Sec. 32 (2) of PWDV Act.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 30 January 2011
This query is : Resolved
A 72 yrs. mother filed a case u/s 12 and 23 of PWDV Act against her son and daghter-in-law ( both 50 yrs. old)abeted by her daughters who want to grab the property jointly owned by mother and her late husband.
In the complained she said she didn't have any source of income and on the stage of starvation. She demanded Rs 27,000 monthly as maintenance and Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation for cruelty.
The mother is already getting pension from Govt. of India Rs. 8,500/- per month having a fixed deposit worth over Rs. 6.00 laks and five saving bank accounts with over Rs. 4.00 lakhs balance.
she suprressed these facts before the court and committed perjury. On the other hand the son filed application U/S 340 Cr.P.C.for prosecuting the complainant and the Abettor daughters U/S 182,193,211of IPC. On the same the lady magistrate who seems to be very biased an Interim Protection Order based on the a false complaint made to Police that the Respondents have assaulted the complainant without giving chance of hearing to the Respondents and WITHOUT A REPORT FROM THE CONCERNED p.s.
Sec 32 (2) od the Act states that on the Sole Testimony of the aggrieved person, the court may conclude that the breach of Interim Protection Order have been committed. IS THIS SECTION UN CONSTITITUIONAL.Can a Magistrate pass an order order taking cognizance without conducting trial on the sole testimony of the so called "aggrieved person whose entire entire affidavits U/S 12 and 23 in under challenge u/S 340 Cr/P/C.
If the section is unconstitutional then where it can be challenged.In High Court or Supreme Court.
The Respondents have challenged the impugned Interim Protection in Session Court,but the ASJ didnot stay the impugned order and also seems to be baised by simply considering that a 72 yrs. old women cannot do any wrong. The Appeal is pending and the notice is being issued to the State and the complainant.
Kindly advise on challenging the section 32(2). Is there any precedent or citation on it.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 31 January 2011
The law is in favour of Mother.See judgement of S.C in Pritish's case reported in R.C.R.2002[2] Page 92.
