IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 30687 of 2010 Date of decision:14.10.2010 Reeta Petitioner vs. State of Haryana Respondent Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of Chandni, who was married to the son of the petitioner Sameer on 8.12.2008. There are allegations against the son of the petitioner that he maltreated the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained a divorce from her husband and thereafter disowned her son Sameer. She had merely gone to attend the marriage of her son. The petitioner has neither been residing with Sameer nor she ever demanded any dowry from the complainant. Charges have been framed u/s 498- A/406/323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against her. After hearing learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the defence put forth by the petitioner cannot be appreciated at this stage in exercise of inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. However, in peculiar circumstances of this case, a direction is issued that in case the petitioner moves an application for exemption from personal appearance, the same will be allowed by the trial court subject to any conditions imposed by it. Disposed of. October 14 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE