Usha Vohra Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- divorce by mutual consent personal presence of parties exempted power of attorney to dissolve the marriage the special power of attorney in favour of one mr. lal babu tiwari was executed by the petitioner (husband) to appear before the court and testify about the contents of the petition. the petitioner has signed the petition before indian consulate high commission of india in uk under section 3(2) of the diplomatic and consular officers (oaths and fees) act, 1947 under which the documents do not require any further evidence.[para 3] if both the parties, by way of affidavits or through counsel, state that they are married, and are able to produce proof of the marriage and that they have been living separately and have not been able to live together for the prescribed period, then there can be no reason as to why the court should not record its satisfaction as envisaged under section 13-b(2) of hindu marriage act, despite the fact that parties had not appeared in person and pass a decree for divorce.[para 6] where the parties are living far away from the jurisdiction of the court competent to dissolve the marriage, the parties after filing their affidavits can appoint attorneys to act on their behalf. attorney is competent to act on behalf of the principal on the basis of power of attorney executed by the principal. the courts have been allowing attorneys to file the petition, to withdraw the petition, to carry on proceedings in the court on behalf of their principal in all other cases. the attorney can also act in matrimonial cases as per instructions of their principle. the court can take necessary precautions to prevent frauds being perpetuated on it but unless the court smells some kind of fraud being played with it, the court should normally recognize the act of the attorneys. i therefore allow this petition. the order of the trial court insisting on the personal appearance of the parties is set aside.[para 8] - 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that she shall report on every monday at forenoon, at p.orders.k. agarwal, j.1. this is a petition under section 439, cr.p.c, for grant of bail in case fir no. 26/2003 under sections 406, 420, 120b, ipc p.s. ambedkar nagar, delhi.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months : and only charge under section 420, ipc has been framed against the petitioner, on the allegations of having been cheated to the complainant to the tune of rs. 14.0 lacs; that out of 34 witnesses cited by the prosecution 3 witnesses have been examined and the trial is bound to take quite some time. learned counsel for the state opposes the bail, submitting that brother-in-law of the petitioner is still absconding. thereforee, if the petitioner is released, there is likelihood of petitioner's absconding and tampering with the evidence.3. in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the condition that she shall report on every monday at forenoon, at p.s. ambedkar nagar, delhi; she shall not leave india, without prior permission of the trial court; she shall not tamper with the evidence; and shall surrender her passport, if any.petition stands disposed of. dusty.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 26/2003 under Sections 406, 420, 120B, IPC P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for more than 11 months : and only charge under Section 420, IPC has been framed against the petitioner, on the allegations of having been cheated to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 14.0 lacs; that out of 34 witnesses cited by the prosecution 3 witnesses have been examined and the trial is bound to take quite some time. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail, submitting that brother-in-law of the petitioner is still absconding. thereforee, if the petitioner is released, there is likelihood of petitioner's absconding and tampering with the evidence.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the condition that she shall report on every Monday at forenoon, at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi; she shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Trial Court; she shall not tamper with the evidence; and shall surrender her passport, if any.

Petition stands disposed of. dusty.