Lalwarti Singh @ Lal Barti Singh v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

earlier filed a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 57 of 2007 and as a matter of fact these cases had been filed only for building pressure on the petitioners to give her a share in the family property notwithstanding the fact that she had already filed a Partition Suit No.257 of 2005 which is pending in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Kaimur , wherein she had claimed 1/4th share. It was also submitted that Maintenance Case No.7 of 2006 was filed by the complainant demanding maintenance from petitioner no.1, the - 4 - father-in-law, which was dismissed by the order dated 3.12.2006 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Kaimur at Bhabhua holding that the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable since the law does not permit claim of maintenance from the father-in- law. I have had the occasion to peruse the complaint petition. The allegation of alleged cruelty is said to have started from

15.11.2006 but there is not allegation of her being subjected to cruelty prior thereto. Even otherwise the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and except for the particular overt act said to have been committed on 15.11.2006 there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners. There is another aspect of the matter. The complainant does not appear to have approached the court with clean hands inasmuch as she has suppressed the fact of having filed Complaint Case No.57 of 2005 wherein cognizance had been taken and had also suppressed the material fact of her Maintenance Case No.7 of 2006 having been dismissed by the learned Principal Judge and of having filed Partition Suit No.257 of 2005 claiming 1/4th share in the property of her matrimonial home. Although, notice was duly served on Opp.Party no.2, she has failed to put in an appearance and contest the instant application. Therefore, submissions and factual aspects placed before this Court remain unrebutted. Due regard being had to the facts that the complainant had - 5 - not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts in order to influence the court and in view of the fact that earlier complaint being Complaint Case No.57 of 2005 had already been filed wherein cognizance had been taken, I am of the opinion that the instant case apart from being vexatious and oppressive was an abuse of the process of the court which cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 25th June,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.