APSR1000022120171
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::
PALAKONDA
PRESENT: A.Vijay Raj Kumar, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda.
MONDAY, THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2025 (28-04-2025)
D.V.C.No.1/2017
Between:
Gongada Suneetha alias Ampili Suneetha, Wife of Gongada Chiranjeevi, aged 30 years, presently residing at Chalivendri village in Veeraghattam Mandal within Veeraghattam Police limits. ......Aggrieved person/Petitioner
And:
1.Gongada Chiranjeevi, Son of Polipalli, aged 35 years, cultivator and working in 104 Services, resident of Nadukuru village in Veeraghattam Mandal and P.S. limits..
2. Gongada Polipalli, son of late sitrayya, aged 55 years, resident of Nadukuru village in Veeraghattam Mandal
3. Gongada Ramulamma, wife of Polipalli, aged 45 years, resident of Nadukuru village in Veeraghattam Mandal
4. Balasingu Radharani, wife of Venkati, aged 29 years, resident of Turaka Naiduvalasa village, Jiyammavalasa Mandal
5. Balasingu Venkati, son of Appayya, aged 37 years, resident of Turaka Naiduvalasa village, Jiyammavalasa Mandal.
..…Respondents
This petition came up on 17.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B.Chandra Mouleeswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Respondents, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:
APSR1000022120172
:: ORDER ::
1.This petition filed by the petitioner/aggrieved person under the provisions of Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as ‘PWDV Act’ for brevity) seeking for reliefs:
maintenance under section 20 and to order the respondents for transfer of the dowry amount and sarisamans in total Rs.4,00,000/-, cash presentation of Rs.22,000/- towards lanchanams and 3 tulas gold to the aggrieved person under the said Act.
2. Brief resume of case facts are that:- 2.1.That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was performed on 5.3.2005 at Shivalayam in Etcherla village near
Srikakulam as per the Hindu, caste custom and tradition before the elders of either side. In the year 2003, while the petitioner studying Degree at
Chaitanya College, Srikakulam, respondent No.1 introduced and loved the petitioner and he promised her that he will marry her. The petitioner believed the words of the respondent No.1 and moved freely with the respondent No.1 and finally the petitioner and respondent No.1 married each other at
Shivalayam in Etcherla. After two years of their marriage, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 is already married with another person and the same is concealed by the respondent No.1 and cheated the petitioner.
During stay at Nadukuru, the respondent No.1 and his family members used to demand additional dowry and subjected the petitioner cruelly. The parents of the petitioner gave Rs.4.00 lakhs on several occasions to the respondent
No.1 and his family. Even then the respondent No.1 and his family members did not stop their harassments towards the petitioner. The respondent No.1 also had illicit intimacy with other woman during the stay at Nadukuru. Due to want of money for his bad vices, the respondents demanded for additional
APSR1000022120173 dowry from the petitioner and her parents. The petitioner bear all the troubles created by the respondents and stayed there with a fond hope that the respondents will change their attitude, but the respondents did not stop their cruelty more over tortured the petitioner that they will kill her by spindling her threat. Then as there is no other option, the petitioner came out from house of the respondents as there is a imminent threat from the hands of the respondents and the petitioner gave a report to the Station House Officer,
Veeraghattam and the same is registered under Section 417, 420 and 498-A of I.P.C. and under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act in C.C. 260/2015 and the same is pending for trial. The respondent developed illegal intimacy with another woman and due to that they both are harassing and mentally. The parents of petitioner are no more. There are no properties to the petitioner of her own or to her parents. The petitioner is living at the mercy of her brother in her village, Chalivendri in Veeraghattam Mandalam. The respondent No.1 neglected the petitioner by not providing food, cloths, medicines and also shelter. The respondent No.1 is working in 104 Services and he is getting
Rs.25,000/- per month as salary and also having two slabbed houses at
Nadukuru village worth Rs. 30.00 lakhs, besides these, the respondent also doing money lending business and getting monthly income about Rs.
50,000/-, from all these sources, the respondent No.1 is living lavishly. The petitioner is suffering for everything, like daily bread, cloths, medicines and also for shelter. Though the respondent No.1 has got legal obligation to provide maintenance, but the respondent No.1 neglected to provide the same to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
3. The respondent No.1 filed counter and same was adopted by the
respondents No.2 to 5 and traversed the principle allegations in the
petition and further contended that :- 3.1. His marriage was performed with one Radha of Chilakalapalli village in the year 2005 and she begot 2 children through him and he along
APSR1000022120174 with his wife and children living in Nadukuru village happily and it is well known to the petitioner. The petitioner has been working as Teacher in
Residential school and she know the factum of his marriage with Radha and children she asked this respondent to marry her, but this respondent refused her request and stated to the petitioner about his marriage with Radha and having children. Though respondent No.1 stated the facts of his marriage and having children but she stated him that she has been loving him since her education and after completion of her education she know about his marriage even his marriage was still subsisting she expressed her desire to marry the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 expressed his unwillingness of the proposal made by the petitioner and stated her that she has been working as Teacher and she will get good match. But the petitioner has not satisfied with the words of this respondent No.1 by hook or crook she wants to marry this respondent No.1 she presented a report to the Police,
Veeraghattam with an intention to gave threat to the family members of the respondent No.1 and then this respondent No.1 may bent his head and obey for her proposal.
3.2.The respondent No.1 never marry the petitioner at any time and the marriage is an illusory one and the family members this respondent do not know the petitioner. The respondent No.1 never harassed the petitioner in any manner and he never demanded her for any additional dowry at any time. He has been working in 104 Service on contract basis and his salary is only Rs.6,000/- per month and as the job is on contract basis the salaries were given by the employer contractor once in 4 or 5 months but not regularly. The petitioner has been working as teacher in Residential School and is getting monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The petitioner foisted a false case against the respondents unnecessarily implicated all the respondents in that case and she might have with an evil idea of the enemies
APSR1000022120175 of this respondent in order to substantiating the false case filed by her.
Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
4.To prop up the contention of both parties, the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and examined on G.Anuradha as P.W.2 and examined
PW-3 (B.Pushpanadham-eschewed) and exhibited Ex.P-1 photographs correspondence with CD.On behalf of the respondents, 1st respondent himself examined as R.W.1, One Dusi Sankararao examined as RW-2 and
Arinanana Dileep Kumar examined as RW-3 and no documents were marked on his behalf.
5.Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.
6. Now, the points would arise for determination are:-
(i). Whether the petitioner/aggrieved person has established that the respondents respondents have committed domestic violence against petitioner?
(ii). If so, whether applicant/aggrieved person is entitled for monetary relief, compensation and other reliefs as prayed for?
REASONS :: ::
7. POINT No.(i):-Whether the petitioner/aggrieved person has established that the respondents have committed domestic violence against petitioner?
Before appraising the facts and appreciating the evidences of
APSR1000022120176 the present case in detail, it is imperative to encapsulate the relevant legal provision germane to the adjudication of the present case. In order to prove the domestic violence under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005initial burden lies upon on the petitioner/aggrieved person to prove the following ingredients: any act or omission that:
(i) Harms or injures the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being of the aggrieved person or
(ii) Harasses the aggrieved person to coerce them to meet unlawful demands for dowry or other property,
(iii)Threatens the aggrieved person or any person related to them
Further, it is trite to say that as per Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act.
APSR1000022120177
Apply the parameters stated supra to the present case that, to shore up the contention of the aggrieved person/ petitioner, she herself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the petition averments in her chief examination. She further examined P.W.2-(G.Anuradha) and PW-3 (B.Pushpanadham-eschewed) to support the case of the petitioner and exhibited Ex.P-1 photographs correspondance with CD. On the other hand, the respondent himself examined as RW-1 by reiterating the counter allegations in his chief examination and further examined RW-2 – Dusi
Sankararao and RW-3 Arinanana Dileep Kumar in support the case of the respondent.
