19 July 2020 8:21 AM GMT
The Telangana High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on a Petitioner for lodging ingenuine complaint against his ex-wife, with an intention to "bolster up" his fight in the matrimonial and pending civil disputes. "The entire endeavor of the petitioner appears, some how or the other, to have a case registered against his wife, to settle their inter se matrimonial /...
The Telangana High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on a Petitioner for lodging ingenuine complaint against his ex-wife, with an intention to "bolster up" his fight in the matrimonial and pending civil disputes.
"The entire endeavor of the petitioner appears, some how or the other, to have a case registered against his wife, to settle their inter se matrimonial / civil disputes unconnected with the alleged incident. Further, as the petitioner has approached this court with unclean hands, concocted facts and by not making the true disclosure of events, is not entitled for relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India," the bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar said while directing the Petitioner to pay the sum to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority.
The Petitioner, claiming to be residing in the USA, had lodged an email-complaint with the Telnagana Police, alleging that his ex-wife had kidnapped their son from his custody and forcibly brought the son to India.
Further, she had been threatening to harm the child if the Petitioner did not withdraw the property cases filed against her.
Finding the entire narration to be "cinematic," the court deduced that the Petitioner had made such false claims, including the fact that he was a resident of the USA, in anticipation to receive the "desired attention".
The court noted the Petitioner had falsely claimed to be residing in the US at the time of lodging of complaint since:
"It is evident that the petitioner using USA time zone settings in his e-mail, has lodged a complaint with the 2nd respondent to show that such complaint is being made from USA, while the petitioner being in Hyderabad, may be anticipating that the complaints made from USA receive the desired attention," the bench remarked.
It further observed that the facts as stated by the petitioner do not lend any "credence" to his case for the fact that:
"travel from USA to India, requires a person to possess a passport, VISA and is also required to go through immigration check for stamping of departure and arrival etc., apart from possessing a air-ticket to travel and it is not expected of a boy carrying his passport with an Indian VISA with him, while being in the house, during the alleged incident of kidnapping."
The court was therefore convinced that the Petitioner was "premeditated" to file the writ petition on some pretext.
It further questioned the Petitioner why he had lodged a complaint with the Telangana Police when he had himself alleged that his ex-wife was residing with their child in Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
"Though, the sequence of events as stated are no less cinematic, this court is at a loss to fathom the reason behind the petitioner lodging the complaint with the 2nd respondent when the alleged incident took place in USA and the 5th respondent along with the kidnapped boy are living at Hanuman Junction, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist, in the State of A.P., as per petitioner's own assertion," it said.
Responding to this, the Petitioner contended that when the complaint was lodged by him expressing concern about the life and liberty of his son, the Respondent police ought to have registered a zero FIR and ought to have swung into action and transferred the case to the concerned police station having jurisdiction.
Terming this a "last ditch effort," the Court clarified that when the complaint was lodged, the system of zero FIR in the state was introduced only in respect of offences against women such as women missing cases and not in relation to other cases.
"Thus, at the relevant point of time when the petitioner lodged a complaint, the "0" FIR concept was not in place and also that the same is not applicable to the cases of the present nature being complained off," the court held.
Case Title: Allu Srinivasa Rao v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No.: WP No. 12849/2019
Quorum: Justice T. Vinod Kumar
Appearance: Advocates DV Rao (for Petitioner); Assistant Government Pleader A. Manoj Kumar (for State)
Click Here To Download Order