Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) HAVING lost the legal battle in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 108 of 2007 and Criminal Motion No. 21 of 2011/Criminal Motion No. 22 of 2011, the petitioner wife filed this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28th Day of June 2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court at Asansol and the order dated 21.01.2011 passed by the Learned A.C.J.M., Asansol.
(2.) THE petitioner's case in capsulated from is such that she is the legally married wife of the opposite party. There marriage was solemnized on 9th December, 2011 according to Hindu Rites & Ceremonies. Her father tried her level best to satisfy all the dowry demand of the opposite party and his family members which includes cash, jewellery, furnitures, utensils, wooden showcase, washing machine etc. After the initial charm was over, her in -laws looked askance about the quality of articles given at the time of marriage and put pressure upon her for bringing cash of Rs. 1 lakh more. She was subjected to mental and physical torture. Petitioner's father, being informed, went to the house of the opposite party and then the opposite parties had stated that unless Rs. 1 lakh is not paid, the petitioner will not be allowed to reside with them. Degree of torture being increased time to time she was compelled to desert her husband on 20th February, 2006 with a loin cloth. A case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was filed on 17.01.2007 followed by another case under Section 403/406 of the Indian Penal Code. She categorically stated in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she has no income on the other hand opposite party earns Rs. 20,000 as salary and Rs. 5,000 from other sources. Ventilating her such grievances, she has prayed for maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000 per month.
(3.) AS against this, the main contention of the opposite party is such that there was no such torture as alleged. They categorically stated that there was no dowry demand on their part because it was a love marriage. He had taken a specific plea that after the marriage he was asked to reside in the house of the petitioner at Asansol as 'domesticated son -in -law' which he had refused. This apart, the main apple of discord was the opening of a bank locker. He denied all other allegations as stated by the petitioner. Disclosing this he had prayed for rejection of the said application.;