https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274398 The court dismissed both petitions challenging the validity of the complaint under sections 494 and 494 r/w 109 IPC. It held that the complaint had necessary averments, the choice of jurisdiction was valid, marriage formalities were met under the Hindu Marriage Act, the complaint was not an abuse of process, the delay in filing was justified, and the accused were actively involved in the alleged offenses. The court found no grounds for quashing the complaint and allowed the case to proceed. en-us Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Aug 2018 13:48:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274398 The court dismissed both petitions challenging the validity of the complaint under sections 494 and 494 r/w 109 IPC. It held that the complaint had necessary averments, the choice of jurisdiction was valid, marriage formalities were met under the Hindu Marriage Act, the complaint was not an abuse of process, the delay in filing was justified, and the accused were actively involved in the alleged offenses. The court found no grounds for quashing the complaint and allowed the case to proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274398