8.The learned counsel for petitioner has adroitly argued that the respondent No.1 got married the petitioner by suppression the factum of first marriage and the petitioner came to know the fact after the marriage of two years. He further stated that the respondent No.1 neglected the petitioner and cheated her. The respondent No.1 got married another woman( 3rd marriage) also. The petitioner relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 and PW- 2.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents have vehemently argued that, there is no marriage had taken place between petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner is working as teacher and getting
APSR1000022120178
Rs.40,000/- as salary. The respondent No.1 is getting meagre salary. The respondents relied upon the oral evidence of RW1- to RW-3.
10.Turning to the evidence of PW1-A.Suneetha, she was emphatic in her evidence that their was performed on 5.3.2005 at Shivalayam in
Etcherla village near Srikakulam as per the Hindu, caste custom and tradition
before the elders of either side. In the year 2003, while she was studying
Degree at Chaitanya College, Srikakulam, respondent No.1 introduced him and loved her and he promised the petitioner that he will marry the petitioner.
She believed the words of the respondent No.1 and moved freely with him and finally they got married at Shivalayam in Etcherla. After the marriage they lived at Hyderabad for a period of six months and again returned to
Srikakulam and lived there for a period of 1 year and again went to Sankili village and lived there for 4 years and finally went to Nadukuru village. She further testifies that after two years of their marriage, she came to know that the respondent No.1 is already married with another person and the same is concealed by the respondent No.1 and cheated her. 1st Wife of respondent filed cases against him and his family before this court for the settlment of those cases he went to his father and requested him to settle the matter, he sold away Ac.1.00Cs land and gave Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent.
Accordingly, they compromised with the 1st wife and they lived happily till 2013. In the year 2013, again respondent No.1 developed illegal intimacy with another woman namely S.Subhashini. When she questioned him on
APSR1000022120179 that he and his parents harrassed her for demanding additional dowry and used to harrass her she is not having children. She gave a report to the
Station House Officer, Veeraghattam and the same is registered and the same is pending for trial. The parents of the petitioner are no more.
It was culled out from her cross examination that she studied upto
B.Ed. Now he is not doing any job. She denied the suggestion that she is worling as a techer in Residential school of Mliyaputti village and getting
Rs.40,000/- per month as a salary. She further testifies that the respondent got married with Radha and having two children. She testifies that her marriage was held with respondent on 05-03-2005 at Sivalayam temple,
Etcherla. She came to know about the marriage of the respondent No.1 after 2 years of her marriage i.e., in the year 2007. Her marriage performed with respondent No.1 is a love marriage. No one were present on behalf of either side at the time of marriage. She did not file any receipt which was given by the said temple authorities at the time of marriage. She is not having children.
She denied the suggestion that Ex.P-1 photos are morphed by using technology. She did not give any police report against respondent No.1 after knowing his first marriage with one Radha. She further testifies that only she was pursuing Degree, respondent cheated her in the name of love and promised her to marry him. She further testifies that herself and respondent
No.1 loved each other for 3 years, thereafter in the year 2004 they got married.
She further testfies that she did not give any report against 3rd wife of
APSR10000221201710 respondent who is S.Subhasini, D/o Vijayarao from Chalivendri village. She denied the suggestion that there is no settlement deed was executed between respondent and his first wife Radha and his marriage was not yet dissolved so this petition is not maintainable.
11. In support of her contention, she examinedPW2( G.Anuradha) who is her elder sister. She deposed in tune with PW-1 in all aspects.
It was elicited in the cross examination of PW-2 is that she does not know wehther previously the respondent No.1 got married one Radha and he blessed with two children. PW-1 has no prior knowledge about the 1st marriage of respondent No.1 . She further testifies that PW-1 filed a criminal case vide CC 260/2015 against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under section 498A , 420 IPC and sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and this court acquitted the respondent No.1 . She further testifies that the respondent No.1 orally stated about the 1st marriage that he got divorced from the 1st wife. She denied the suggestion put by the counsel for respondents that the respondent No.1 never harrassed the petitioner for
additional dowry.
