CWP No. 17860 of 2016. Case: Rakesh Kumar Sood Vs The District Magistrate-Cum-Deputy Commissioner and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)

Case NumberCWP No. 17860 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate and M.S. Atwal, Advocate
JudgesAmit Rawal, J.
IssueCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 125, 406; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 227; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 22; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 27
Judgement DateJanuary 31, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Punjab (India)


Amit Rawal, J.

  1. The petitioner-Rakesh Kumar Sood has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Magistrate-Cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in a proceedings initiated under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

  2. Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Atwal, appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that petitioner who is aged 68 years alongwith his wife are owner of house No. B-534/19 situated at Government College Road, Ludhiana. The marriage of their only son namely Amit Sood with respondent No. 2-Seema was performed on 26.01.2015 and on 09.11.2015, one girl child was born out of the wedlock. According to the averments made in the writ petition, husband and wife were having a discord and every day bickering resulted into disinheritance of the son and daughter-in-law on 22.01.2016. After that the behaviour of respondent No. 2 became more violent. On 27.01.2016, 11.02.2016, 22.02.2016 to 26.02.2016, respondent No. 2 with the help of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 and their henchmen committed series of acts so as to cause mental and physical harassment to petitioner and his wife. The matter was also reported to the police on 17.02.2016 vide Annexure P-11. Though there are other representations. The respondent No. 2-daughter-in-law had also submitted complaint to the police for alleged dowry harassment. The matter was enquired out by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime against Women and Children Cell, Ludhiana, whereby in its report dated 23.05.2016, it noticed the factum of filing of the complaint under 2007 Act and further found that there was no truth in the allegation of dowry or physical/mental harassment as no medical record of the alleged cruelty or injury was presented and resultantly made recommendation for cancellation particularly when dispute, between the parties, before Deputy Commissioner, was already pending. I deem it appropriate to extract the aforementioned, conclusion report, which reads thus:-

    9. Conclusion Report:- On perusal of above said complaint, statements and documents, it has been revealed that marriage of complainant was solemnized on 26.01.2015 with Amit Sood S/o. Rakesh Kumar Sood r/o 534/19, Government College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana and out of this wedlock one female child was born. After marriage there arose a dispute between the complainant with her husband and in-laws family due to which father-in-law Rakesh Kumar disinherited his son Amit Sood and daughter-in-law Seema Sood on 22.01.2016. Complainant Seema Sood and her parental family also held many protests in front of her in-law's house. Thereafter on 01.03.2016 complainant Seema Sood and her husband Amit Sood with their mutual consent, taken on rent house of Sh. Mukesh Bagga at House No. 3, R.S. Puram, New Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana and they used to reside as husband and wife. Rakesh Kumar Sood father-in-law of complainant also filed case against them in the court. In this case, the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Shilpa Singh, Civil Judge Junior Division, Ludhiana issued a notice to husband and wife for presence in court on 21.03.2016 which was received by Amit Sood and Seema Sood on 16.03.2016. Thereafter, on 20.03.2016 at about 8:30 the complainant Seema Sood along with her parental family members and relatives came to her in-law's house at College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. As the gate was lying locked, Seema Sood entered the house after climbing the gate with the help of her relatives and is still residing in her in-law's house. In this regard, CCTV Footage, CD and photographs were also presented by the in-laws family of the complainant. Complainant Seema Sood has filed three cases against her in-laws in different courts. Whereas father-in-law of the complainant has also filed a case u/s. 22 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 filed before Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana for getting vacated the above said house against the complainant Seema Sood and inquiry report of the said case was forwarded to Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner Ludhiana by Sh. Paramjit Singh, PCS, Presiding Officer, Tribunal Maintenance-cum-SDM (East) Ludhiana on 07.04.2016 which is still pending. There is no truth found in the allegations of dowry and physical and mental harassment made by complainant Seema Sood against her in-laws family nor any medical record or proof has been presented.

    10. Recommendation: The allegations made by the complainant against her...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT