JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral):- The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.247, dated 13.5.2010, under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Gurgaon. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. 3. Petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant. As per allegations marriage of the complainant was performed with son of the petitioner, namely, Ravi Kumar on 10.3.2008. Sufficient articles were given in the dowry by the parents of the complainant, as per their capacity. However, immediately after the marriage the present petitioner told the complainant that her son is an Engineer in Wipro Company and lot of amount has been spent on his studies and that even a poor person gives a car in dowry to her daughter and that if she would not bring a car then they will not be in a position to show their faces in the society. Then the father of complainant anyhow managed to give a Alto car, however, the same could not satisfy the petitioner. Whenever the complainant used to tell about the behaviour of the petitioner to her husband, he used to shout upon her. On 24.4.2008, when complainant had gone to Hyderabad with her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law also accompanied them and there as well acts of harassment and cruelty were inflicted upon her by the petitioner and the co-accused. Complainant was locked in a room by the petitioner and her son, i.e. husband of the complainant. Husband of the petitioner had thrown a cup of tea on complainant and petitioner slapped the complainant when she stopped them from abusing her parents. Husband of complainant was to go to U.K. and a demand of Rs.1 lac was raised by the petitioner for sending her to U.K. alongwith her son. However, father of the complainant arranged Rs.25,000/-, but the complainant was not sent to U.K., rather she was thrown out of matrimonial home by giving beatings. 4. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. 5. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Urmila for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. 5. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Urmila for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ----------