12. After extensive examination ofthe averments in the petition and counter and evidences of PW-1 and PW-2, it is discernable that the marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized at Etcherla temple.
PW-1 came to know about the fact of 1st marriage of respondent No.1 after
APSR10000221201711 two years of their marriage. PW-2 testifies about the same fact. Despite of lengthy cross examination nothing much elicited much truch from PW-2. PW- 1 terserly stated that the 1st wife of respondent filed cases against him and matter was settled. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the 1st wife and respondent No.1 marriage was not yet dissolved. To prove the same the respondent No.1 did not adduce any evidence to show that he lived with 1st wife. She candidly stated that he got illicit relationship with one Subhasini.
During cross examination PW-1 stated that she did not give any report against 3rd wife of respondent No.1. For a while, if the respondent No.1 claims that the petitioner is not his wife, then what prevented him to take appropriate steps against her. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is completely silent in all these years. An indian woman never unnecessary says about some unknown person is her husband. Further, there is no assertion of fact in the counter or in the evidence that the petitioner has married someone. The respondent No.1 did not move his little finger to take steps against her about allegations of marriage with the petitioner.
13.Indisputably, the respondent No.1 got married one Radha and begot two children. He also has not denied the relationship with one
Subhasini who is mentioned as 3rd wife. From the admitted evidence it is quite clear that the respondent No.1 got married the petitioner by suppressing his prior marriage and married another woman. As seen the Ex.P-1 photographs the respondent No.1 and petitioner took photographs on several
APSR10000221201712 occassions. Except mere denial there is no steps taken by the respondenta to prove that the photograpahs are fabricated. Furthermore, the contradictions in witness testimonies i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 raised by the respondent No.1 are minor and immaterial, failing to discredit the core facts of the case. The petitioner further clearly stated that till 2013 they lived happily. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 got illicit relationship with one
Subhasini and got married her. After their marriage, he neglected the petitioner. Interestingly, the respondent No.1 also not denied the claim of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 putforth his main contention is the wife cannot claim maintenance due to his existing marriage is unpersuasive. Even if he was already married, the principle states that a man cannot deny maintenance to a woman he cohabited with by relying on his own wrongful conduct, such as suppressing his prior marriage.
14.It is trite to say that the validity of the marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings under Section 20 PWDV Act is to be determined on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. Therefore, this court find no unnaturality in the evidences of PW-1 and 2 and their evidence inspires confidence. Therefore, find no reason to doubt the testimony of the petitioner that they got married in the year 2005 and she left the matrimonial home due to physical and mental harassment caused by the respondents.
15.To demolish the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.1
APSR10000221201713 himself examined as RW-1. He testifies that his marriage was performed with one Radha of Chilakalapalli village in the year 2005 and she begot 2 children through him and he along with his wife and children living in Nadukuru village happily. She has been working as Teacher in Residential school and she know the factum of his marriage with Radha and children she asked this respondent No.1 to marry her, but this respondent No.1 refused her request.
Though the respondent No.1 stated the facts of his marriage and having children but she stated him that she has been loving him since her education and after completion of her education. She presented a report to the Police,
Veeraghattam with an intention to gave threat to the family members of this respondent No.1 and then the respondent No.1 may bent his head and obey for her proposal. He never marry the petitioner at any time and the marriage is an illusory one and the family members this respondent No.1 do not know the petitioner.
16.In support of their contention they further examined RW-2 – Dusi
Sankararao and RW-3 Arinana Dileep Kumar and they deposed in same lines that the respondent No.1 never got married with the petitioner.
During cross examination of RW-1 certain probative facts asserted hereunder:- RW-1: He studied upto Intermediate. The aggrieved person studied upto MA.,. He stated that he used to go to Church and at there he has acquaintance with the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that previously the petitioner studying at Sri Chaitanya Degree college,
APSR10000221201714
Srikakulam at that time he used to meet the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that himself and petitioner got married at Sachivalayam, Etcherla on 05-03-2005. He further testifies that the petitioner is working at Social
Welfare School, Etcherla. He did not file any document to show that the petitioner is working at Social Welfare School at Etcherla.
