DVC.No.27/2015 1 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
PRESENT: CH.V.RAMAKRISHNA
V Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram FAC VIAddl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram Thursday, the 26th day of December, 2019
D.V.C.No.27/2015
BETWEEN: Pediredla Jyothi W/o. Raja Shekar, Hindu, A/25 years, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Rajahmundry.
...AGGRIEVED PERSON
AND R1. Pediredla Raja Shekar S/o. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, aged 44 years, D.No.5972, P & T colony, Rajahmundry. R2. Pediredla Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, aged 80 years,D.No.5972, P & T colony, Rajahmundry. R3. Pediredla Nooka Ratnam W/o. Narasimha Murthy, Hindu, aged 70 years, D.No.5972, P & T colony, Rajahmundry.
...RESPONDENTS
This case came up before me on 05.12.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.B. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for Aggrieved Person and Sri P. Nanda Kishore, Advocate for respondents and upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:
//O R D E R//
This application is filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women
From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondents, with a prayer to (a) direct the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/ towards maintenance for the petitioner; (b) direct the respondent to vacate a portion in the petition schedule property and to handover the same to the petitioner as shared accommodation for her to live in the said portion or to secure same level of accommodation for the petitioner or to pay rent @
Rs.15,000/ per month; and (c) for costs of the petition and for any other reliefs which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
2.In the petition, the averments, in brief, of the petitioner/aggrieved person are that she is wife of first respondent. Second and third respondents are father and mother of first respondent respectively and they are related to her even prior to marriage and, in fact, they are her grandparents. On 06.03.1996, her marriage was performed with the first respondent and it was an arranged one. For the marriage, her parents paid Rs.5,00,000/ in all towards dowry i.e., Rs.2,00,000/ one week prior to marriage and
Rs.3,00,000/ in the year 2011 apart from 15 tulas gold, half kilo silver in the form of plate and tumbler and lanchanams. Since inception, the second and third respondents have targetted her by various means of harassment and
DVC.No.27/2015 2 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY they did not even send her to lead marital life with the first respondent wherever he was employed. Moreover, they used her as servantmaid. Even during pregnancy, they did not spare her from the household services. They also severed her relationship with her parents by threatening her that if she goes to them for delivery, they would not allow her to join them again. When her parents requested the respondents, all of them were reluctant to send her with them to their house. She was blessed with a female child and the respondents have arranged a function to which all other relatives were invited, except her parents and brother, purposefully to harass her and her parents.
They did not treat her brother and her parents as human beings. There is no reason for the second and third respondents to scold and beat her severely.
Sometimes when she tried to talk to her parents over phone, on noticing the same, the second and third respondents beat her indiscriminately and even they complained to the first respondent against her and asked him to beat her time and again. They did not allow her to go to the marriage of her brother.
When her parents and herself touched the feet of the respondents, they have permitted to send her with a condition that she has to stay for one hour. The first respondent beat her twice. They have threatened her and her relatives that they can file false case against her and her brother and can even try to pull out her brother from his employment. This attitude of the respondents shows their mental and physical harassment and the aversion towards her even after completion of 18 years of marital life. The second and third respondents did not allow her to reside with the first respondent wherever he resides and doing job. The first respondent had bluntly refused to take her with him and to have marital life with her at the place of his employment.
When she questioned the same through her parents and elders, the respondents have scolded them. All the respondents are habituated to quarrel with, shout at, and abuse her in filthy language that her parents did not pay any amount as demanded by them and used to beat her not less than twice in a week until she was driven out from their house. She bore all the harassment with a fond hope that they will change their attitude after birth of children, but her hopes turned futile. All of them separated her from the children by poisoning their minds. The children became headache to her and their behaviour became desperate and ultimately they turned out to hear the evil advices of the respondents spoiling the homely atmosphere. The respondents have encouraged the children even to beat her. On 06.04.2014, on her birthday, all the respondents together beat her for no reason. On noticing the
DVC.No.27/2015 3 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY same, her neighbours have tried to give a complaint to the police, but for the threats of the respondents they kept quiet. On 28.07.2014, all the respondents drove her out of their house with wearing apparel after pressing her neck and beating her indiscriminately. Then she called her brother and went to her parents house and since then she is residing with them. When the matter was placed before the elders, on 24.08.2014, the respondents have admitted their guilt and undertook to resolve all the disputes including financial disputes and executed a letter dt.24.08.2014. The elders are Lanka
Veerabhadra Rao, L.A.Patrudu, Lanka Appa Rao and P.Srinivas.
Subsequently, the first respondent implicated the petitioner and her brother in
Crime No.564/2014 for the offence under sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
In fact, all the respondents colluded and cooked up a false story of entrustment of Rs.74,000/ and fabricated documents. It shows their cruel behaviour and sadist mentality against her. In fact, for the balance amount of dowry, the respondents have issued a notice dt.17.09.2010 through their advocate as if her brother indebted to the second respondent. As a matter of fact, all the respondents have together obtained empty promissory note from her brother as security for the balance of dowry amount and in the year 2010, they have pressed into service a notice. To the said notice, a reply dt.25.09.2010 was given. Subsequently, the balance amount was paid to maintain harmony in view of marital relations. The first respondent did not look after the welfare of herself and the children though she is living in inlaws house. The first respondent is working at a place other than Rajahmundry and he used to suspect her fidelity. In that regard, the first respondent tried to kill her twice by offering cool drink mixed with pesticide and also by pouring kerosene on her and lit fire. On both occasions, due to the timely intervention of neighbours, she was saved. As she could not bear their torture, she requested the first respondent to take her with him to reside or to put her separately in Rajahmundry. As the first respondent failed to act to her request, she took her parents and living with them separately. Therefore, the first respondent in collusion with second and third respondents hatched up a plan and cooked up a false story that he deposited his documents and cheque and that the petitioner has obtained some amount from them and got filed a false case against her and her brother as if she was entrusted with
Rs.74,000/ and his house documents and other N.S.C bonds. The second respondent, with a fraudulent intention, obtained three empty promissory notes from her father as security for the dowry due to them and those
DVC.No.27/2015 4 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY promissory notes were pressed into service by issuing a legal notice dt.17.09.2010 as if her father borrowed amount. However, the petitioner’s father issued a reply notice dt.25.09.2010 with true and correct facts in respect of the said promissory notes. It shows the sadist and cruel mentality of the respondents towards her, her parents and her brother. The first respondent is an Engineer and is earning more than Rs.12,00,000/ to 15,00,000/ per annum from his employment and also doing real estate and finance businesses. All the respondents bluntly drove her out of the house retaining the children with them to harass her and the children. They also wanted to spoil their life. The respondents own the schedule property and other properties and in order to play fraud on her they are trying to sell away the same. The children are having a share in such property. She has no source of income. Herself and the children are entitled to lead life equally with the social status being enjoyed by the first respondent. Hence, this petition.
3.The respondents have filed counter denying all the averments made in the petition, however, admitting the marriage and birth of children. It is submitted that their son met with head injury and so he stopped his education. It is stated that the daughter and son of the petitioner and the first respondent are residing with second and third respondents. The respondents are taking care of the children with utmost love and affection. The elder sister of the petitioner got married with the elder brother of the first respondent. The first respondent married the petitioner out of love and affection. The father of the petitioner is a cycle mechanic and her mother is a house wife and knowing fully well her family status, the first respondent married her. The first respondent did M.Tech and worked as software Engineer at Hyderabad. After marriage, the first respondent imparted tuitions for some period, maintained a medical shop for two and half years and later shifted to software field. Under different intervals, the first respondent worked at Secunderabad, Bangalore,
Netherland and Hyderabad. Due to the work load and considering the welfare of children, the first respondent, petitioner and the children resided at
Rajahmundry upto 30.04.2009 in a separate portion in the house of his father.
Later, at the instance of the petitioner and her parents, a rented house was taken. Taking advantage of the same, the parents of the petitioner became parasites. Being unable to bear the maintenance and harassment of the parents of the petitioner, 2½ years later, the first respondent sent the parents of the petitioner out of the house. The first respondent used to visit the marital home every weekend and used to look after the entire household needs
DVC.No.27/2015 5 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY and welfare of the petitioner and the children. The first respondent with his hard earned money purchased a site to an extent of 240 sq. yards in S.B.
Ventures in the name of the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed while he was working at Bangalore. For purchase of the said site, the first respondent had sent the amount from his bank account to the account of the brother of the petitioner by name Ponathala Srinivasu. While living in the house bearing D.No.60910/3, P & T Colony, Rajahmundry, the petitioner developed friendship with one Gajula Durga, W/o. Nagendra Kumar and one
Uggumudi Anitha Kumari of Rajahmundry. While so, the first respondent received a phone call from Bank of Baroda that his cheque bearing No.000015 dt.09.08.2014 for Rs.3,00,000/ in the name of Nagulakonda Kamala was dishonoured for the reasons 'funds insufficient' and 'signature not tallying'.
The first respondent got the matter enquired through the second respondent and also through email. The first respondent, who kept valuable property documents and cheques in the steel almyrah of his marital home, enquired with the petitioner about issuance of cheque and on verification of the steel almyrah, he found missing of the cheque, property documents with registration dt.05.11.2014 and 02.09.2010, post office national savings certificates which stand in the name of the first respondent, gold ornaments and cash of Rs.74,000/ that was reserved for paying the college fee of his daughter. The said valuables were entrusted to the petitioner out of trust and in view of his marital relationship with her. The petitioner with a mala fide intention misused the said property for her own luxurious and caused loss to the first respondent. The petitioner confessed about the offence committed by her with regard to the first respondent’s property in the presence of one
Chodisetty Satyavani and other elders of both families. The petitioner also admitted that with the connivance of Uggumudi Anitha Kumari and Gajula
Durga and, without the consent and knowledge of the first respondent, she has pledged the gold ornaments of the first respondent and also the property documents, misused the amount and committed theft of originals and used the same for her whims and fancies. The petitioner admitted that the cheque was also committed theft by her and with the help of one Kamala she tried to extract money. The petitioner, with a mala fide intention cheated the first respondent, extracted property, gold and money from him and caused loss of property and reputation to him in the society. The petitioner left the marital home leaving the children and the first respondent to their fate. The petitioner and her family members made a threat to the first respondent that they will
DVC.No.27/2015 6 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY implicate him and his family members in false criminal cases. The petitioner and her family members, taking advantage of her relationship with Anitha
Kumari and G.Durga, were making life threat to the first respondent and his parents. The second and third respondents have in no way interfered with the marital life of the first respondent and the petitioner at any point of time. The first respondent lodged a report with III town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram in Cr.No.564/2014 under sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC against the petitioner and her men for the offence committed by them. The said case was numbered as C.C.No.104/2015 on the file of III A.J.F.C. Magistrate Court,
Rajamahendravaram against the petitioner, Panathala Srinivasu, Gajula
Durga, Vuggumudi Anitha Kumari, Nagulakonda Kamala and the same is pending. The petitioner with a view to harass and dictate terms got foisted a false case in Cr.No.85/2014 against the respondents for the offence under sections 323 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act on the file of Women Police Station and the same was numbered as C.C.No.44/2015 on the file of V A.J.F.C. Magistrate Court,
Rajamahendravaram and the same is pending. The first respondent is defending the said case. The first respondent gave a paper publication on 05.11.2014 in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, East Godavari District
Edition, Rajamahendravaram, giving public notice about missing of cash, gold, documents and national savings certificates, and also about registration of
Cr.No.564/2014 on the file of III Town L & O P.S. Rajamahendravaram, in that regard. After publication of the same, the petitioner created a sham and collusive document dt.19.11.2014 in the name of Bheemavarapu Arjunudu pertaining to the case property covered under registered sale deed dt.02.09.2010. The petitioner is having sufficient means and income to lead her freelance life. The petitioner deserted the first respondent and the children. The second respondent worked as Assistant Superintendent of Post
Offices and retired on 28.02.2002 from service and the third respondent is a house wife and they are suffering from old age ailments and are taking treatment. The first respondent is taking care of the children as well as his parents. No dowry much less Rs.5,00,000/ as alleged is paid. The allegation of giving dowry, lanchanams, gold silver and household articles is not true and correct. All the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents are denied specifically. At present the first respondent is not doing any job and not earning any salary. The first respondent is not possessing any immovable properties or fixed assets. The first respondent is not getting any rents as
DVC.No.27/2015 7 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of the entire booty that was extracted from the property and belonging to the first respondent. It is the subject matter of Cr.No.564/2014 of II town P.S. Rajahmundry. The first respondent need not pay any amount to the petitioner. The petitioner's mala fide intention is clear and she is not entitled for any relief.
4.Now the points that arise for consideration are
(a) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/ towards maintenance to her?
(b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to the respondent to vacate a portion in the petition schedule property and to handover the same to her as shared accommodation for her to live in the said portion or for a direction to the respondent to secure the same level of accommodation for the petitioner or for a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.15,000/ per month for that purpose.
(c) whether the petitioner is entitled for costs of the petition or for any other relief?
5.In support of her case, the petitioner/aggrieved person got examined herself as PW1, her brother Panathala Srinivas as PW2 and one Manchini
Ammaji as PW3 and got marked Ex.P1. In support of their case, the respondents have got examined the first respondent as RW1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R5.
6.Heard both sides and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for both sides have submitted arguments drawing the attention of this court to their respective pleadings and evidence.
7.The petitioner, as PW1, in her chiefexamination, deposed the relationships between parties and that she is presently residing at
Rajahmundry and that her marriage was performed with the first respondent on 06.03.1996 as arranged by the elders. She stated that, prior to marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.2,00,000/ to the second and third respondents and they gave the remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/ in installments after marriage. Her parents presented 15 sovereigns gold to her and her husband apart from half KG silver. They also gave Rs.12,000/ towards cot and
Rs.10,000/ towards adapadachu katnam to her inlaws. After marriage, her husband took her to the house of her parentsinlaw. Later, her husband went to Hyderabad leaving her in the house of inlaws. He used to come to her inlaws house for every 3 or 4 months as per his wish. Her parentsinlaw treated her as a maid servant. In the mean time, she conceived and at that time also they have treated her as maid servant. They did not allow her
DVC.No.27/2015 8 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY parents into their house to see her and whenever they visited, all the respondents beat her. She waited there with a fond hope that there will be change in their attitude after birth of children. Later, she gave birth to a male child and a female child. There is no change in the attitude of the respondents even after birth of children. They used to abuse and beat her stating that the dowry given by her parents is not sufficient for them. The relatives of respondents observed their attitude whenever they visited their house and questioned them. The respondents also told their relatives that the dowry given by her parents is not sufficient for them. Her husband beat her mother two times. Her husband did not take her out from the house at any time after marriage including any functions. The marriage of her brother was settled and on that her parents asked her husband to attend for the marriage. But her husband told that her parents and all their relatives shall prostrate on the legs of her husband to attend the marriage. On that all her relatives came to her husband and requested him to attend the marriage. However, her husband took her to the marriage of her brother and allowed her to stay there only for one hour and took her back even without eating meals. The elders asked her husband several times to take her to his work place, but in vain. The names of such elders are Lanka Pathrudu, Pediredla Srinivas and Lanka Apparao. In the presence of said elders, her husband gave written undertaking dated 24.08.2014 accepting that he will take her to his work place. The original undertaking letter is kept with the elder by name Pediredla Srinivas. But her husband did not take her to his work place. On one occasion, the respondents have poured kerosene on her and tried to kill her. By that time, the neighbours came there and questioned the attitude of the respondents. On another occasion, the respondents have mixed poison in the drink and tried to make her consume the same by force and at that time the relatives of respondents came there and observed the same. They also questioned the attitude of the respondents in that regard. On that a separate house was established for them in which her parents also joined with them. Her husband used to visit now and then. But, there is no change in his attitude and he used to suspect her fidelity. On 06.04.2014, the respondents beat her. On that the neighbours came there and questioned them. They have told them that it is their family matter and threatened them to give false report against them. On that the neighbours went away. Later, the respondents have abused and beat her stating that they have lost their prestige among the neighbours. Further, the respondents have obtained the signature of her elder
DVC.No.27/2015 9 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY brother on a promissory note as security for the dowry amount. Without returning the said promissory note even after paying the dowry amount also, her fatherinlaw got issued a legal notice to him through his Advocate by name Nanda Kishore. She has filed the said legal notice before this Court. On 27.07.2014, the respondents have beat her and asked her to go out of the house. Then she had contacted her brother and tried to beat her brother also after his arrival. Then her parents took her to her parents house. The matter was placed before the elders on 24.08.2014. In the presence of elders, the respondents have agreed to take her back and also gave written undertaking.
