Amit Kumar Mutreja & Ors vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 10 November, 2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix, in brief, of the present case is that the
marriage was solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and the
respondent no.2 on 27.04.2009 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. It is the case of the complainant that the in-laws and

Crl.M.C. 1225/2016 Page 1 of 8
husband of the complainant were unsatisfied with the dowry brought
in by the complainant at the time of marriage and that they would
torture her for the same. It is alleged that on 11.03.2010, the
complainant’s husband beat the complainant mercilessly and almost
injured the complainant’s eyes in the process of turning the
complainant out from her matrimonial home. It is alleged that after
that, the husband of the complainant demanded Rs. 40 Lacs from the
complainant for starting up a business and that later that evening, upon
returning from her office, the complainant was not allowed to enter
her matrimonial house by her husband and mother-in-law. All efforts
to join the company of her husband by the complainant were in vain.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*