It was culled out from the cross examinations of RW-2 and RW-3 that, they stated that initially, the respondent got married one Radha in the year 2005. They denied the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. It may be true that they don’t know about the factum of marriage between petitioner and respondent. It is an undenial fact that the respondent has relationship with one Subhasini apart from one Radha and petitioner. They further testifies that the respondent is working in the 104 services and getting
Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner is working as a Teacher at Etcherla , but they did not file any document to prove the same. They further testifies that they does not know whether the petitioner lodged a complaint before police against the respondent.
17.A conjoint reading of evidences of RW1 to RW-3 it appears that
RW-2 and RW-3 are relatives of RW-1/respondent. RW-2 and RW-3 have little knowledge about the marital affairs between petitioner and respondent
No.1 . It pertitnent to mention here that at the stage of interim maintenance application vide Crl.M.P. 2949/2018 this court dismissed the application on
APSR10000221201715 the ground that the 2nd wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The petitioner contended that she came to know about the 1st marriage of the respondent
No.1 after two years of marriage with the respondent No.1, but the respondent No.1 raised a contention that the the petitioner already knew the fact about 1st marriage. Basing on their respective contentions this court dismissed the appliation filed by the petitioner that she failed to prove that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 . To prove their marriage and relationship petitioner exhibited photographs (Ex.P-1) which clearly shows that there is marital relationship between the petitoiner and respondent and they lived together. It is needless to say that strict proof of marriage is not required in maintenance applications. Another admitted fact by the respondent during his cross examination is that the 1st wife received divorce from him and living separately. All these facts bespeak that the petitioner has established that she was neglected by the respondent and suppress the fact of 1st marriage. It is needless to say that as provisions of section 3 of PWDV Act, it need not require that there must be a strict proof of cruelty for causing domestic violence.
18. Incidentally be noted that there is no domestic incident filed by the petitioner at the time of filing this application before this court. As per
Section 12, an aggrieved person on her own or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the court seeking one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act but the proviso states that when a Domestic
APSR10000221201716
Incident Reported is received by the Magistrate from the Protection Officer or the service provider, in such a case, the same shall be taken into consideration.The court therefore considered in the absence of a Domestic
Incident Report, the Magistrate can pass any order under the D.V. Act. I am fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi v.
Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90, wherein held that Para No.73Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a domestic incident report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the
DV Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a domestic incident report, a
Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex-parte or interim as well as a final order
under the provisions of the DV Act.
19.Hacking back to the present case, the respondents defences, including the lack of documentary proof of marriage and Respondent No.1 existing marriage, were found to be insufficient to negate the petitoner’s claim. Mere denial of relationship between them by the respondent No.1 is not accepted. If the respondent No.1 is living with his 1st wife and children, he should file any indubitable document before the court to show that the 1st marriage is still subsisting. The respondent No.1 also not denied his 3rd marriage with another woman. The husband’s conduct in suppressing his first marriage and cohabiting with the wife warranted maintenance under the established legal principles.
APSR10000221201717
20.It is trite in law that the object of maintenance proceedings under
PWDV Act is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prvent vagrancy and destituion of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing sand shelter by a speedy remedy. It is moral and social obligation on the part of the respondent to maintain his wife. On considering the entire evidences adduced by the petitioner and respondent, this court holds that after the respondent No.1 and petitioner were residing separately and respondent
No.1 deserted the aggrieved person/ petitioner without any reasonable cause and neglected to maintain her. Thus, the point is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioner.