But, they did not take her back and filed a false case against her and her brother. She gave notice to her husband before filing the present case. Ex.P1 is office copy of legal notice dt.30.10.2014. Her husband got issued a reply with false allegations. Her husband is working as a software engineer and also doing finance business and earning Rs.1,50,000/ per month. He had two house plots and his father owns a house. Hence, she prays for grant of maintenance @ Rs.25,000/ per month, residence order for her to stay in the house of the respondents and for protection order.
8.In crossexamination, PW1 stated that her marriage was settled through elders and admitted that during wedlock they were blessed with a female child by name Madhuri in the year 1997 and a male child by name Sridhar in the year 1998 and at present the children are in the custody of her husband. She admitted that their daughter is studying 3rd year Engineering and son is studying first year Intermediate. She stated that her son used to behave more aggressively. She admitted that the second respondent is a retired employee and the third respondent is a house wife. She denied the suggestion that they are suffering from ill health. She stated that her father earlier maintained a cycle shop but now he is working as a cycle mechanic by the side of road as he sustained loss. She discontinued her senior intermediate and she has no income source personally. She admitted that after marriage, her husband did job for some time at Hyderabad and for some time at Bangalore. She admitted that her husband lodged a report in III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, against her, her brother/PW2, Gajula Durga, V.Anita Kumari and N.Kamala in
Cr.No.564/2014 for the offence under sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
She denied the suggestion that she has misused the documents of her husband such as National Saving Certificates, gold and so he gave report to the police. She admitted that police have filed charge sheet in that case and the same is pending trial. She denied the suggestion that she had purchased
DVC.No.27/2015 10 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY property which was registered in her name on 02.09.2010 vide Doc.No.2853/ 2010 with the funds transferred by her husband from his account to the account of her brother/PW2. She admitted that she has sold away the said property after filing case by her husband and that he gave paper publication stating that she has been misusing his documents. She has sold away the said property for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/ in favour of one Arjun Rao.
She did not mention the said fact in her petition. She denied the suggestion that herself, Anita Kumari, Kamala and Durga are close friends to each other.
She added that they used to reside in the opposite side of her house. She admitted that she has filed this case and a case under section 498A of IPC against the respondents after her husband gave report in III Town Police
Station, Rajahmundry, against them. She admitted that her husband is staying at Rajahmundry in the house of his parents at present. She admitted that the said house belongs to the second respondent. Herself, her parents, the first respondent and his parents never resided together in one house. She admitted that herself, her parents and the first respondent resided together in one house for a period of one and half year. PW1 again stated that her father never stayed with them. She admitted that during the said period the first respondent was doing job and he used to come to the house during holidays only. She denied the suggestion that her parents never give the alleged dowry of Rs.2,00,000/ or the alleged remaining dowry amount of Rs.3,00,000/ in installments and that her parents have no capacity to give such amounts and that the respondents have never harassed her in any manner and that she was never treated as servant maid. She denied the suggestion that she grabbed the gold and documents of her husband and misused the same due to her friendship with bad friends and that the respondents never poured kerosene on her and never tried to make her consume any pesticide and that she has invented the same for the purpose of this case. She did not give any report to the police on any of the above alleged occasions. She does not know whether her husband is doing any job at present or not. She denied the suggestion that she is not entitled to get residence orders as the said house exclusively belongs to second respondent.
9.PW2, in his chiefexamination, deposed that the marriage of PW1 was performed with the first respondent on 06.03.1996 at Rajamahendravaram.
One week prior to marriage, his parents gave Rs.2,00,000/ to the second respondent at Korukonda in their house out of agreed dowry of Rs.5,00,000/.
On the same day, they gave 15 sovereigns gold to the second respondent and
DVC.No.27/2015 11 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY also gave one silver plate weighing about 500 grams, at their house.
Thereafter, the respondents have asked her father to give the remaining dowry of Rs.3,00,000/. Every time they used to visit their house and harass his father to pay the remaining dowry. The respondents beat PW1 with a demand to bring the remaining dowry of Rs.3,00,000/. Further, they have treated
PW1 as servant maid. They went to the house of respondents once in a year along with their relatives and questioned the respondents about it. Then they replied them that they have not given dowry in crores. The first respondent and PW1 stayed in the house of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the year 1996 to the year 2004. In the year 2004, the first respondent got a job at
Madras and thereafter shifted to Bangalore. But, he did not take PW1 to those places. He got job in the year 2000. Then the respondents have asked him to pay the remaining dowry. In the year 2011, his father gave the remaining dowry of Rs.3,00,000/ to the respondents at their house in Korukonda. He also purchased one house site in the name of PW1 in the year 2010. The respondents have questioned them for purchase of house site without giving cash to them. Then he told them that it is a secured property and as such they have purchased the same. However, there is no change in the attitude of the respondents and they continued to harass PW1. On 17.09.2010, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have sent a notice to him as if he indebted to them.
Then he had contacted his advocate and informed his advocate that he had executed a promissory note in favour of the second respondent as security in respect of balance of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/. After clearing the balance dowry amount by his father in the year 2011, the second respondent returned his promissory notes. His marriage was performed in the year 2002. PW1 and the first respondent came to her marriage. No disputes took place at the time of marriage. His sister is not having any share in the properties of respondent
Nos.2 and 3. On 06.04.2014 there was the birthday of PW1. On that day also the respondents have confined PW1 in the house and beat her. PW1 informed the same to them over phone and they went to the house of respondents during lunch time and questioned them. Again they told them that they were not given dowry in crores. Whenever they question the first respondent for his not taking PW1 with him to his work place, he told them that he married PW1 to serve his parents and that he will not take her with him to his work place.
On 28.07.2014, the respondents have poured kerosene in the kitchen room.
