the fact that after her marriage, she went to stay with her husband. She has not intentionally made it clear that none of the petitioners were residing with her. Major allegations are in respect of husband, who is not a party to this petition. Role attributed to petitioners is required to be seen. No specific role has been attributed against them in respect of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. petitioners have produced on record documents showing that they were residing separately from respondent No. 2 and her husband. The casual visits of the petitioners, if any to the house of respondent No. 2 would not allow us to draw any inference against the petitioners. There are no averments in the FIR that any incident of ill-treatment had taken place at Ambajogai. Another fact to be noted that respondent No. 2 has daughter aged 8 and son aged 5. The span of these long years appears to be noted properly explained. petitioner No. 6 is aged 22 as on today. Respondent No. 2 got married in 2008 i.e. 10 years back. That means petitioner No. 6 was aged 12, when respondent No. 2 got married to Ganesh. First transfer of money by her father is stated to be on 24-05-2017 and the second transfer is on 1-1-2018. That means, till 2017, there was no harassment. So, it appears that, as a routine all the relatives of the husband have been roped. It would be futile exercise to ask
