Naresh Kumar & Ors vs State & Anr. on 10 August, 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 of the present case is that the marriage was
solemnized between petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on
12.12.2009 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The in-laws of

Crl.M.C. 1636/2016 Page 1 of 8
the complainant were not satisfied with the dowry and with the fact
that the complainant did not work in private sector. In March 2010,
when the petitioner no. 1/husband of the complainant got admitted to
the hospital, the bills amounting to Rs. 40,000/- were paid by the
complainant/respondent no. 2 and her parents. On 26.11.2010, when
the complainant gave birth to a male child, the in-laws again
demanded gold chains and Rs. 2 lacs from the complainant. Father of
the complainant gave gold and silver jewellery to the in-laws and the
husband of the complainant. On 15.12.2011, in-laws of the
complainant gave life threats to the complainant after which she got
scared and left the matrimonial house with her father.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*