PW1 escaped and contacted them over phone. Then all their family members went to the house of respondents. Then they have threatened him that they
DVC.No.27/2015 12 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY will get him removed from the job by using their influence. On the same day, the respondents drove PW1 out of their house with wearing apparel. At that time all their family members and relatives were also present. Later, they have placed the matter before the elders on 24.08.2014. The first respondent agreed to take back PW1 in the presence of elders namely L.A.Pathrudu,
Lanka Srinivas, Pediredla Srinivas, Lanka Srinivas and Lanka Veerabhadra
Rao. But the first respondent did not take back PW1 though they have waited for two months. Then he had approached their advocate and got issued legal notice to the respondents. On the next day they have filed a false case against them and as such PW1 approached the Court.
10.In crossexamination, PW2 admitted that in C.C.No.44/2015 on the file of V AJFC Magistrate's Court, and in M.C.No.14/2016 on the file of Family
Court, Rajamahendravaram, he gave evidence. He is working as School
Assistant from the year 2012 to tilldate. He admitted that on the report of first respondent the case in Crime No.564/2014 of III Town Police Station,
Rajamahendravaram, was registered against him, PW1 and three others.
Ex.R1 is attested copy of FIR in Crime No.564/2014 of III Town Police station,
Rajamahendravaram. He admitted that III Town police have filed charge sheet against him, PW1 and three others for the offence under sections 420 and 406 r/w 34 of IPC and same was numbered as C.C.No.104/2015. Ex.R2 is attested copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.104/2015. He admitted that the first respondent transferred Rs.2,80,000/ from his savings bank account to his savings bank account on 31.08.2010. He admitted that he withdrew that amount on 01.09.2010. He admitted that, on 02.09.2010, 240 sq yards of site in SB Ventures, Korukonda was purchased in favour of PW1. He admitted that the said was property was sold by the petitioner after filing of criminal cases against the first and second respondents. He does not know the value of the said property at the time it was sold away by the petitioner. He admitted that the children of PW1 are in the custody of the first respondent. The petitioner was residing separately from 28.07.2014 onwards from the first respondent. He admitted that the daughter of the petitioner completed her engineering in the year 2018 and son completed 1st year of BBA and both of them are in the custody of first respondent. By the date of filing of criminal case by the petitioner, the first respondent was working as software engineer at Hyderabad. He does not know where the first respondent was residing presently or about his nature of livelihood. He admitted that the second respondent retired as a Gazetted Officer in Postal department, but he does not
DVC.No.27/2015 13 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY know when he retired from service. He admitted that second and third respondents were aged and ailing persons and that third respondent is a house wife. He admitted that his father was a cycle mechanic by the side of road. There are no fixed properties either for himself or his father side. He denied the suggestion that no dowry was given to the respondents at any time and they are not having any capacity to pay such amount and that he never executed any promissory note for balance dowry amount and that PW1 having developed friendship with the accused Nos.3 to 5 in C.C.No.104/2015 misappropriated the property of first respondent. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner was never subjected to harassment on 06.04.2014 and 20.07.2014 as mentioned in chief affidavit. In this regard, PW2 stated that the date is 28.07.2014. He admitted that in M.C.No.14/2016 on the file of Family
Court monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/ was ordered in favaour of PW1 payable by the first respondent.
11.PW3, in her chiefexamination, deposed the relationships between parties and performance of marriage on 06.03.1996. She deposed that the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.5,00,000/ as dowry to second and third respondents apart from 15 sovereigns gold and half kg silver. Rs.2,00,000/ was given towards dowry one week prior to marriage and, on the same day,
PW2 executed a promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/ towards balance of dowry in favour of respondents on demand. Subsequently, in the year 2010, the balance dowry was paid by the parents of the petitioner to the respondents.
She stated that after marriage the first respondent did not take the petitioner along with him to the place of his working to lead marital life and kept her in the house of second and third respondents in Rajamahendravaram. She stated that the respondents have treated the petitioner as maid servant and without any love and affection. The respondents used to beat the petitioner without any reason. The petitioner and the first respondent were blessed with two children. There is no change in the attitude of the respondents. They used to visit the house of respondents to give counselling to the respondents, but they never allowed them into their house. Herself, parents of the petitioner, one Nageswara Rao and Venkateswara Rao went to the house of respondents to give counselling, but they have refused to allow them to talk.
They have visited the respondents house for about 6 or 7 times to give counselling, but in vain. In Ashadamasam in the year 2014, all the respondents beat the petitioner and the same was informed to them by the petitioner over phone. Later, they went to the house of respondents and when
DVC.No.27/2015 14 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY they reached their house, they found that kerosene was poured on the petitioner and tried to lit fire to her. On seeking the same, they have questioned the respondents about the incident and they stated that she did not bring additional dowry as demanded and as such they can do like that and if they require they can take away her. The parents of the petitioner took her to their house and since then she is residing with them. Later, they have placed the matter before the elders and the elders have settled the matter wherein the respondents have promised to look after the welfare of the petitioner by taking her back with them after sometime, but they did not do so.
Later, the petitioner got issued a notice to the respondents through an advocate for restitution of conjugal rights by undertaking good behaviour. The first respondent is a software employee and also doing real estate and finance businesses and earning about Rs.1,50,000/ per month. PW1 is a housewife.
12.In crossexamination, PW3 deposed that she is a resident of Korukonda and that PW1 and the respondents are residents of Rajamahendravaram.
According to her, PW1 has filed case against the first respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and for harassment for want of dowry. She was examined in
M.C.No.14/2016 on the file of Family court as witness on behalf of PW1 and
she is aware of PW1 being awarded Rs.5,000/ per month as maintenance from the first respondent. She did not state in M.C.No.14/2016 that in
Ashadamasam in the year 2014, all the respondents beat PW1 and she informed the same to them and later when they reached the house of respondents, they found kerosene was poured on PW1 and the respondents tried to lit fire to her. She denied the suggestion that she did not state in
M.C.No.14/2016 that the respondents have harassed her for additional dowry.
No complaint was filed with the police about the said incident, but was placed
before the elders. The petitioner is her sister’s daughter. The petitioner and
the first respondent have two children, one male and one female. The daughter of the petitioner completed Engineering and the son is studying BBA.
The children are in the custody of the first respondent. She admitted that the first respondent is residing with second and third respondents in their house at Rajamahendravaram and the said house belongs to the second respondent.
The second respondent is a retired employee and the third respondent is a housewife and they are aged. She admitted that the first respondent had filed a case against the petitioner, her brother and three others in Crime No.564/ 2014 of III Town PS, Rajamahendravaram for misappropriation of properties of first respondent. Prior to the said crime, the petitioner has issued a notice
DVC.No.27/2015 15 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY through her counsel on the allegations of harassment by the respondents. She does not know whether the said legal notice is filed in this case or not. She admitted that after registration of the said FIR, the petitioner filed this case,
M.C.No.14/2016 and a case under section 498A of IPC. She denied the
suggestion that the petitioner did not issue legal notice prior to registration of
Crime No.564/2014 of III Town PS, Rajamahendravaram. As per her knowledge, the first respondent worked in Bangalore and Hyderabad. She admitted that she came to this Court to give evidence at the instance of the petitioner. She denied the suggestion that she does not know the contents of the case and that the parents of the petitioner did not give any dowry to the respondents and that PW2 did not execute promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/ towards balance of dowry in favour of the respondents and that they have never visited the house of the respondents to give counselling. She admitted that she did not file any documents to show the earnings of the first respondent to be Rs.1,50,000/ per month and doing real estate and finance businesses.
13.RW1, in his chiefexamination affidavit, reiterated all the averments made in his counter, that his elder brother got married the elder sister of the petitioner and he married the petitioner out of love and affection. The father of the petitioner is a cycle mechanic and her mother is a house wife and knowing about her family status, he married her. He did M.Tech and earlier worked as
Software Engineer at Hyderabad. After marriage, he worked as tutor for some time and maintained a medical shop for two and half years and later shifted to
Software field and, at different intervals, worked at Hyderabad, Bangalore,
Secunderabad and Netherland. Due to work load and considering the welfare of children, himself, petitioner and children resided at Rajamahendravaram upto 30.04.2009 in a separate portion of his father's house and later at the instance of the petitioner and her parents, he took a house for rent. Taking advantage of the same, the parents of the petitioner became parasites. Being unable to bear the maintenance and harassment of the parents of the petitioner, two and half years later he had sent her parents out of the house.
He used to visit the matrimonial home every weekend and look after the necessities and welfare of the petitioner and the children. While working at
Bangalore, with his hardearned money, he had purchased a site of an extent of 240 sq. yards in S.B. Ventures, Burugupudi, on 02.09.2010 and got registered the same in the name of the petitioner. For purchase of the said property, he had sent money from his account to the account of PW2. The
DVC.No.27/2015 16 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY house bearing D.No.5972, P & T Colony absolutely belongs to his father and while living in house bearing D.No.60910/3, P&T Colony,
Rajamahendravaram, The petitioner developed friendship with one Gajula
Durga w/o.Nagendra Kumar and Uggumudi Anitha Kumari of
Rajamahendravaram. While so, he received a phone call from Bank of Baroda that his cheque bearing No.000015 dt.09.08.2014 for Rs.3 lakhs in the name of Nagulakonda Kamala was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and also that the signature is not tallying. He had enquired the matter through his father and also through email. He had kept the valuable original property documents and cheques in the Steel Almyrah of his marital home, enquired with the petitioner about issuance of cheque and, on verification of the almyrah, he found missing of cheque, property documents dated 05.11.011 and 02.09.2010, post office national saving certificates which stand in his name, gold ornaments and cash Rs.74,000/ which was kept reserve for payment of college fee of his daughter. All those valuables were entrusted to the petitioner out of trust in view of their marital relationship but she, with mala fide intention, has misused the said property for her luxurious life and caused loss to him. The petitioner confessed about the offence committed by her with regard to his property before the elder Chodisetty Satyavani and elders of both families. PW1 further admitted that she with the connivance of
Uggumudi Anitha Kumari and Gajula Durga and without his consent and knowledge, pledged his gold ornaments and documents, misused the amount and committed theft of the originals and used the same for her whims and fancies. The petitioner further admitted that she committed theft of the said cheque with the help of one N.Kamala and tried to extort money. He stated that the petitioner with mala fide intention cheated him and extorted property, gold and money and caused loss of money and reputation in the society. The petitioner left the marital home on 16.08.2014 leaving him and the children to their fate. The petitioner and her family members threatened him that they will implicate him and his family members in false criminal case. The petitioner and her family members taking advantage of her relationship with V.Anitha
Kumari and Gajula Durga made life threat to him and his parents. His parents have no way interfered in his marital life at any point of time. He had lodged a report with III Town P.S., Rajamahendravaram and a case in
Cr.No.564/2014 under section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC was registered against the petitioner and her men for the offence committed by them and the same was numbered as C.C.No.104/2015 on the file of Hon'ble III A.J.F.C.Magistrate
DVC.No.27/2015 17 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY
Court, Rajamahendravaram, against the petitioner, Panathala Srinivasu,
Gajula Durga, Vuggumudi Anitha Kumari, Nagulakonda Kamala. The petitioner with a view to harass and dictate terms got foisted a false case in
Cr.No.85/2014 on the file of Women Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, against him and his parents for the offence under sections 323, 498A r/w 34
IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the same was numbered as C.C.No.44/2015 on the file of V A.J.F.C. Magistrate Court at
Rajamahendravaram and the same was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 29.06.2018. The petitioner filed M.C.No.14/2016 on the file of Family Court,
Rajamahendravaram, and she was granted maintenance @ Rs.5,000/ per month. He got issued a public notice in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, East
Godavari District Edition, Rajamahndravaram, on 05.11.2014, about missing of original documents, National savings certificates, cash and gold and about the registration of Crime No.564/2014 of III Town P.S., Rajamahendravaram.
