Wifes mental cruelty ground for divorce -SC Judgement COPY CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 877 of 2007 PETITIONER:Smt.

Mayadevi RESPONDENT:Jagdish Prasad DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2007 BENCH:Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT:J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3686 OF 2006) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated by the appellant, the respondent-husband was under apprehension that it would not be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to continue their marital relationships. It was, inter-alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows: Parties got married according to the Hindu rites on 17.4.1993. The appellants father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money was not paid. She did not even provide food to her husband or the children and used to threaten the husband to falsely implicate him in a case of dowry demand and to kill the children and to put the blame on the respondent-husband and his family members. On 23.10.1999 she took Rs.1,05,000/- from the respondent and acknowledged the receipt of the money in the diary of the respondent-husband. She used to borrow money from time to time at the behest of her parents. From the wedlock four children were borne namely, Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar. The appellant used to keep the children tied by ropes and she attempted to throw them down from the rooftop and used to physically torture them. She was temperamentally very cruel and used to behave cruelly with the children also. She always used to threaten that she will destroy the whole family of the respondent and that there would be no successor left in the family. On 5.4.2002 at about 12.00 noon she left her parental home alongwith three children namely, Neha, Anu and

Khemraj on the pretext that she was going to her parental house which was located in the same village. Since she did not return till evening as was told to the respondent-husband, he started searching for her. During course of search the garments and slippers of the children and the appellant were found lying near the well of Ramialji. Police was informed and on search dead bodies of the three children were recovered from the well and appellant was also taken out of the well. A criminal case was instituted and she was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). She was pregnant at that time and subsequently delivered a child. She filed an application for bail. While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry demand against the respondent-husband and his family members. Final report was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged. The appellant filed her response to the petition for divorce and contended that no amount was borrowed by her father or any of her family members. The respondent-husband used to threaten her for dowry and she had never perpetuated any cruelty so far as the children and the husband are concerned. She did not know as to how the children fell into the well. She was herself unconscious and recovered after about four days. The husband, in fact, turned her out of matrimonial home on 5.4.2002 alongwith their three children. Unfortunately, she and the three children fell into the well.The appeal is pending against her conviction. The trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established. Several instances were noted. One of them related to her behaviour on the date of judgment in the criminal case. After the judgment of conviction was pronounced, she threatened to kill the husband and prosecute him. It was also noted by the trial Court that the allegation made by her alleging for dowry demand was dis-believed and the police gave final report stating that the case was falsely lodged. The trial Court granted the decree of divorce which was, as noted above, confirmed by the High Court in appeal by dismissing appellant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the foundation of decree for divorce is the alleged conviction for which the appeal is pending and, therefore, the High Court should not have disposed of the matter. In any event, it is submitted that it was the husband and his family members who were torturing her and being threatened by the husband she had not made any grievance with the police. Unfortunately, when she made the allegation, the police did not properly investigate the matter and gave a final report exonerating the husband. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the instances highlighted by the trial Court and analysed in great detail by the High Court clearly made out a case for dowry and no interference is called for in this appeal. The expression cruelty has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of

such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. The expression cruelty has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment,second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121 and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur 2005 (2) SCC 22 ). To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life. The conduct,taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be

considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties,their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouses conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each others fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A too technical and hyper-sensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with particular man and woman before it. The ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court. (See Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534). The instances of cruelty highlighted by the trial Court and also by the High Court clearly prove that the husband was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. It is not a fact as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction in the criminal case was the foundation for the decree. On the contrary, the trial Court clearly mentioned that the aspect was not taken note of as the appeal was pending.

In view of what has been stated above, the inevitable result is dismissal of the appeal which we direct. There will be no order as to costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. No.2602/2010 Judgment reserved on : 06th January, 2012 Judgment delivered on:30th January, 2012 POONAM KHANNA .. Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person. versus V P SHARMA & ANR . Respondents Through : Respondent No.1in person. Mr.Navin Sharma, APP for State/R-2. CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J. 1. Instant petition is being filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 29.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the revision petition of respondent No.1 was allowed and the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by learned Magistrate granting interim maintenance to the tune of ` 5,000/- per month to the petitioner was set aside. 2. Being aggrieved, on 24.02.2010, respondent No.1 filed Revision Petition No.19/2010 under Section 397 Cr. P.C. seeking dismissal of interim order of maintenance. The same was disposed of vide impugned order dated 29.07.2010 while setting aside the interim Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 1 of 12 maintenance and allowed the revision petition of respondent. 3. It is pertinent to mention that petitioner and respondent No.1 both are appearing in person. 4. Petitioner has raised the issue that as per the settled law, the interlocutory order being the interim maintenance order cannot be challenged by way of revision petition under Section 397 Cr. P.C. Secondly, she has raised the issue that learned Additional Sessions Judge, while setting aside the order passed by learned Magistrate has ignored the fact that on the presumption that respondent may be able to prove the means of petitioner in future by placing additional material on record, which is against settled law that the interim maintenance must be decided on the material available on record and not on the hypothecation that the material likely to be adduced at the time of evidence. 5. Further petitioner has submitted that in Revision Petition No.19/2010, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has not considered this fact that petitioner being the wife of respondent is unemployed and is not earning her livelihood. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, has ignored the submission made by petitioner that the respondent / husband is having rental income from the properties.

6. Vide order dated 23.01.2010, interim maintenance was awarded in favour of petitioner on the basis of the material placed on record by both the parties. However, vide the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has set aside the award of interim maintenance on the Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 2 of 12 presumptive and hypothecated ground that the respondent may placed the requisite material required to cancel the interim maintenance before learned Trial Court. She has referred to Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat AIR 1986 SC 984 and relied upon para No.6 thereof which reads as under:In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made under section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the court. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide Earl Jowitts Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P.1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 3 of 12 authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice Caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties. The magistrate, may, however, insist upon an affidavit being filed by or on behalf of the applicant concerned stating the grounds in support of the claim for interim maintenance to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case for making such an order. Such an order may also be made in an appropriate case ex parte pending service of notice of the application subject to any modification or even an order of cancellation that may be passed after the respondent is heard. If a civil court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. The affidavit may be treated as supplying prima facie proof of the case of the applicant. If the allegations in the application or the affidavit are not true, it is always open to the person against whom such an order is made to show that the order is unsustainable. Having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a magistrate under section 125 of the Code, we feel that the said provision should be interpreted

Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 4 of 12 as conferring power by necessary implication on the magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance subject to the other conditions referred to the pending final disposal of the application. In taking this view we have also taken note of the provisions of section 7 (2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. 66 of 1984) passed recently by Parliament proposing to transfer the jurisdiction exercisable by magistrates under section 125 of the Code to the Family Courts constituted under the said Act. 7. The instant petition is being filed on the ground that the respondent has not placed any material on record showing the earning or employment of the petitioner. By quoting the qualification of the petitioner to earn is not contemplated under Section 125 (1) (a) Cr. P.C. and a wife, who sacrifices her lucrative career for the sake of her children besides herself being ill cannot be denied maintenance by her husband/respondent as held by various Courts in the decisions; Vijay Singh Yadav v Rajesh Yadav & Anr 2009 (III) DRJ 516 wherein para No.5 reads as under:5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. There is no doubt that no revision is permissible under Section 397(2) Cr. P.C. against an interlocutory order. However, in appropriate cases, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 is competent enough to intervene or set aside or modify even an interlocutory order in case it has resulted in abuse of process of law or is causing grave miscarriage of justice. For this purpose, the judgments which have been relied upon by counsel for the petition in case of Krishnan & Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 5 of 12 Anr. v. Krishnaveni & Anr. & in case titled Delhi Labour v. Raj (supra) are not in dispute. 8. She also relied upon Rakhi v. Pankaj Kumar 123 (2005) DLT 262 wherein in para No.5 this Court has held as under:- 5. Looking at the matter as it stands it appears that the judgment under challenge is erroneous and that the learned Additional Sessions ought not to have interfered at a stage when the Metropolitan Magistrate fixed only the interim amount in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P.C. 9. Petitioner has further pointed out that learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order has cancelled the award of interim maintenance to the petitioner not on the basis of any material placed on record, but on the hypothecation that required material may be placed before the Court by respondent/husband later on in future. 10. On the other hand, respondent No.1 has filed his reply whereby he has taken preliminary objection about the maintainability of petition. He has submitted that the petitioner has concealed important / material facts from this Court because these facts render this petition to be non-maintainable. The said facts are as under:(i) The petitioner proposed a settlement deed in the Court of Smt.R.S.Nag on 27.05.2002 which envisaged that the parties will seek divorce, petitioner will not claim any maintenance and respondent will forego his lien over the DDA flat as also a shop in property No. N-15, Malviya Nagar, and property No.C-18, Shivalik, shall be sold off and sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties. Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 6 of 12 (ii) The petitioner backtracked from the said settlement and continued with the litigation vigorously. Another settlement was executed on 02.04.2003 which was ultimately registered. Only difference between visa-vis previous settlement was that respondent reduced his share in the property C-18, Shivalik from 50 per cent to 45 per cent.

(iii) On 03.05.2003, the divorce obtained by mutual consent in terms of settlement dated 02.04.2003 and petitioner withdrew her case in the guardianship court and petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of his son. The joint petition for mutual consent divorce, statement on oath as well as final order expressly stipulating that the petitioner shall not claim any maintenance through rest of the life. (iv) The petitioner filed the application under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court as well as Sessions Court as non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003. (v) On the basis of settlement dated 02.03.2003, this Court quashed four criminal cases in Criminal M.C.No.3337/2007 a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by respondent. The petitioner preferred to challenge the said judgment in the Supreme Court, whereupon the petitioners appeal was dismissed, thus adding sanctity to the settlement. 11. Respondent has further stated in the reply on question of law that learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the interim maintenance on the basis of material placed on record including the registered Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 7 of 12 settlement deed dated 02.04.2003 and para No.30 of the Trial Court order dated 24.07.2009 reads as under:Thus, it is clear that grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. certain conditions are required to be fulfilled and it would be a matter of trial whether the respondent has refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner, whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner 12. It is further submitted that the question of law is not against the orders of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 04.06.2010 as alleged and the petitioner has received most of the interim maintenance till the said order dated. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in para No.13.0 observed as under:It is pertinent to mention here that there is no mode of recovery, if later on it is found that respondent / wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. 13. Respondent has also filed additional submissions and submitted that in para No.12.2 of the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has opined as under:I consider that in view of these peculiar fats and circumstances, parties are required to prove whether the settlement arrived into between them was only illusory and sufficient arrangement not made for the future maintenance of the respondent/ wife or that whether respondent/wife is unable to maintain herself or whether the petitioner/husband has sufficient means or not. I consider that parties are required to lead evidence in this regard. Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 8 of 12 14. Respondent had handed over the shop in property No.N-15, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and DDA flat in Khirki Village at the time of settlement / divorce by mutual consent. The petitioner has sold off these properties and purchased a double story 250 yards house bearing No.758, Sector 7, Punchkula and is getting rent of around ` 40,000/- per month. Proof thereof is annexed as Annexure R-1.

