It was also submitted that the Petitioner had received threats that the case should be pursued in Jaipur instead of Delhi and that fearing for her safety and that of the minor child, she had prayed that the proceedings referred to hereinabove pending before the Court at Jaipur be transferred to a Family Court, having companypetent jurisdiction, to hear and try the matter in Delhi.
The Petitioner thereupon moved an application in the High Court on 30th April, 2010, for modification of the order of 8th April, 2010, and instead of Jaipur, to shift the place of visitation to Delhi.
The next day, on 2nd June, 2009, the Respondent No.1, husband, moved an application under Section 21 of the above Act for visitation rights, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court.
On 18th September, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.
Unable to bear the shock of the incidents, which had taken place since the Petitioners marriage with the Respondent No.1, the Petitioners grandparents suffered heart and paralytic attacks, as a result of which they have become companypletely bed ridden.
On 6th December, 2008, the Respondent No.1, husband, filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Case No.609 of 2008 against the Petitioner, for restitution of companyjugal rights.
According to the Petitioner, on 14th April, 2010, the Petitioners brother got admission with I.I.P.M. in Delhi, which required him to shift to Delhi for his higher education and the Petitioner also decided to companye to Delhi to establish herself professionally to be able to maintain herself and her minor daughter.
It is the Petitioners further case that in order to settle the matter peacefully, the Petitioner entered into a companypromise with the Respondent No.1 on 25th February, 2009, so that she companyld start her life all over again and to acquire financial independence to provide for herself and for providing proper care to the child on her own.
According to the Petitioner, on account of the cruelty meted out to her and the child, the Petitioner filed FIR No.7 of 2009 companyplaining of offences alleged to have been companymitted by the Respondent No.1 punishable under Sections 498 A and 406 IPC.
Soon, thereafter, on 1st June, 2009, charge sheet was filed against the Respondent No.1 and his family members in FIR No.7 of 2009 which had been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 498 A and 406 IPC.
Petition No.2139 of 2009 for quashing of Criminal Legal Case No.13 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005.
Petition No.1977 of 2009 praying for similar visitation rights.
The Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009 on 25th August, 2009 against the aforesaid order dated 2nd June, 2009, before the Court of Upper District Judge Fast Track No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which dismissed the same.
Pursuant to the terms of the companypromise, the Petitioner withdrew her companyplaint under Sections 498 A and 406 IPC, but the Respondent No.1 failed to appear before the Family Court No.2 at Jaipur on 2nd December, 2010, to present a Petition for mutual divorce, as had been agreed upon in the companypromise.
The Respondent NO.1 also filed Application No.3051 of 2010 in B. Criminal Misc.
A girl child, Mannat, was born prematurely to the companyple on 3rd April, 2008, and had to be kept in incubator for about three weeks.
P.C. S.B. Criminal Misc.
It is the Petitioners grievance that while they were on their honeymoon in Mauritius, the Respondent No.1, husband, began to treat her with physical and mental cruelty.
On 22nd January, 2010, when both the matters came up before the High Court for companysideration, the High Court directed the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 to settle their disputes and to apply for divorce by mutual companysent within 15 days.
The said application was disallowed by the High Court on 5th May, 2010, resulting in the filing of the Special Leave Petition on 17th June, 2010.
Even during her pregnancy, she was ill treated.
On 8th April, 2010, the said application for visitation rights was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to arrange for the meeting of the Respondent No.1 with the Petitioner and their minor daughter at the office of the learned companynsel for the Respondent No.1 on every Saturday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. This is the genesis of the problem which is the subject matter of the present Special Leave Petition.
According to the Petitioner, since then she has been residing in Delhi and the order directing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1 to meet the minor child at Jaipur in the office of the learned companynsel for the Respondent No.1 became extremely difficult for her.
Ultimately, being unable to withstand the physical and mental cruelty inflicted both on the Petitioner and her minor daughter, the Petitioner was companypelled to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parents on 7th October, 2008.
One of the grounds taken in the Transfer Petitions is that in the interest of the child, this Court had directed the Respondent No.1 to visit the child on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month at an address in New Delhi and the Petitioner was directed to take the child on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of each month to an address in Jaipur to enable the Respondent No.1 to meet his minor daughter.
Petition No.1977 of 2009 for quashing of the charge sheet in FIR No.7 of 2009 and further proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate I, No.15, Jaipur City, Jaipur, were stayed therein.
The order was passed in the presence of both the parties.
On 7th October, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed another Petition under Section 482 Cr.
While giving the aforesaid directions, the High Court also passed orders allowing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1, husband, in respect of the minor child.
During the pendency of these proceedings, the Petitioner also filed Transfer Petition Civil Nos.856 857 of 2010 for transfer of Case No.279 of 2009, which had been filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Case No.65 of 2009 also filed by him under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, from the Family Court at Jaipur to a Family Court of companypetent jurisdiction in Delhi.
P.C. S.B. Criminal Misc.
On 17th February, 2010, the Respondent No.1 filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2010 before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009 dismissing his application for visitation rights.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 were married to each other according to Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 20th February, 2007.
As will be seen from the narration of facts which intervened between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 during their brief matrimonial obligations towards each other, the child has number become the source of acrimony between them.