After publication of the same, the petitioner had created sham and collusive document dt.19.11.2014 in the name of Bheemavarapu Arjunudu pertaining to the property covered under registered sale deed dt.02.09.2010. The petitioner is in possession of the sale proceeds with her. The petitioner is having sufficient means and income and is leading her freelance life, by deserting him and the children without even considering their welfare and future. The petitioner left the marital home and leading her own life and created a great disturbance in his family and lowered his reputation in the society. The second respondent worked as Assistant Superintendent of Post
Offices and retired on 28.02.2002 and the third respondent is a house wife and they are aged and are undergoing treatment for their ailments. He is taking care of the children and providing them education and necessities. At present, he is not doing any job and not getting any salary. Now he is not in possession of any immovable properties or fixed assets and that he is not getting any rents as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of the entire booty which is the subject matter of Cr.No.564/2014 of III Town
Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, as extorted from him. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, I pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition with costs in the interest of justice. Ex.R3 is certified copy of judgment dt.29.06.2018 in C.C.No.44/2015 on the file of V
AJFC Magistrate's Court, Rajamahendravaram. Ex.R4 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.02.09.2010 bearing No.2853/2010. Ex.R5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.11.2014 bearing No.14744/2014.
DVC.No.27/2015 18 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY
14.In crossexamination, RW1 admitted that his marriage was an arranged one. He does not know whether the father of the petitioner was maintaining
Jyothi cycle mart at Korukonda or not. As the petitioner is his relative, he had married her. He denied the suggestion that by the time of marriage the father of the petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000/ towards dowry and also the brother of the petitioner has executed a promissory note for Rs.3,00,000/ towards the remaining dowry and that by the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner gave 15 sovereigns of gold and half kg silver and other lanchanam to him. He denied the suggestion that they have treated the petitioner as servantmaid.
He admitted that he used to work in different places, but he could not take the petitioner with him to lead marital life to those places. He denied the suggestion that he has not shows affection towards the petitioner and because of the harassment meted out by them to her, the petitioner got aborted. He denied the suggestion that on 28.07.2014 himself and his parents beat the petitioner and necked her out of his house demanding additional dowry. He denied the suggestion that after 28.07.2014 the petitioner has placed the matter before the elders. He admitted that he received Ex.P1 on 05.11.2014.
PW2 is his brotherinlaw. He does not know whether his father has issued legal notice to PW2 for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/ towards dowry due. He does not know whether PW2 had issued reply notice to his father. He denied the suggestion that they have filed false cases against the petitioner and in those cases the petitioner was acquitted. RW1 added that he preferred appeal in the said case. He admitted that the petitioner had filed a case under section 498A of IPC against him and his parents and the same is ended in acquittal but the petitioner has preferred appeal against the said judgment. He denied the suggestion that PW2 has gifted 240 sq yards of site to the petitioner. He added that he has purchased the same from his income. At present he is jobless and his father is looking after him. He does not know whether his daughter was studying in foreign or not. Till date he did not issue any notice to the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. He admitted that the petitioner has filed maintenance case against him on the file of Family Court,
Rajahmundry, and in that case Rs.5,000/ was ordered towards monthly maintenance to the petitioner. He admitted that he is in due approximately
Rs.50,000/ in that case. He admitted that the petitioner is not doing any job and that the second respondent is having one house consisting of two portions and that the second respondent retired from service and getting pension but
DVC.No.27/2015 19 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY he does not know how much he is getting towards pension. He denied the suggestion that he never looked after the welfare of the children and that he had separated the petitioner from her children. He denied the suggestion that they have harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. He denied the suggestion that he is doing software job in private company and getting huge salary and that he has movable and immovable properties. He denied the suggestion that he is having capacity to give maintenance of Rs.25,000/ per month to the petitioner. He stated that he has objection for the petitioner to reside in one of the portions in the house of his father.
15.From the above evidence of witnesses the following observations can be made. Both the children are in the care and custody of the first respondent and the daughter completed Engineering and son is studying BBA. The second respondent is a retired employee and the third respondent is a house wife. Though PW1 denied that the second and third respondents are suffering from ailments, in view of their ages it can be safely presumed that they are suffering from age related ailments. The petitioner stated that her father earlier maintained a cycle shop and now he is working as a cycle mechanic by the side of the road as he sustained loss in the business and that she has no source of income personally. Though dowry of Rs.5,00,000/ is claimed to have been given, no evidence whatsoever to prove the same has been adduced.
