Smt. Bharathi Erra

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE (PCR), ADILABAD.

Present : Smt. Bharathi Erra, Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mobile (PCR),

Adilabad.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of April, 2017

D.V.C.No.02 of 2011

Between :

Kakne Shobha, W/o. K. Laxmikanth, Age : 30 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No.14-101 Plot No.120, Opp: Water Tank Kailashnagar, Adilabad.

.... Petitioner

// And //

Kakne Laxmikanth, S/o. Waman Rao, Age : 39 years, Occ : Private teacher, R/o. H.No.14-101, Plot No.120, Opp : Water Tank, Kailashnagar, Adilabad. …. Respondent

This petition coming on 26.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Subhash Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri Naresh Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. The petition is filed by the Petitioner Under Section 12 of the

Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2.The case of the petitioner as stated in the petition, in brief, is as follows:-The Petitioner/Kakne Shoba is the legally wedded wife of the

Respondent/Kakne Laxmikanth and their marriage was performed on 07.05.1998 at Adilabad as per the caste, customs of their community.

After the marriage, both Petitioner and Respondent lived happily for 8 months only. After that, father of the Respondent died with heart attack.

2

Thereafter, Respondent and his family members started harassing the

Petitioner by stating that she has Nasta Jathakam. Further, Respondent used to suspect her fidelity and used to beat her which is led her to file criminal cases against him/Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent himself withdrawn the company of petitioner from January, 1999 to till date. Respondent also filed divorce petition in Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s

Court of Nanded and the same was dismissed and appeal also was dismissed. Presently, the divorce petition in the court of Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge, Adilabad is pending.

From January, 1999 to till date the Respondent has not provided any monthly maintenance to the petitioner as such she filed original suit in the court of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad and it is also pending.

Further, Respondent is threatening the Petitioner that he would perform second marriage and used to threaten her to dispossess from the matrimonial house.

On 21.01.2007 mother of Respondent executed agreement of sale to sell the shared household for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs only). Further, Respondent tried to dispossess the Petitioner forcefully by engaging one Narendhar Constable and one Swadesh and by offering an amount of Two Lakhs to the Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner filed this petition and prayed for following reliefs.

i) To pass Protection Orders under section 18 of Domestic Violence Act, ii) Pass Residence Orders under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act, iii) Direct the Respondent to pay monitory relief under section 20 of

Domestic Violence Act, and for compensation.

iv) To grant maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) per month to the Petitioner.

3

3.The Respondent filed his counter by denying all the allegations leveled against him. However, Respondent admitted the relationship with the Petitioner. The respondent in his counter submitted that the petitioner filed several cases against him and his family members to harass them and petitioner is residing forcefully in the mother's house of respondent and she is a Private Teacher and able to maintain herself and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4.During the course of enquiry on behalf of the Petitioner PW1 to PW3 examined and Marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The Respondent himself examined as RW1 and exhibited Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the points for determination are:-

i) Whether, Petitioner is entitled for the Protection Orders under Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act?

ii) Whether, Petitioner is entitled for the residence orders under section 19 of Domestic Violence Act?

iii) Whether Petitioner is subjected to violence? And Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation and other monetary reliefs?

iv) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees

Eight Thousand only) per month from the Respondent as prayed for?

7.POINT NO.1

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, Ex.P10, Ex.P11 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, Ex.R6 to Ex.R12 are copies of Judgments and orders of various Hon'ble Courts pertaining to the litigation mainly between Petitioner and Respondent. Ex.R5 is Police

Protection application by RW1. As per the record and on perusal of 4 documents exhibited by both parties, this court observed that there were lot of disputes and cases between two parties since 2001.

Coming to the present case, in petition, the petitioner has not mentioned any act of Respondent which comes under the purview of definition of Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, in view of this court, there is no necessity to pass Protection Order, in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this point is answered against petitioner.

8. Point No.2 :

As per the record, PW1 is living in a portion of house of mother of

Respondent.

Moreover, as per Ex.P6/Certificate of Grampanchayath and Pahani and Faisal Patti/Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 the house belongs to father in-law of

Petitioner and subsequently the same was mutated in the name of mother in-law of Petitioner. Further, gift settlement deed/Ex.P4 shows that mother in-law of petitioner is the exclusive owner of the house bearing No.14-101,

Kailash Nagar, Dasnapur, Adilabad. On the other hand, Petitioner has not brought any document to show that it is the ancestral or joint property of

Respondent. Therefore, this court opines that Petitioner has failed to prove that her mother in-law is not the exclusive owner of the house bearing

No.14-101 situated at Kailash Nagar, Dasnapur, Adilabad.

In addition to it, it is settled law that exclusive property of mother in- law of petitioner cannot be called as a shared house hold under the

Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, this court opines that Petitioner is not entitled for residence order for the house bearing No.14-101, Kailash

Nagar, Dasnapur, Adilabad.

Accordingly, this point is answered against petitioner.

5

9. Point No.3 :

Petitioner stated that Respondent harassed her. However, she did notproveitbyexamininganyotherwitnesses.

PW2/B.V.S.Harikrishnaprasad and PW3/Ravi Kumar did not state any harassment of Respondent towards Petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, PW1 did not prove the harassment made by Respondent.

Therefore, she is not entitled for compensation. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any compensation and any other monitory reliefs to PW1.

Accordingly, this point is answered against Petitioner.

10. Point No.4 :

PW1/Kanke Shoba has not filed any documentary evidence to show that Respondent is working as a Teacher. Further, during cross examination, PW2 and PW3 admitted that presently Respondent is not working and previously, he was terminated for his irregular attendance.

PW2 who is Principal of School where Respondent used to work as Teacher admitted that due to court cases, Respondent was removed from services as he was not attending duties properly. Therefore, from the evidence of

PW2, PW3 and RW1, this court believes that RW1 was removed from the service due to the irregular attendance. Further, Petitioner has not adduced any other evidence to show that at present respondent is working somewhere. Hence, Petitioner has failed to prove the income source of

Respondent.

In addition to it, as per the orders of Hon'ble Judge Family Court, in

A.S.No.3/2015 dated 29.08.2016 vide Ex.R11, Petitioner was awarded

Rs.1500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per month from

Respondent. Therefore, being un-employee Respondent is not in a 6 capacity to pay more than Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) per month to the Petitioner. Further, as per the record PW1 was worked as a Teacher. Therefore, she is a skilled person and is able to maintain herself. Therefore, this court is not inclined to award any maintenance from Respondent in the present petition.

Accordingly, this point is answered against Petitioner.

11.In the Result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

PW-1 : Kakne Shobha RW1. Kakne Laxmikanth PW-2 : B.V.S Harikrishnaprasad PW-3 : Ravi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1 : Certified Copy of Judgment of II Adhoc Addl. Judge, Nanded dated 07.02.2005 Ex.P2 : Certified Copy of Judgment of Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Adilabad dated 03.12.2012

Ex.P3 : Certified Copy of Decree of Ex.P2 Ex.P4 : Certified Copy of Gift Settlement deed No.368/2007, dated 29.01.2007 Ex.P5 : Certified Copy of Attachment before Judgment Order of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad in

O.S.No.136/2006, dated 27.04.2006

Ex.P6 : Certified Copy of certificate issued by Executive Officer, Grampanchayath Mavala Ex.P7 : Certified Copy of Residence issued by Executive Officer, G.P. Mavala Ex.P8 : Pahani Pathrak of Dasnapur for the year 1976-77 pertaining to Survey No.21/1 Ex.P9 : Faisal Patti of Dasnapur for the year 1978-79 7

Ex.P10 : Certified copy of Judgment of JFCM, Adilabad

Dated 03.11.2006 in C.C.No.438/2005

Ex.P11 : Certified Copy of Judgment in Cr. Appeal No.18/2007

Dated 13.06.2007

For Respondent :

Ex.R1 : Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.85/2002

dated 02.04.2002

Ex.R2 : Certified copy of Court Order in Crl.M.P.No.165/2006 in C.C.No.447/2005, dated 15.05.2003 Ex.R3 : Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.447/2005 Ex.R4 : Certified copy of Order in M.C.No.4/2005

dated 08.09.2005

Ex.R5 : Application for Protection, dated 16.11.2006 Ex.R6 : Certified copy of Order in Crl.M.P.No.150/2007 in D.M.C.No.4/2007 dated 28.02.2007 Ex.R7 : Certified copy of Order in Crl.A.No.31/2007,

dated 28.01.2008

Ex.R8 : Certified copy of Judgment in OS No.47/2007,

dated 18.03.2014

Ex.R9 : Certified copy of Judgment in OS No.136/2006,

dated 09.06.2014

Ex.R10: Certified copy of Judgment in AS No.20/2014,

dated 13.04.2016

Ex.R11: Certified copy of Judgment in AS No.3/2015,

dated 29.08.2016

Ex.R12: Order copy in Crl. Revision Case No.314/2008,

dated 02.12.2014

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/189/20171 / 1

TSAD040009612016

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -

cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge:

Present: Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, 25-04-2017

CC/189/2017

Between:

Jaitunbee PS. Tamsi Address: 60yrs, Coolie, Khursheednagar, Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Nara Ashok Address: 22 yrs, Auto Driver, Lingi vig. of Talamadugu mandal.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : ,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Accused present. He id examined under section 251 Cr.P.c.

wherein accused pleaded guilty for the offence punishable under

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/189/20171 / 1 sections 337,338 IPC and Section 196 of Motor vehicle, The admission of the accused is found to be made vouluntary. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under sections 337,338 IPC and Section 196 of Motor Vehicle.

Accordingly, he is convicted under section 252 of Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 337 IPC. Further, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under section 196 of M.V. Act. in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple impriosnment for a period of (15) days. Total fine is Rs.2,500/- (rupees Two Thousand

Five Hundred only).

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 25-04-2017

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/447/20151 / 1

TSAD040007972015

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -

cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge:

Present: Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, 25-04-2017

CC/447/2015

Between:

Shiram City Union FInance limited, Adilabad. Address: Shiram City Union Finance limited, Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

MD. Kaleem Address: RO. H.NO. 2-2-156-2, Khanapur locality, Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : K. Ajay Kumar,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Complainant called absent. No representation matter is pass over again called complainant did not turn up. Not represented till

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/447/20151 / 1 5.30 pm, Complainant not evinced any interest to proceed the case inspite of giving several adjournments and sufficient time, hence complaint is dismissed for default.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 25-04-2017

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/173/20151 / 1

TSAD040003432015

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -

cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge:

Present: Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, 25-04-2017

CC/173/2015

Between:

Shiram City Union Finance limited Address: Shiram City Union Finance limited, Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner AND

Madhu Nalmath Address: RO. H.NO. 1-2-13-27, Shanthinagar, Adilabad.

… Defendent/Respondent

Counsel for Petitioner : Sr. Asst. Public Prosecution,Advocate

Counsel for Respondent : ,Advocate

This (case type) having come before me for hearing today, having heard and considered the record, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

Complainant called absent. No representation matter is pass over again called complainant did not turn up. Not represented till

Dt: 25-04-2017

CC/173/20151 / 1 4.30 pm, Complainant not evinced any interest to proceed the case inspite of giving several adjournments and sufficient time, hence complaint is dismissed for default.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 25-04-2017

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR) -cum- I Addl. Junior Civil Judge (Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS)

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE (PCR) ADILABAD

PRESENT: SMT. BHARATHI ERRA,

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class Mobile (PCR), Adilabad

Tuesday this the 25 th day of April, 2017

CC.No. 101 of 2016

Between:

The State of AP through Sub-Inspector of Police WPS Adilabad … Complainant.

//And//

A1. Bushetty Raju, S/o. Ramdas, Age: 29 yrs, Caste: Perka, Occ: Spinning mill work, R/o. Hanumannagar/Pittalwada, Adilabad.

..... Accused.

DOCKET-ORDER (Dated: 25.04.2017)

NBW pending against the accused. Police filed report stating that accused A1 ws died on02.09.2016. Perused the report. Case against A1 is abated.

Written and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of April, 2017.

Spl. JFCM Mobile (PCR), Adilabad.