Man's plea seeking action against wife, her father dismissed

A Delhi court has dismissed a man's plea seeking action against his father-in-law for making his estranged wife undergo an abortion without his knowledge.
The court said it appears to be an "arm twisting tactics" by the husband whose wife was not living with him and he had not placed any document to show that his spouse was pregnant.
It dismissed his revision plea challenging a magisterial court order which had also rejected his petition to lodge an FIR against his wife and her father on the allegation that his father-in-law got terminated her pregnancy without the husband's knowledge and consent.

He had sought their prosecution for alleged offences of causing death of an unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide, putting a person in fear of injury to commit extortion and criminal intimidation.
The court noted that the woman has already filed a domestic violence case against her husband which is pending before a trial court.
"It seems to be an arm twisting tactics by the husband whose wife is not living with him. No document has also been placed on record to show that she was pregnant. The whole story seems to be self created and he just want to pressurise respondent no. 2 (wife) and 3 (father-in-law). He cannot be allowed to take the law in his hands," Special Judge Ajay Goel said and added there was no illegality or error of law in the magisterial court's order.

While adjudicating the revision petition, the court had asked the police to submit a status report in which it was stated that a compromise has been done between the parties and the complaint was dismissed by the magisterial court as the man did not appear before it.

The man, however, said he never consented or compromised.
The woman and her father had claimed that the man was telling a lie and he had given in writing to the police that he does not want further action on his complaint.
The sessions judge held that the magisterial court was justified in dismissing the man's plea as none was appearing on his behalf and he had not disclosed as to why he had not appeared before the court.

"No reason has been given as to why the revision petition should be allowed. The copy of the compromise has been placed on record by the IO along with the status report, wherein it is clearly written that he is taking his complaint back without any pressure or coercion, which is signed on September 8, 2016, that is why it seems that he has not appeared thereafter knowingly in the court," it said.