Home > DV Judgements > HC decides in favor of husband the fate of 91 crpc application

HC decides in favor of husband the fate of 91 crpc application

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 1183 of 2010 Smt. Ruchi Grover

W/o Shri Amit Grover

D/o Shri V.P. Chhabra,

R/o19/6, Rajpur Road, Dehradun

District Dehradun

.. Petitioner


1. Amit Grover, S/o Shri G.P. Grover R/o C-784, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.

2. G.P. Grover, S/o Shri Mulak Raj R/o C-784, Vikaspuri, New Delhi

…. Respondents

Shri Pawan Mishra, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Chauhan , Advocate, present for the respondents . Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.


2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/6th Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in criminal appeal no. 87 of 2010, whereby said court 2

has set aside the order dated 09.08.2010, passed by the trial court, and directed the petitioner to file the documents under section 91 of Cr.P.C., as prayed in application 20B, before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the present petitioner filed the complaint under sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that she has been subjected to cruelty , and the respondent (Amit Grover)has neglected her to maintain.

4. By moving application under section 20B before the trial court under section 91 of Cr.P.C., (copy of which Annex. 2 to the petition) the respondents have sought direction of the court to the complainant to file statements of her two PPF accounts (one at Delhi, and another at Dehradun), details of her balances in savings account with State Bank of India, and Centurion Bank of Punjab, and also sought to get filed details of fixed deposit receipts in the aforesaid two Banks. The accounts no. are specifically disclosed in the application.

5. Since, the petitioner has also sought direction from the Magistrate under section 20 of 3

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which relates to monitary reliefs, the direction by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 19.11.2010, cannot be said to be illegal.

6. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C.Pant,J.)

Parul 07.12.2010



Categories: DV Judgements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: