The High Court quashed FIR No. 1035/2001 under sections 406, 498A, and 34 of the IPC, cancelled bail bonds, and allowed the parties to live separately, ensuring the daughter Ali Abbas Ashita retains her lawful rights.
FIR No. 1035/2001 under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC quashed; bail bonds cancelled; parties allowed to live separately.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:28.08.2024 16:49:39 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
a
respondent no.2 will have no right, interest or claim, present, past and future against the petitioners. The petitioner no.l and respondent no.2 shall live separately without there being any interference of each other. However, by way of the settlement arrived at between the parties, they cannot deprive their daughter Ashita of her lawful rights. She would be entitled to seek the remedy as per law, if she so desires, after attaining the age of majority.
In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served to continue with the abovesaid FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Accordingly, FIR No.1035/2001 under Section 406/498A/34 of IPG registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. Bail bonds of the petitioners are hereby cancelled and their sureties discharged.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
Dasti.
M.L. Mehta, J
November 03, 2011
rd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proceedings under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC registered in the FIR should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner and respondent should be allowed to live separately without interference.
Whether the daughter's lawful rights remain intact despite the settlement between the parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner No. 1
Respondent No. 2
Ashita
M.L. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
