far and therefore, they have approached the Court for protection of their life and liberty.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners, the Court found that the writ petition "does not contain any pleading muchless narration of a cause of action in favour of petitioner No.2 for filing petition along with petitioner No.1".
Considering the pleadings and submissions of the counsel, the Court was of the view that petitioner No.1 does not deserve any concession, "particularly, when she has failed to explain any reason for leaving the company of her husband".
Besides, the Single Judge noted that the petitioner No.1 has given the address of her matrimonial home in the petition, but has claimed that she is residing at different places in district Jhajjar. "During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that no complaint has ever been made by petitioner No.1 either against the husband or any of the other family members of the in-laws", the bench added.
The bench further observed that admittedly, the marriage is 12 years old and the children are also residing with the father. "It does not appeal to prudence that after leaving the matrimonial home, the petitioner No.1 has not contacted her parents, but chose to live alone at District Jhajjar", remarked the bench, proceeding to state that except for the bald allegation that the respondent-husband treated the petitioner No.1 with cruelty, no supportive material has been placed on record by her.
The Court found that not only the petition for protection is founded on frivolous grounds, but it also amounts to abuse of the process of law. "Apparently, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed the material facts, therefore, this Court finds that she deserves to be saddled with costs", the bench stated.
Not finding any reason to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the woman in the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, COVID-19 Relief Fund.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]



Next Story
Share it