Interim Order 4

Order Details: Order
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS)
10TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI
C.C.No. 336/DV/2018
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH. 24
The respondent No.2 has sought the relief of dropping of
proceedings against her.
2. The application is replied at Exh.30 and rejoinder is filed at
Exh.37. The respondent No.2 along-with respondent No.3 and 4 has filed
several photographs on record. The respondent No.2 has filed written
submissions at Exh.58 in support of her petition and written submissions of
petitioner at Exh.59.
3. It is contended by respondent No.2 that the applicant in para No.
4 (d) of the petition said
“…. within a few days the respondent No.2 even
started demanding dowry and as the said illegal dowry demands were not
met by the applicant parents, the applicant was therefore categorically and
forcefully asked to leave her matrimonial home on 10/08/2018”. Further in
para No. 4(g) she said “…
the applicant’s stridhan which cost approximately
Rs. 80,00,000/- and consist of below items is still illegally in possession of the
respondents”. According to her these allegations are false and the same could
be seen from the whatsapp chat between applicant No.2 and the mother of
petitioner which are placed on record with requisite certificate u/Sec. 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, the alleged dowry amount has been deposited
in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by the respondent No.2. The whatsapp
chats petitioner’s stridhan is in her own custody and no item belonging to the
petitioner is with the respondent’s and the petitioner’s mother acknowledge
said fact in her whatsapp chat. Even this fact was taken note of by the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court while deciding Anticipatory Bail application. According to
-- 1 of 4 --
2
him, there is no whisper of any mistreatment by him to the petitioner and
therefore, the proceedings shall be dropped against him.
4. As against this the petitioner’s Ld. Advocate cited the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi V/s. Kamlesh Devi and stated that the
respondent No.2 has instead of helping the petitioner stood by simply
watching the abuse done to her and even asked her to divorce the respondent
No.1. She has also refer to her petition para No. 4(e) wherein it is pleaded
that “…..
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were witnessing all the abuse duly
ensured that the applicant does not get any opportunity to meet her parents
personally and instead they ensured that the applicant is made to bear all the
mental and physical torture and meted out to her by them jointly and
severally”. She has specifically stated that the respondent No.2 might not
have taken part in any physical abuse but, had betrayed the complainant by
not helping her and instead stood by and supported his son and watched all
the abuse that took place and also abused the complainant mentally causing
her stress and trauma.
5. Heard both sides. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Shrinagar in
case of Riyaz Ahmad Lone and Others V/s. Naziya Hasan and Another
Perused the record. Following points for determination arose from my
consideration. I have recorded to my findings to them for the reasons
mentioned therein.
Sr.
No
Points for the Determination Findings
1 Whether applicant is entitled for dropping
of proceedings against him ?
….In the Negative
2 What order ? …. Rejected
-- 2 of 4 --
3
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1
6. The relationship between the parties is not at dispute. I have
gone through the petition as well as chats referred by the parties.
7. It could be seen that the status of respondent No.2 is of father-in-
law to the petitioner. The petition disclose physical and verbal abuse done to
the petitioner by respondent No.1. The petition also disclose that the
respondent No.2 being father of respondent No.1 has happily accepted the
petitioner as member of the family. The petition also disclose that there was
emotional bond between the petitioner and her father-in-law. In such
circumstances, in the given state of facts, prima facie the conduct of
respondent No.2 as narrated in the petition i.e. asking the petitioner to
divorce to the respondent No.1 even after knowing the abuse done by
respondent No.1 as alleged, prima facie may amount to emotional abuse as
described in Section 3 of PWDV Act. The respondent No.2 do come within the
definition of “respondent” given in PWDV Act.
8. I have also gone through the whatsapp chats referred by
respondent No.2 along-with his application. By virtue of certificate appended
to said chats, the chats would be an evidence admissible on record but, the
same is not the conclusive proof as mentioned by the respondent No.2 in his
counter reply to the petition. Though the whatsapp chats prima facie shows
that all the articles have been returned to the applicant or that the respondent
No.3 has made it clear that she was not interested in the talks pertaining to
money or dowry. However, a conclusive inference to that effect cannot be
drawn without going for the trial. Unless and until opportunity has been
given to the party to cross examine the witnesses who proposes to tender
whatsapp chats into evidence, the context of the things said or replied cannot
-- 3 of 4 --
4
be understood in the sense in which it would have been made by the person
at the relevant time. In other words a mini trial cannot be held on the basis of
some conversation put on record through whatsapp chats without giving an
opportunity to other side to bring the relevant circumstances on record. For
all these reasons, I do not find it reasonable and appropriate to drop the
proceedings against respondent No.2 without going for trial. Thus, following
order :
ORDER
Application is rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G. Agrawal)
Place : Mumbai. Judicial Magistrate (F.C.)
Dated : 31/07/2026 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 4 of 4 --