In a judgment titled Babita and
another v. State of Haryana and others in CRWP-6765-2020 delivered by
Justice Manoj Bajaj of Punjab and Haryana High Court, a cost of Rs 25,000 has
been imposed 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. She failed
to give any sound and valid reason for leaving her husband and for apprehending
threat to her life.
At the outset, this noteworthy
judgment begins by first and foremost pointing out in the opening para that,
“By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of
mandamus by way of directions to the official respondents to protect their life
and liberty as they apprehend danger at the hands of private respondent Nos. 5
to 12.”
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
While elaborating on the facts of
the case, it is then pointed out in the next para that, “Briefly, the facts as
pleaded in the writ petition are that Babita (petitioner No. 1) was married to
Manish (respondent No. 5) in the year 2008 and two children were born out of
this wedlock. Petitioner No. 1 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 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. The petitioners apprehended that the
private respondents would cause harm to them, therefore, they had given
representations to official respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Annexures P-1 to P-3)
respectively. However, the representations have not been looked into so far and
therefore, they have approached this Court for protection of their life and
liberty.”
As it turned out, what is next
illustrated in the para of this significant judgment is this: “Learned counsel
for the petitioners contend that the life of the petitioner No. 1 had become
miserable in her matrimonial home and therefore, there were compelling
circumstances for her to leave the company of her husband. It is pointed out
that the private respondent Nos. 5 to 12 may cause harm to her and petitioner
No. 2, who rendered his help. He prays that the appropriate directions be
issued to the official respondents to provide protection to the petitioners.”
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
More significantly, Justice Manoj
Bajaj without mincing any words took potshots at the way the petitions was
drafted and said that, “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, this
Court finds that the writ petition does not contain any pleading much less
narration of a cause of action in favour of petitioner No. 2 for filing
petition along with petitioner No. 1. Though the petition is verified by both
the petitioners by appending their signatures, but no affidavit in support of
the petition has been filed by petitioner No. 2. Apart from this, even in the
representations submitted to the official respondents, petitioner No. 2 has not
portrayed any grievance. Resultantly, this Court finds that the writ petition
on behalf of petitioner No. 2 is without any valid cause of action and
therefore, qua him, the petition is dismissed on this ground.”
While not finding much substance in
the claims made by petitioner No. 1, the Court then points out that,
“Considering the pleadings and submissions of learned counsel, this Court finds
that petitioner No. 1 also does not deserve any concession, particularly when
she has failed to explain any reason for leaving the company of her
husband. Besides, 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.”
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
More damningly and most
significantly, it is then pointed out by the Court in simple and straight
language without mincing any words that, “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. 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. Except for the bald
allegation that respondent No. 5 treated the petitioner No. 1 with cruelty, no
supportive material has been placed on record by her. This Court finds 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.”
As a corollary, Justice Manoj Bajaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court then finally concludes by observing directly and diligently that, “In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000/- to be borne by petitioner No. 1. It is ordered that the costs be deposited in Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, COVID-19 Relief Fund, within four weeks from today. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak shall ensure the recovery and deposits of the costs.”
0 Comments