15. The petitioner continuously living in the same house and is maintaining the same living standard in contrast to the respondent, who has been forced to live in an unauthorised colony and that too on rent. 16. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in para No.13.0 observed that that there is no mode of recovery, if later on it is found that respondent / wife has sufficient means to maintain herself. 17. During her cross-examination, in the petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of son, petitioner while asserting that she is living on the mercy of relatives, friends, but failed to name even a single person from whom she had taken debt or loan and this fact goes to prove that she has sufficient means to maintain herself. 18. Petitioner has filed her income tax returns till the year 2007-08. And declared her income to be ` 3.31Lacs in comparison to ` 2.40Lacs of the respondent. Annexure R-3 has been placed on record in this regard. 19. It is further stated that because she initiated litigation on her income and the income of a practicing gynaecologist is always in cash, therefore, stopped filing her tax returns. Failing in her endeavour to Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 9 of 12 fulfil her greed under Prevention of Domestic Violence against Women Act, because the case was ruled to be non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003, she took the shelter of Section 125 Cr. P.C. and filed the petition, therein. 20. It is stated, the petitioner has concealed the fact that just before filing the petition mentioned above, she got admitted her adopted daughter to a prestigious, high end public school and is spending more than ` 30,000/- per month upon her. 21. The respondent has stated in the reply to the instant petition that the wife should maintain standard of living, comparable to the husband as per the provision enshrined under Section 125 Cr. P.C. In the instant case, the petitioner is living in partially self owned house, whose monthly rental is ` 80,000/- whereas respondent is living in a rented house in an unauthorised colony whose rental is ` 8,000/- per month. Moreover, she is running a nursing home in the basement of property No.C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi whose monthly rent is ` 25,000/- per month. 22. I note that the petitioner proposed a settlement deed in the Court of Smt.R.S.Nag on 27.05.2002 which envisaged that the parties will seek divorce, petitioner will not claim any maintenance and respondent will forego his lien over the DDA flat as also a shop in property No.N- 15, Malviya Nagar, and property No.C-18, Shivalik, shall be sold off and sale proceeds shall be divided equally between the parties. 23. Another settlement was executed on 02.04.2003 which was Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 10 of 12 ultimately registered. The only difference between vis-a-vis previous settlement was that respondent reduced his share in the property C-18, Shivalik from 50 per cent to 45 per cent. On 03.05.2003, the divorce obtained by mutual consent in terms of settlement dated 02.04.2003 and petitioner withdrew her case in the guardianship court and petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of his son. The joint petition for mutual consent divorce, statement on oath as well as final order expressly stipulating that the petitioner shall not claim any maintenance through rest of the life. 24. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming maintenance and same was dismissed by learned Trial Court as well as Sessions Court as non-maintainable in the background of settlement dated 02.04.2003. 25. It is pertinent to mention here that on the basis of the settlement dated 02.03.2003, this Court quashed four criminal cases in Criminal M.C.No.3337/2007 petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by respondent.

The petitioner preferred to challenge the said judgment in the Supreme Court, whereupon the petitioners appeal was dismissed. 26. It is also pertinent to mention that learned Trial Court recorded in its order dated 24.07.2009 that for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. certain conditions are required to be fulfilled and it would be a matter of trial whether respondent has refused or neglected to maintain the petitioner whether the petitioner is capable to maintain herself and whether the respondent has sufficient means to Crl.M.C.No.2602/2010 Page 11 of 12 maintain the petitioner. 27. Moreso, in the aforesaid order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded his opinion that parties are required to prove that whether the settlement arrived at between them was only illusory and sufficient arrangements not made for the future maintenance of the wife or that whatever wife is unable to maintain herself or whether the husband has sufficient means or not. To this effect, parties are required to lead evidence. The petitioner during her cross- examination in petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. on behalf of her son deposed that she was living on the mercy of the relatives, friends, however failed to name even a single person from whom she had taken debt or loan. 28. Moreso, annexure R-3 shows that her income tax returns till the year 2007-08 and her income was ` 3.31Lacs in comparison to ` 2.40Lacs of the respondent. 29. In view of above, I find no perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. I conquer with the same. 30. Keeping the above discussion into view, I find no merit in the case. Accordingly, Criminal M.C. No.2602/2010 is dismissed. 31. No order as to costs. SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 30, 2012 Mk