The petitioner admitted that the first respondent lodged a report in III Town
L&O Police Station against her, her brother/PW2, Gajula Durga, Vuggumudi
Anitha Kumari and Nagulakonda Kamala in Cr.No.564/2014 for the offence under sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of IPC and that police have filed charge sheet in that case. This circumstance clearly shows that there are strained relations between the parties. The petitioner denied the suggestion that the first respondent had purchased the property and got registered the same in her name vide Ex.R4 by transferring funds from his account to the account of
PW2. The petitioner admitted that she has sold away the said property after filing of the case by the first respondent. She admitted that the first respondent gave paper publication stating that she was misusing his documents. The petitioner stated that she has sold away the said property for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/ in favour of one Arjunudu and she did not mention the said fact in her petition. The petitioner admitted that she has filed this case and also a case under section 498A of IPC against the
DVC.No.27/2015 20 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY respondent after the first respondent gave report in III Town L&O Police
Station, Rajamahendravaram, against them. The petitioner admitted that at present the first respondent is staying in the house of his parents and the said house belongs to the second respondent. The petitioner stated that herself, her parents, first respondent and his parents never resided together in one house at any point of time. So, it is very clear that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the second and third respondents and so she cannot have any claim against them in these proceedings. The petitioner admitted that herself, her parents and first respondent resided together in one house for some period. However, she again claimed that her father never stayed with them. The petitioner admitted that during the said period, the first respondent was doing job and used to come to the house during holidays. The petitioner denied the suggestion that no dowry was given and that her parents have no capacity to give any such amount. Though she denied the said suggestion, as already observed supra, no evidence is produced to show the giving of amount towards dowry. No evidence is produced at least to show the financial capacity of the father of the petitioner at the time of marriage. For the reasons best known to her, the petitioner did not even produce her father to give evidence in that regard and he is best person to speak about the said aspect. The petitioner denied the suggestion that the respondents never poured kerosene on her and never tried to give pesticide to her. The petitioner, however, stated that she did not give any report to the police in respect of any such allegations. When such bald allegations are made it is for the petitioner to prove the same with at least probable evidence of giving reports to the police. PW2 admitted his giving evidence in C.C.No.44/2015 and M.C.No.14/ 2016. PW2 also admitted that on the basis of the report of first respondent, a case in Cr.No.564/2014 on the file of III Town P.S. was registered against her, her sister and 3 others vide
Ex.R1 and charge sheet was filed in that crime and the same was numbered as
C.C.No.104/2015 vide Ex.R2. PW2 admitted that the first respondent has transferred Rs.2,80,000/ from his savings bank account to his savings bank account on 31.08.2010 and he withdrew the said amount on 01.09.2010 and on 02.09.2010 and a site to an extent of 240 sq. yards in S.B. ventures, was purchased in favour of the petitioner. He admitted that the said property was sold out by the petitioner after filing of criminal case against the respondents.
PW1 and PW2 do not know where the first respondent was presently working or about the nature of his livelihood. It is the admitted fact that in
DVC.No.27/2015 21 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY
M.C.No.14/2016 on the file of Family Court, Rajamahendravaram and
monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/ was granted to the petitioner from the first respondent. PW3 corroborated the evidence of PW1 and also deposed about the earning capacity of the first respondent.
16.From the admissions of PW1 and PW2, it is very clear that it is only after registration of the FIR against the petitioner, her brother and three others, the petitioner has filed the present case, M.C.No.14/2016 and a criminal case under section 498A IPC. It is the admission of PW2 that a site of an extent of 240 square yards in S.B. ventures was purchased with the amount transferred by the first respondent and the same was sold away by the petitioner. It is the claim of first respondent that the petitioner has been committing acts of waste against to the interests of the family welfare and, in that regard, he was forced to give a paper publication against the petitioner and it is only being aggrieved by such acts of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this present case.
The claim of the petitioner is that as the first respondent worked at various places and the second and third respondents did not allow her to live with him at such places. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as their marriage was performed in the year 1996 and this case is filed in the year 2015 and all these days, for the reasons best known to her, she did not open her mouth. The petitioner is not a rustic person. It is evident from the record that she has been executing documents in favour of others without the knowledge of the first respondent. It is also very clear that the children are in the care and custody of the first respondent and it is the version of the petitioner that her son used to behave in a more aggressive way. Further, the petitioner claimed that her son became a headache to her. The petitioner has not shown any specific mode of harassment subjected to her by the second and third respondents. In my consideration opinion, in view of the rival contentions between the parties, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for a shared household with the respondents and however she can be granted
Rs.5,000/ towards rent from the first respondent. The petitioner was already granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/ per month from the first respondent in
M.C.No.14/2016 and so no further amount need be granted towards monthly
maintenance to her. So, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief, against any of the respondents, except the monetary relief of Rs.5,000/
DVC.No.27/2015 22 VI A.J.F.C.M, RJY per month towards rent alternative accommodation and a sum of Rs.2,000/ towards costs, from the first respondent. The points are answered accordingly.
17.In the result, this petition is allowed inpart, granting monetary relief of
Rs.5,000/ per month towards rent for alternative accommodation from the first respondent payable on or before 10th day of every month commencing from January 2020 only and a sum of Rs.2,000/ from the first respondent towards costs. All other reliefs which are not specifically granted shall stand rejected. Office is directed to give copies of this order, to the parties to the application and the Station House Officer of concerned Police Station, at free of cost as provided under section 24 of the Act. The parties to the application are informed that an appeal lies against this order as contemplated under section 29 of the Act.
Dictated to the Stenographer–II, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced
by me in open Court, this the 26th day of December, 2019.
V A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram FACVI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For petitioners: For Respondents:
PW1: Pediredla Jyothi RW1: Pediredla Rajasekhar PW2: Panathala Srinivas PW3: Manchini Ammaji
Documents Marked
For petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Office copy of legal notice dt.05.11.2014 issued by petitioner.
For respondent:
Ex.R1 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.564/2014 of III town P.S. Rajahmundry. Ex.R2 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.104/2015. Ex.R3 : Judgment copy in C.C.No.44/2015 dt.29.06.2018 Ex.R4 : Certified copy of registered sale deed No.2853/2010 dt.02.09.2010 Ex.R5 : Certified copy of registered sale deed No.14744/2014 dt.19.11.2014
V A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram FACVI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram