Nikhil Bansal & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 4 May, 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 in the FIR in question
by her counsel.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage was

Crl.M.C. 500/2016 Page 1 of 9
solemnized between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2 on
29.06.2012. Two days after the marriage, the in-laws and the husband
of the complainant started making ironical remarks against her saying
that the marriage was not solemnized as per their standard. On
30.06.2012, the complainant came to know that her husband wears a
wig. The husband of the complainant, one day, came home very late
after consuming liquor and started abusing the complainant. The
mother-in-law of the complainant took all her jewellery on false
pretext and the husband of the complainant left for Philipines on
20.09.2012 for some work. When the husband of the complainant
came back, he consumed liquor and asked the complainant to bring
money from her parents. In January 2014, when the complainant went
to Dwarka, where her jeth and jethani live, then her mother-in-law
insulted her in front of the neighbours. On 16.02.2014, the husband of
the complainant consumed wine and used abusive language against
her and pushed her due to which she received internal injuries.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply