MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The impugned order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3302 of 2016, as well as, the criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellants in C.C. No. 442 of 2015 on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, arising out of Crime No. 151 of 2015 of Saroornagar Women Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable Under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, are called in question.
(3.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: The marriage between the first Appellant and the second Respondent (complainant) was solemnized at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and rituals. They lived together for about 20 days in matrimonial house. Thereafter, the first Appellant left India and went to Australia, where he is working as an engineer. It is alleged by the second Respondent, that during her stay at the matrimonial house for the period of afore-mentioned 20 days, the first Appellant did not come close to the complainant and he was not even willing to talk freely with the complainant, despite her sincere efforts to come close to her husband. It is also alleged, that the first Appellant never behaved as a dutiful husband and used to evade the complainant whenever she approached to him; he maintained the distance even during nights; when asked, the first Appellant informed the complainant that he was suffering from viral fever; the first Appellant took treatment in the hospital for two-three days, and even after discharge from the hospital, he did not come closer to the complainant; the first Appellant postponed the nuptial night ceremony and he was not interested in co-habitation. Even after the first Appellant left for Australia, the family members of the first Appellant including the second Appellant were not talking to the complainant. The complainant left for her parents' house and started residing there. It is further alleged, that the parents of the complainant had spent about rupees fifteen lakhs for the marriage ceremony and rupees twenty lakhs for the gold ornaments. On these, among other grounds, complaint came to be lodged by the second Respondent. ;