21. POINT No.(ii): Whether the petitioner/aggrieved person is entitled for maintenance as prayed for?
In view of the discussion made in the Point No.(i), the petitioner was neglected by the respondent No.1 aggrieved person without any reasonable cause and the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent No.1. With regard to quantum of maintenance, the petitioner contended that the respondent No.1 is a lab technician in 104 -Ambulance services and getting Rs.25,000/- per month and he is having two slabbed houses and doing interest business and getting Rs.50,000/- per month. Per contra, the respondent No.1 vehemantly contended that truly he is working 104 ambulance services, but not getting that much of salary alleged by the
APSR10000221201718 petitioner. The respondent No.1 strenously contended that the petitioner is working as a Teacher in Social Welfare School, Etcherla and getting
Rs.40,000/- per month, but he did not file any indubitable document to show that the petitiioner is getting sufficient income. Indisputably, the respondent is working as an employee in 104 services. RW-2 and Rw-3 testifies that the respondent No.1 is getting Rs.5000/- to 6000/- per month. The respondent
No.1 is failed to produce his salary certificate to prove his contention that he is getting very meagre salary.
To upshot this point, it is relevant to refer the landmark judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in RAJNESH VS NEHA (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein their
lordships held that "There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. The factors which would weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependant children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife.
It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the Orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made
before the concerned Court. The right to claim maintenance must date back to
the date on which the application was made before the concerned Court. The
APSR10000221201719 right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant."
The above conspectus authority referred above apply to the present case at hand and considering the assets and liabilities affidavits filed by the both parties, that the petitioner has vehemantly contended that the respondent No.1 is getting decent salary, but the petitioner not placed material to show that the respondent No.1 getting Rs.25,000/- per month. It is axiomatic fact that now a days the lab technician in government services getting very decent salary. As per section 20 of PWDV Act was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance against the respondent No.1 as prayed for.
22.It is trite in law that an aggrieved person can institute a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, in addition to proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the courts, while deciding quantum of maintenance have to take into account the maintenance being awarded to 12 of 13 the aggrieved person underother provisions of law, be it under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pertinent to mention here that this court granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner
APSR10000221201720 herein in MC 13/2018. Considering the said fact and in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, bearing these facts in mind, this court feels awarding Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner as monthly allowance would meet the ends of justice and the petitioner is also entitled to get maintenance from the date of filing of this petition.
23.So far as returning of 4,00,000/- cash and Rs.22,000/- towards₹ lanchanams and 3 tulas gold given to 1st respondent is concerned, the evidence in deposition by aggrieved person/petitioner has no documentary proof showing that her parents had given an amount of 4,00,000/- towards₹ dowry and Rs.22,000/- towards lanchanams and 3 tulas gold to the 1st respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. This point is answered accordingly.
24. In view of my findings on point No.(i) and (ii) , this court proceed to pass the following:-
::ORDER::
The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 12 of PWDV Act is hereby partly allowedwith the following directions:- i. The respondents No.1 to 5 are prohibited from making any kind of physical or verbal or mental violence towards petitioner.
ii.The respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month to the aggrieved person/petitioner from the date of this petition. The respondent No.1 is
APSR10000221201721 ordered to pay regular monthly maintenance on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.
iii. The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of
Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.
25.The domestic violence case as regards the other reliefs against the respondents stands dismissed. In the result, the petition is disposed off.
26.The office is directed to mark a copy of the order to the Protection
Officer, Station House Officer concerned and also to serve this copy to the parties free of cost as per section 24 of the Act.
Typed by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2025.
Digitally AGGALA signed by
VIJAY RAJAGGALA
KUMARVIJAY RAJ
KUMAR Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner
P.W.1 : :Gongada (Ampili) Suneetha P.W.2::G.Anuradha PW-3: B.Pushpanadham (eschewed )
For Respondents :
R.W.1::Gongada Chiranjeevi R.W.2::D.Sankara Rao R.W.3::A.Dileep Kumar
APSR10000221201722
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
For Petitioner:
Ex.P-1 : Photographs along with corresponding CD
For Respondents :Nil.
Digitally AGGALA signed by
VIJAY RAJAGGALA
KUMARVIJAY RAJ
KUMAR Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakonda