IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDL.
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE) KAMAREDDY
Present:- Kum. G. Harika, Junior Civil Judge-cum-JFCM Yellareddy FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile), Kamareddy.
this the 26 th day of October, 2023
DVC.No. 38 of 2017
Between:- Akula premalatha W/o Akula Srinivas Age : 32 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o Mudamgally, Kamareddy Town and District.
... Aggrieved person
And
1. Akula Srinivas S/o Late Akula Sailoo, aged : 36 years, Occ; T.V. Mechanic & Electrician, R/o Kuchanpally Village of Medak Mandal & District
2. Akula Rajamani W/o Late Akula Sailoo, aged : 62 years, Occ; House Hold, R/o Kuchanpally Village of Medak Mandal & District
3. Akula Raju S/o Late Akula Sailoo, aged : 32 years, Occ; Cell Phone Mechanic, R/o Medak Mandal & District
4. Akula Sowmya S/o Akula Raju, aged : 30 years, Occ; Govt. Teacher, R/o Medak Mandal & District
..Respondent No.1 to 4
This case coming on 26-10-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. R.B. Ramesh Chand, advocate for petitioner/aggrieved person and P. Srinivas Reddy advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed under section 12 of protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 praying this Hon’ble Court for grant of several reliefs under the protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The petitioner No 1 contended in the averments of the petition that, the complainant is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No1. Respondent No.2 is her mother in law. Respondent No.3 is brother of R1, Respondent No.4 is his wife, Respondent No.5 is elder sister of R1. Respondent No.6 is her husband.The Aggrieved person is legally wedded wife of R1 and their marriage was performed about 12 years back in 2004 under
Hindu customs and traditions at the parents house of aggrieved person and at the time of the marriage, the parents of aggrieved person presented dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash , 10 tulas of Gold and Silver ornaments and the House Hold Utensils.
3. After the marriage, the aggrieved person joined the company of the respondents at Kuchapally Village of Medak Mandal & Dist and the marriage with R1 was consumanated subsisting legally. Out of their wed lock ,2 Sons were born namely Sri Ram age: 10 years, Sri Krishna age: 5 years.
4. After the birth of first son, the respondents started harassing the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/ - and used to abuse, beat the aggrieved person very frequently and then the aggrieved person informed the same to her parents and then her parents visited the house of respondent and requested them not to harass the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry.
5. Thereafter the harassment was continued for demand of
additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and the respondents abused
and beat the aggrieved person very frequently and necked out the aggrieved person from there house by stanching all gold and silver ornaments about six months back and helplessly the aggrieved person along with her sons came to her parents house and informed the same to her parents.
6. There after a Panchayath was held at Siddesham Temple at Kuchanpally Village and elders advised the respondent to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and not harass the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry in future. Accordingly the aggrievied person rejoined the company of respondent persons.
7. That while the aggrieved person was carrying pregnancy of her second son, the Respondent No.1 beat the aggrieved persons with "PAPPU GUTTHI" on her nose and there was fracture of bone of nose and she undergone treatment and thereafter again the aggrieved person joined the company of respondents
8. Thereafter the second son was born at Medak and after his birth and 21 days function, the respondents again started harassing the aggrieved persons for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and used to beat the aggrieved person very frequently. While the second son was aged about 5 months, the respondent No.1 caugth hold of the hairs of aggrieved person and hit her head to the wall with an ill- intention to kill her and the aggrieved person sustained severe head injury and due to which she suffered with Memory.
9. Thereafter panchayats have been held at the house of Akula Srinivas and the elders advised the respondents not to harass the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and lead happy married life. accordingly the aggrieved person rejoined the company of respondents.
10. That respondents lived happily with petitioner for a period of 6 months and thereafter again started demanding additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and all the respondents used to abuse the aggrieved person in most filthy language and used to beat very frequently and on 19-07-2017 at 9.00PM the respondent No.1 beat the aggrieved person with car waifar on thigh and shoulder and necked her out by snachting all gold and silver ornaments and helplessly the aggrieved person reached to her parents house with injuries and informed the same and then the aggrieved persons reported the matter to police Kamareddy and they issued FIR No.217 OF 2017 under section 498-A, 324, of IPC.4 of DP. Act..
11. Thereafter the aggrieved person along with her parents and maternal uncle visited the house of respondent persons and conducted a panchayath and requested them to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and not to harass for demand of additional dowry and lead happy married life but the respondents refused to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,0000/- to receive the petitioner and her sons and then Helplessly they returned back.
12. That the respondent is having agriculture land an extent of Ac. 3.00gts and also having one house and doing business in seals of inverters and by doing so, he is getting monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- and by doing agriculture he getting an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the other hand the aggrieved person is not attending any work and she is unable to maintain herself and she is unable to maintain her sons
13. That due to continues harassment by respondents, the aggrieved person suffered mentally, physically and particularly the respondents treated the aggrieved person very badly and tortured her physicallu and mentally . The respondents used to employ indescribable vulgar language while addressing the aggrieved person. Hence prayed to allow the petition and grant several reliefs as prayed under protection of women from Domestic Violance Act.
14. The respondent no 1 filed the counter by denying the above mentioned averments except with regard to the marriage of Respondant Number 1 with petitioner Number 1 and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner not pressed the petition against R2 to R4 and as such, there is no case against R2 to R4. The contention of the respondent No 1 is that, he is the elder son of his parents, the father of the respondent No.1 was died, since then the respondent No.1 being elder son of his parents, having responsibilities towards his entire family. He married the aggrieved person without any dowry as stated by the aggrieved person in the petition. After the marriage he lived happy marital life with aggrieved person without any disputes as alleged in the petition, till she herself and deserted the respondent No.1 with the instigation of her parents. Further that, he is having old aged mother namely Rajamani and having one younger brother namely Raju, and having one sister namely Padma, and he, being a elder brother, performed their marriages, and they are residing separately from them. His mother used to reside with him at Kuchanpalli village. Further that, the aggrieved person with the instigation of her parents, herself pressurised him to live separately with his mother and also forced to shift their residence to her parental house at Kamareddy as she is the only daughter to her parents and as there is no male person to look after her parents at their old age, but he did not accept the same, even though he tried to convince the aggrieved person and her parents that he has to look after his old aged mother, the aggrieved person not heed his words. Further that, due to the acts of the aggrieved person, the mother of the respondent No.1 residing separately, even though the aggrieved person harassing him on one or other pretext and not preparing any food in the house, and neglecting him as well their sons and the same was informed to her parents, but instead of giving advise, her parents also supported the aggrieved person, and forced the respondent No.1 to live at Kamareddy at the parental house of the aggrieved person and do any work at kamareddy , but he did not agreed their demand, due to which the aggrieved person along with two sons herself without informing him left the house, with all gold and silver ornaments, and came to her parental house. Thereafter the respondent No.1 along with their caste elders, came to the parental house of the aggrieved person to ask and convince her, but her parents did not allowed the respondent No.1 and his caste persons in to their house and abused them in most filthy language as he did not heed the words of the aggrieved person and also tried to attack on the respondent No.1, due to which helplessly the respondent No. 1 and his caste persons returned back.
15. Further that, the aggrieved person with the instigation of her parents lodged a complaint before the P.S Kamareddy against the respondent No.1 and other respondents, who inturn issued the FIR U/Sec.498-A, 324 of IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act, to harass the respondent No.1 and his family members and the same was pending. And the aggrieved person also filed the MC No.38/2017 on the file Hon'ble JFCM Kamareddy against the respondent No.1 on false and flimsy grounds, though there is no fault on the part of the respondent No. 1.
16. He further submitted that, the respondent No.1 is doing daily wages agriculture labour and not having any source of income, and not having any other properties in his name, and leading life in a miserable condition. On the other hand, the aggrieved person was rolling beedies and also doing tailoring work and getting Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is having sufficient source of income to lead their life, as such question of living in a miserable condition without financial assistance on the mercy of her parents does not arise.
17. Further that he along with his family members not committed any offence as alleged by the aggrieved person and that the aggrieved person with the instigation of her parents filed all the false cases against him and his family members, with a malafide intention that respondent No.1 has to reside at the parental house of aggrieved person at Kamareddy, but there is no other persons to look after the welfare of his mother at her old age.
18. He further submitted that, even the aggrieved person deserted the respondent No.1, but the respondent No. 1 is providing all the amenities to the aggrieved person and his sons, such as paying school fees, cloths, medicine, etc, to his son and that he is having very much love and affection towards the aggrieved person and his sons, but at the instigation of her parents, the aggrieved person willfully neglected and deserted the respondent No. 1.
19. He submitted that, it is social and moral obligation on the part of the aggrieved person to maintain good behaviour with him by staying with him and lead marital life without any hindrance, but the aggrieved person failed to do the same.
20. He submitted that, he never harassed the aggrieved person and not committed any Domestic Violence offence against the aggrieved person as alleged in the petition. The respondent No.1 is ready to join the company of the aggrieved person without any hesitation at his village. The aggrieved person are at every right to come and join with his company along with two sons. Hence he prayed to dismiss the petition. .
21. The petitioner number 1 filed her chief examination affidavit and she has been examined herself as PW1 . On behalf of the respondents, the respondent number 1 is examined as RW1 and he also adduced the evidence of Yesu Reddy as RW2
22. Heard arguments on both sides.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his argument in similar lines that of his petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this is a false case filed against the respondents by the petitioner number 1 and narrated the averments of counter and prayed this Hon’ble court to dismiss this present DVC case against the respondent
24. Now , the point for determination is:
1) whether the petitioner number 1 was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of the respondents?
2) whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as prayed for?
25. Point Number 1:
26. On perusal of the entire record available, it is observed that, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of petitioner number 1 with Respondant Number 1 and the relationship between the petitioner and respondents. On considering the averments of the petition , the contentions of the petitioner number 1 completely revolved around the harassment and cruelty which she was subjected to by the respondents for additional dowry . The petitioner number 1 contended that , After the birth of first son, the respondents started harassing the aggrieved person for demand of
additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/ - and used to abuse, beat the
aggrieved person very frequently and then the aggrieved person informed the same to her parents and then her parents visited the house of respondent and requested them not to harass the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry. Thereafter the harassment was continued for demand of additional dowry of
Rs.3,00,000/- and the respondents abused and beat the aggrieved person very frequently and necked out the aggrieved person from there house by stanching all gold and silver ornaments about six months back and helplessly the aggrieved person along with her sons came to her parents house and informed the same to her parents. There after a Panchayath was held at Siddesham Temple at Kuchanpally Village and elders advised the respondent to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and not harass the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry in future. Accordingly the aggrievied person rejoined the company of respondent persons. That while the aggrieved person was carrying pregnancy of her second son, the Respondent No.1 beat the aggrieved persons with "PAPPU GUTTHI" on her nose and there was fracture of bone of nose and she undergone treatment and thereafter again the aggrieved person joined the company of respondents. Thereafter the second son was born at Medak and after his birth and 21 days function, the respondents again started harassing the aggrieved persons for demand of additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and used to beat the aggrieved person very frequently. While the second son was aged about 5 months, the respondent No.1 caugth hold of the hairs of aggrieved person and hit her head to the wall with an ill-intention to kill her and the aggrieved person sustained severe head injury and due to which she suffered with Memory. Thereafter panchayats have been held at the house of Akula Srinivas and the elders advised the respondents not to harass the aggrieved person for demand of
additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and lead happy married life.
accordingly the aggrieved person rejoined the company of respondents. That respondents lived happily with petitioner for a period of 6 months and thereafter again started demanding
additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and all the respondents used to
abuse the aggrieved person in most filthy language and used to beat very frequently and on 19-07-2017 at 9.00PM the respondent No.1 beat the aggrieved person with car waifar on thigh and shoulder and necked her out by snachting all gold and silver ornaments and helplessly the aggrieved person reached to her parents house with injuries and informed the same and then the aggrieved persons reported the matter to police Kamareddy and they issued FIR No.217 OF 2017 under section 498-A, 324, of IPC.4 of DP. Act.. Thereafter the aggrieved person along with her parents and maternal uncle visited the house of respondent persons and conducted a panchayath and requested them to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and not to harass for demand of additional dowry and lead happy married life but the respondents refused to receive the aggrieved person and her sons and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,0000/- to receive the petitioner and her sons and then Helplessly they returned back.
27. In support of her petition, the petitioner number 1 herself examined as PW1 and got marked EX P1 to EX P3 on her behalf. Ex p1 is the marriage photos CD. EX P2 is the fee receipts of SPR
SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE DATED 08-09-2017. EX P3 is the fee receipts of SPR SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE DATED 11-03-2018
28. Respondants filed a counter by denying all the Averments of the petition except with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and respondents. It is the version of the respondant that the petitioner herself pressurised him to reside at her parents house at kamareddy and as he did not heed to her words, the petitioner along with her sons wilfully left his company to look after her old age parents and filed false cases against him and his family members.
29. Respondent number 1 filed his evidence in the form of chief affidavit and is examined as RW1 and he also examined Yesu Reddy as RW2 in support of his version.
30. The PW1 deposed in her chief examination by reiterating the averments of the petition. The learned counsel for the respondent cross examined PW1 at length and PW1, on her cross-examination, denied all the suggessions of Learned Counsel for Respondants that the respondant never harassed her for demand of additional dowry of RS 3,00,000/- and that all the allegations made by her in the petition are false and that she filed false cases against the respondant as he refused to reside at her parents house as in illitem son in law. She further denied that she herself voluntarily left the company of the respondants. She further denied that the respondant is not having any property as alleged by her in the petition on his name. She further denied that she is doing tailoring work and beedi rolling work and is earning an amount of rs 15,000/- per month. She further denied that she is having sufficient source of income to maintain herself and her children. She further denied that ex p2, ex p3 are obtained by her after payment of fees by the respondant and that R1 is providing all clothes to her and her children and that he is looking after them. She admitted that she have not filed any document to show that an amount of RS 3,00,000/- and 10 thulas of gold silver and other house hold ornaments were given as dowry to R1. She further admitted that she have not filed any document to show that R1 is having his share of 3-00 acres of agriculture on his name and is doing business of sale of inverters and is earning monthly income of RS 50,000/- and annual income of RS 5 LAKHS.
31. RW1 filed his chief examination affidavit which reiterated the contents of the counter filed by him. In his cross-examination, he denied that at the time of his marriage, RS 3,00,000/- and 10 thulas of gold silver and other house hold ornaments were presented as dowry to him by parents of pw1 and that he harassed pw1 for demand of additional dowry of RS 3,00,000/- and that he abused , beat and necked PW1 out of his house. He further denied that a panchayath was held in siddeshwar temple at muthaikota and that the village elders advised him to lead happy married life but that he did not heed to the words of village elders. He denied all the allegations made against him by the pw1 in the petition. When he was asked during his cross asto whether he is ready to receive his wife and his children stating that pw1 wants to join his company, he stated that he is not interested in leading happy marital life with petitioner due to mental trauma caused by her to him and as he already filed divorce OP against her . He admitted that he have not sent any notice to the pw1 before filing divorce OP. He further admitted that he have not sent any notice for restitution of conjugal rights after filing divorce OP. He further admitted that he have not filed any document to show that he paid school fee of his children and paid their medical bills and purchased clothes to his children. He denied that he have not provided any amount to pw1 or his children after necking out PW1 from his house. He stated that he is having joint share in an extent of 2 acres agriculture land. He denied that he is having share of 3-00 acres of agriculture land on his name and is doing business of sale of inverters and is earning monthly income of RS 50,000/- and annual income of RS 5 LAKHS. He denied that he committed domestic violance against the petitioner and as such she is entitiled for the reliefs prayed in the petition.
32. Further RW2 / YESU REDDY , who is the village elder , filed his chief examination affidavit. In his chief examination, RW2 deposed that the marriage of PW1 was performed with R1 in the year 2004 and that R1 is having one brother and two sisters and that R1 is the Eldest son. R1’s father died Prior to his marriage. R1 performed the marriage of his younger brother and younger sister and his brother and sisters are living separately from him. R1’s mother lived with him till the marriage of her younger son and thereafter she is living with her younger son. He further deposed that PW1 is having two sisters and there are no male children to her parents. PW1 and R1 lived together till 2016. He deposed that he attended the Panchayat held between aggrieved person and respondent number one and he came to know that PW1 and his her parents insisted R1 to live along with PW1‘s parents and as such PW1 frequently went to her parental house, and R1 used to bring her back and due to which PW1 filed false case against respondent number 1 to harass him. He further stated that PW1 lodged a police complaint against R1 and on which police restrained and kept R1 in police station and on the advice of police, he and other cast elders held panchayati at the house of parents of aggrieved person in which the parents of PW1 refused to send her along with R1 . R1 has got 20 guntas of land towards his share and share of his brother. R1 is a coolie and he does not have any source of income. RW2 further deposed that he came to know that PW1 also filed a maintenance case wide number 38 of 2017,
before Honourable JFCM Court, Kamareddy and same was allowed,
and R1 is regularly paying the awarded amount to the PW1 till date and that R1 filed a divorce petition before Honourable Senior Civil
Judge wide OP number 13 of 2019 and then the said court also
granted the divorce by dissolving the marriage between respondent and aggrieved person.
33. Learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined RW2. During his cross examination, RW2 denied that Respondent No 1 jointly residing with his mother and his sisters and that he is deposing false. He stated that he do not know the date and month of the Panchayat which was held at Kamareddy. He stated that he cannot say the house number where the Panchayat was held. He stated that respondent number one used to attend electrician work. He denied the suggestion that respondent number one is having 4 acres of agriculture land and the TV repair shop at Medak and having sufficient source of income to maintain PW1. He stated that at about two years back, maintenance case was allowed against R1 and that he is paying the same. He stated that at about two years back, divorce was granted to the petitioner and respondent number one but he stated that he cannot say its date and time. He stated that he do not know whether the exparte divorce was set aside. He denied the suggestion that he is residing at Hyderabad and that he does not know about the issue of respondent number one and that he is deposing false at the instance of respondent number one.
34. On the cumulative perusal of material on record, there is no dispute as to the marriage of the petitioner with the respondant no
1. It is the version of the petitioner number 1 that the respondent harassed her for getting additional dowry from her parents and beat her several times and abused her and necked her out of his house and since then she is living at the residence of her parents along with her 2 children. . It is the version of respondent that he never harassed the petitioner number 1 at any point of time for additional dowry and that the petitioner herself pressurised him to reside at her parents house and that as he did not listen to her words, she voluntarily deserted him and left to her parents house along with her children to look after her parents as there is no male child to her parents
35. At this point, it is pertinent to refer section 3 of protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005
Section 3: DOMESTIC VIOLANCE:
For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or
commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute Domestic Violence in case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life,
limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the
aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing
physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse
and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved
person with a view to coerce her or any other person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry
or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or
any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in
clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,-
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse" includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration
36. As discussed above, section 3 of Protection of woman from Domestic violance Act, 2005 defines Domestic violence. Hence the allegations of the petitioner made against the respondants would fall under any of the above ingredients is to be seen .
37. Therefore, it is pertinent to see whether the alleged harassment of PW1 by the respondants , as deposed by the PW1 would fall within the ambit of section 3 of Domestic Violence Act.
As seen from the explanation to definition of Domestic Violance Act, For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" , the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideraion.
38. In this case, at the first instance, the petitioner stated that the respondants started harassing her after the birth of her first child for the want of additional dowry of RS 300000/- and that the respondants beat her and abused her several times. Thereafter that she informed about the harassment to her parents and that then her parennts requested the respondants not to harass the petitioner and eventhen the harassment continued for additional dowry and that respondants necvked her out of the house by snatching her golf and silver ornaments and then the petitioner came to her parents house along with her children in helpless condition. Thereafter again, her parents held Panchayati at Siddeshwara Temple at kuchanpally and then the elders advised the respondent to receive the petitioner and not to harass her for want of additional dowry in the future and then accordingly the petitioner joined the company of the respondent. She also narrated few incidents that while she was carrying pregnancy of her second son, the respondent number one beat her with Pappu Gutti on her nose and that her bone was fractured on nose and she undergone treatment for that, and then again, she joined the company of the respondent. she also stated that after the birth of her second son at Medak, the respondent started harassing the petitioner for additional dowry and beat the agreed person very frequently. While the second son was aged about five months, the respondent number one caught hold of the hairs of the petitioner and hit her head to the wall with intention to kill her and the petitioner sustained severe head injury and thereafter again Panchayat was held at house of Akula Srinivas and the elders advised the respondent not to harass the petitioner for demand of
additional dowry. Again the petitioner joined the company of the
respondent. Thereafter they stayed happily for six months and thereafter again the respondent started demanding for additional dowry and all the respondents used to abuse the petitioner in most filthy language and used to beat her frequently and on 19.7.2017 at 9 PM, the respondent number one beat the Petitioner with car wiper on her thigh and shoulder and necked her out by snatching all the gold and silver ornaments and helplessly the petitioner again reached to her parents house with injuries and informed them the same and thereafter lodged a report before the police Kamareddy and the police issued FIR in Cr No 217 of 2017 under section 498(A) , 324 of IPC, section 4 of DP act. The petitioner stated that even after lodging the complaint, herself along with her parents and maternal uncle visited the house of the respondent and requested the respondent to receive them but they refused to receive the petitioner and demanded ₹2 lakhs to receive her and helplessly they went back.
39. To establish her case, the petitioner herself examined as Pw-1 and filed her examination in chief in the form of chief affidavit and reiterated the petition averements. As such, the examination in chief of Pw-1 is nothing but a replica of the petition. Ex A1 to Ex A3 are marked on her behalf. The Learned counsel cross examined the petitioner at length. The petitioner was consistent through out her evidence about the harassment by the respondants. Nothing was elicited in favour of the respondants regarding the harassment ewven during her cross examination. She convincingly stated through out her evidence that she wass harassed by the respondants. It is also seen from cross examination that the petitioner lodged report agianst the respondants before police after the alleged incident on 19.07.2017. it supports the version of the petitioner that she was harassed and beat by the respondants. The petitioner clearly denied that she voluntarily left the company of respondant no 1 when she refused to reside at kamareddy as illitam son.
40. Coming to the case of the respondants, the main contention of the respondants is that the petitioner left the company of the respondant no 1 voluntarily to look after her parents as there is no male child born to her parents to look after them and that the petitioner harasased the respondant no 1 to live saperately from his mother and also shift to kamareddy and reside at her parents house as illitam son. He also contended that due to the harassment of the petitioner, his mother resided separately from him as per the advice of the elders and after some days, the petitioner joined his company at Kuchanpally village, but she on the one or other pretext without cooperating, not prepared any food and neglected him and his children and then he informed the same to her parents and elders, but her parents Supported her and forced him to reside with them by doing any work at Kamareddy, but he did not accept the same and thereafter the petitioner without even informing him, left his company along with her two sons by snatching all gold and silver ornaments which was presented by his mother at the time of his marriage and went to her parents house and thereafter he rushed to his in-laws house, but they did not allow him into their house and abused him in most filthy language and tried to attack him and helplessly he returned back. He stated that at the instigation of her parents, the petitioner lodged a complaint before police station, kamareddy against him and also family members and a case was registered vide crime number FIR 217 of 2017 under section 498 A, 324 of IPC, section 4 of DP act to harass him and his family members and that the petitioner also filed MC 38 of 2017 against him though there is no fault on his part.
41. To establish his case, therespondant no1 himself examined as Rw-1 and filed his examination in chief in the form of chief affidavit and reiterated the counter averements. As such, the examination in chief of Rw-1 is nothing but a replica of the counter. Rw2/ Yesu Reddy was also examined on behalf of respondant. No documents were marked in the support of his version. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross examined RW1, RW2. During the cross examination the RW1 denied all the suggession put by the Learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that the petitioner voluntarily left him and went to her parents house. RW2 filed his chief examination affidavit in which he deposed that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No 1 was performed in the year 2004. The respondent No 1 is having one brother and two sisters and that he is the eldest son. The respondent no 1’ s father died prior to his marriage. The respondent number one performed the marriage of his younger brother and younger sister and his sister and brother are living separately from him. The respondent mother lived with him Till marriage of her younger son and thereafter she is living with her younger son. RW2 further deposed that the petitioner has two sisters and there is no male child to her parents. The petitioner and the respondent number one lived together till 2016. He Stated that he attended the Panchayat between petitioner and respondent number one and that he came to know that the petitioner and her parents insisted respondent number 1 to live along with the parents of the petitioner and as such the petitioner frequently went to her parental house and respondent number one used to bring her back and due to which, the petitioner filed the false case against respondent number 1 to harass him. RW2 further stated that the aggrieved person lodged a police complaint against the respondent number one and on which police restrained and kept respondent number one in the police station and on the advice of the police, he and other cast elders held Panchayati at the house of parents of aggrieved person and the parents of petitioner refused to send the petitioner along with respondent number one.
42. On perusal of evidence of RW1 & RW2, RW1 stated that the petitioner voluntarily left his company even without informing him in the last instance and also he stated that he rushed to his in-laws house, but they did not allow him into his house into their house and abused him in most filthy language and tried to attack him and helplessly he returned back . But respondent number one has not taken any step even when the petitioner along with her parents tried to attack him as alleged by him. When he was asked as to whether he is ready to receive the petitioners. During his cross examination, he clearly denied and refused and stated that he is not interested in leading married life with the petitioner. He admitted in his cross that Prior to filing of divorce OP, he had not sent any notice in writing, asking the petitioner to join his company and that he had not sent any notice for restitution of conjugal life. If he is really interested in getting back the petitioner, the respondent might have taken any of the steps to convince the petitioner to join his company. The respondent no 1 consistently stated that the petitioner voluntarily left herself to her parents house and deserted him to look after her parents as there is no male child to her parents to look after them and that the petitioner harassed him to reside at her parents house as illitam son-in-law as as he refused for the same, she left him and filed false cases against him. In general, it cannot be believed that a woman who is having two children has left the company of her husband voluntarily only with a simple reason to look after her parents. No woman wants to disturb her marital life after having two children. If it is a case that the petitioner wants the respondent to reside with her parents as illitam son-in-law, she might have demanded it prior to the marriage or after joining the company of the respondent but the respondent himself admitted that they lived happily till the birth of second child. Further, RW2 deposed that he attended the Panchayati between petitioner and the respondent and he came to know that petitioner and her parents insisted the respondent to live with parents of the petitioner. He also stated that when the petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent number one, he along with other elders held Panchayati at the house of parents of petitioner and the parents of petitioner refused to send the petitioner along with respondent number one. But, RW1 had not deposed either in his evidence or in his counter with regard to the Panchayati as stated by RW2.
43. In a case of domestic violence, the burden of proof shifts to the development of the case. Initially the burden is on the petitioner to establish that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. The evidence of the petitioner is very much consistent and convincing that she was subjected to domestic violence. The petitioner also filed a police case against the respondent which clearly supports the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to domestic violence. Then it is for the respondent to show that he never harassed the petitioner as alleged. The respondent either in his counter or during his evidence have not stated anything except that the petitioner herself voluntarily left his company to look after their parents. He has not stated about the steps taken by him when the petitioner left him. Though he stated that he rushed to his in- laws house to get back the petitioner, he had not taken any step when the petitioner and her parents did not allow him and abused and tried to attack him. The evidence of RW2 also does not help the version of RW1. It appears that the evidence of RW2 is only an addition to the case of RW1. In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to accept the version of the petitioner. On overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner was able to establish that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. I answered the point accordingly.
44. Point Number 2:
whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as prayed
for?
45. As petitioner number 1 sufficiently established that the respondents caused domestic violence against her, the petitioners are entitled to the relief under protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.
46. The first relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondent number 1 not to commit any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person. As the petitioner was able to prove that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent , She is entitled to this relief. Hence the first relief is allowed. The respondent No 1 shall not commit any act of Domestic Violence against the aggrieved person.
47. The second relief sought by the petitioner is to pass an order against respondent number 1 for paying an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner and her sons . According to section 20 of protection of women from domestic violence act, the magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and loss suffered by aggrieved person which may include loss of earnings, medical expenses, maintenance for aggrieved person.
48. The overall evidence established that due to domestic violence and harassment of the respondents, the petitioner left the society of the respondent and residing at her parents house along with her sons . There is a clear negligence on part of the respondent number 1 to maintain petitioners. Ex P2, EX P3 clearly shows that the school fee of the children are being paid by the petitioner. It is the bounded duty of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. The petitioner
No 1 contended that the respondent is having agriculture land an extent of Ac. 3.00gts and also having one house and doing business in seals of inverters and by doing so, he is getting monthly income of Rs. 50,000/- and by doing agriculture he getting an annual income of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the other hand the aggrieved person is not attending any work and she is unable to maintain herself and she is unable to maintain her sons. However the respondent No.1 contended that he is doing daily wages agriculture labour and not having any source of income, and not having any other properties in his name, and leading life in a miserable condition and that the aggrieved person was rolling beedies and also doing tailoring work and getting Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is having sufficient source of income to lead their life, as such question of living in a miserable condition without financial assistance on the mercy of her parents does not arise. However ,there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent and that the petitioner is working as a beedi roller and tailor and is earning sufficiently. The respondant in his counter stated that he is providing all the amenities to the aggrieved person and his sons, such as paying school fees, cloths, medicine, etc, to his son. But there is no documentary evidence to show that the respondant is providing all the eminities to the petitioner and his children. Ex P2, P3 also shows that the school fee is being paid by petitioner . Hence,considering all the factors, a monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to petitioner is ordered to be paid by the first respondent from the date of this petition. Hence the second relief sought is partly allowed.
49. The third relief is to direct respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the first petitioner for causing mental agony and physical torture to her . The petitioner is seeking Rs.3 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony and emotional distress caused by the respondent number 1 by the acts of domestic violence. As the petitioner established her case that she was subjected to domestic violance , she is entitiled to this relief. But, the court cannot come to the conclusion in the compensatory orders as there is no documentary evidence placed before this court showing that the first respondent is having capacity to pay the compensation as sought by the petitioner. Hence considering this, an amount of RS 50,000/- is ordered to be paid by the respondant to the petitioner. Hence the third relief sought is partly allowed.
50. The fourth relief is to order the respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 towards cost of this proceedings. but there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent number 1 . However , an amount of Rs.5,000/- is directed to be paid by the respondent number 1 to the petitioner towards the cost of this proceeding. Hence the relief is partly allowed.
51. The fifth relief sought by the petitioner is to restrain the respondant no 1 from causing any violance to petittioner and her relatives. As the petitioner was able to prove that she was subjected to DomesticViolence by the respondent , She is entitled to this relief. Hence this relief is allowed. The respondent No 1 shall not cause any Violence to the aggrieved person and her relatives.
52. The sixth relief sought by petitioner is to restrain the respondent number 1 from alienating the immovable properties. But there is no available documentary evidence with regard to the property of the respondent number 1 . There is no single clue with regard to the properties existing in the name of the respondent number 1. Hence the court cannot order for the this relief sought . Hene this relief is dismissed.
53. The last relief sought by petitioner is to direct the respondant to hand over the clothes, certificates and other household utensils to the petitioner. As there is no available documentary evidence on record in this regard , this relief cannot be granted.
Point 3: To what relief ?
54. The respondent number 1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner from the date of filing this petition. The arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid within six months from the date of this order by respondent number 1 to the petitioner number 1. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount to petitioners on or before 10th of every calendar month .Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner number 1 towords cost of the proceedings within six months from the date of this order. Furthermore, the respondant shall pay an amount of RS 50,000/- to the petitioner towards the third relief within six months from the date of this order.
55. In the result, the petition is partly allowed.The respondent number 1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner from the date of filing this petition. The arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid within six months from the date of this order by respondent number 1 to the petitioner number 1. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount to petitioners on or before 10th of every calendar month .Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner number 1 towords cost of the proceedings within six months from the date of this order. Furthermore, the respondant shall pay an amount of RS 50,000/- to the petitioner towards the third relief within six months from the date of this order. Other reliefs are dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand cancelled.
56. Any breach by the respondents under the act will be held liable for punishment under section 31 of the act.
57. Concerned SHO is directed to assist in implementing the above orders without any delay, if any request is made by the petitioner in this regard.
58. The office is directed to forward copy of the order to concerned SHO for implementation, if any, at their end.
59. Serve copy of this order to the parties at free of cost under section 24 of the Act.
Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of Octobe , 2023.
FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class
Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For Petitioner For Respondents
PW1Akula premalatha RW1- Akula Srinivas RW2- Yesu reddy Exhibits marked
For Petitioner For Respondents
Ex P1- marriage photos cold-Nil - Ex P2- fee receipt dated 8-9- 2017 Ex P3- fee receipt dated 11-3- 2018
FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class
Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE) KAMAREDDY
Present:- Kum. G. Harika,
Junior Civil Judge-cum-JFCM
Yellareddy FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile), Kamareddy.
this the 22 nd day of June, 2023
DVC.No. 08 of 2021
Between:-
1. Adulabad Venkata Laxmi W/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 27 years, Occ; Housewife,
2. Adulabad Vihan Chary S/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 03 years,
3. Adulabad Krithik Chary S/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 1 ½ years, (The aggrieved persons No.2 & 3 are minors under the guardianship of their natural mother and next friend i.e., aggrieved person No.1) All are R/o H.No. 8-3-234/87/29, L.N. Nagar, Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad, presently residing at H.No. 9-83/3, old Bibipet Road, Domakonda village and Mandal, Kamareddy District ... Aggrieved persons
And
1. Adulabad Machandra Chary, S/o A. Shankara Chary, aged: 35 years, Occ; Asst. Manager in Green Honda Car Showroom, Nagole,
2. Adulabad Shankara Chary, S/o Late A. Balachary, aged: 65 years, Occ; Goldsmith,
3. Adulabad Lalitha W/o A. Shankara Chary, aged: 58 years, Occ; Housewife,
4. Adulabad Manasa W/o Late Balraju Chary, aged: 37 years, Occ;Household All R/o H.No. 8-3-234/87/29, L.N. Nagar, Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad.
..Respondent No.1 to 6
This case coming on 22-06-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.B. Ramesh Chand, advocate for petitioner/aggrieved person and of respondent remained absent set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed under section 12 of Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 to grant several reliefs under this act.
2. Notice given to the other side. Notice sufficiently served on the respondent number 1 to 4. Respondent number 1 to 4 were called present on 31.3.2021 and Learned Advocate Sri M Venkat RamReddy filed Vakalath for respondent number 1 to 4. But no counter was filed on behalf of respondent number 1 to 4 in spite of several adjournments. As such, the respondents were set ex parte on 22.9.22.
3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that: petitioner No 1 is the wife of the respondent number 1 . Respondent number 2 & 3 are the parents of respondent number 1 . The respondent number 4 is the wife of brother of respondent number 1 .
4. The marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent took place at JS Function Hall, Domakonda on 17.5.2017 as per their religion and customs prevailed in their community and the same was consummated and still subsisting legally. At the time of marriage, on demand of Respondents, the parents of petitioner number 1 presented dowry of Rs.5 lakhs net cash, 13 thulas of gold, 20 thulas of silver ornaments and other household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.
5. The marriage is consummated between 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent and during the wedlock 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner were born to them.
6. After One year from the date of marriage , the respondents started harassing the petitioner number for demand of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and used to abuse her very frequently. The respondent number 1 habituated for bad habits and used to consume liquor entire day and night and after consuming liquor, he harassed the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs at the instigation of other respondents and abused her, beat her several times and the petitioner number 1 reported the matter to her parents and they visited the house of respondents and requested them not to harass her for demand of
additional dowry and to lead happy life but the respondents continued
their harassment.
7. While petitioner number 1 was carrying second pregnancy, all the respondents abused her and demanded her for want of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and beat on her womb mercilessly and necked out petitioner No 1 from their house by snatching all the gold and silver ornaments and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and helplessly with great difficulty, petitioner number 1 reached to her parents house and informed the same to them. Then her parents and caste elders visited the house of respondents and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,00/- as
additional dowry and requested all the respondents not to harass the
petitioner number 1 for additional dowry in future and accordingly petitioner number 1 joined the company of respondents . Thereafter petitioner number one and respondent number one lived happily for a period of one month and thereafter again all the respondents intensified their harassment and demanded petitioner number one for want of
additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents and respondant number
4 along with other family members also used to abuse petitioner number one in most filthy language on each and every petty matter and not provided any proper food to petitioner number 1 to 3 and not taken proper welfare to them and all the respondents made petitioner number one as servant in the house and not allowed her to talk with her parents and beat her mercilessly . The respondent No 1 used to chat with several girls and when petitioner number one questioned about his ill activities, he used to abuse and beat her mercilessly. In the month of June, 2020 with the instigation of all the respondents, the respondent number one abused petitioner number one in most filthy language and demanded for want of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents and neck her out of his house and helplessly the petitioner number one reached to her parents house at Domakonda along with petitioner number 2 and 3.
8. Due to harassment and illegal acts of respondents, the petitioner number one approached the police Domakonda and gave report against the respondents and the said police registered a case and issued a FIR in crime number 15 of 2021 under section 498 A , 323, 290 of IPC, section 4 of DP act and the same is pending before Honourable JFCM court, Kamareddy. The petitioner number one and her parents several times approached the respondent to take her back into his company but the respondents had not changed their habits and refused the same. Due to continuous harassment by the respondents, the petitioner number one fell sick and suffered and she is unable to attend any work to earn and as such she is having no source of income to maintain herself and her minor children and she’s leading a miserable life on the mercy of her parents.
9. The petitioner further contended that the Respondent number 1 is working as assistant manager in Green Honda car showroom at Nagole and is getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and he’s also having residential houses at LN Nagar on which he is getting monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- and the respondent number two is also working as Goldsmith and is getting monthly income of Rs.40,000/- and that the respondents are having sufficient source of income to maintain herself and her children but that the respondents intentionally, wilfully neglected her and failed to provide any separate maintenance to them and that the respondents are liable to pay maintenance.
10. Hence the petitioner number 1 filed this petition to pass an order against the respondent No 1 to direct the respondent number 1 not to commit any act of domestic violence against petitioner number 1 and to direct the respondent number 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to petitioner number one and Rs.10,000/- per month each to petitioner number 2,3 and to direct the respondent number 1 to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for causing mental and physical torture and for harassing her and also to direct the respondent number 1 to pay Rs.30,000/- towards legal expenses and to restrain respondent number one from causing any violence to aggrieved persons and her relatives and to pass order for implementation of order through concerned SHO and to restrain respondent number one from alienating immovable properties.
11. On the other hand, as already seen, the respondents were set ex parte by this court.
12. The 1st petitioner has filed her chief examination affidavit and was examined as PW1. Ex A1 to A3 are marked on her behalf.
13. Now, the point for determination:
1. Whether the petitioner was subjected to Domestic Violence in the hands of respondants?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?
3. To what relief ?
Point 1:
14. The PW1 deposed in her chief examination by reiterating the above mentioned averments.PW1 prays this Hon’ble court to grant several reliefs under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
15. Heard and Perused the entire record.
16. On cumulative perusal of material on record ,it is seen that the respondent No 1 along with his family members ie., R2 to R4 harassed the petitioner No 1 both mentally and physically and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,00/- from her parents and he did not change his attitude and continued to harass the petitioner No 1 at the instigation of his family and abused petitioner No 1 in most filthy language and beat the petitioner No 1 several times and at the time of second pregnancy of petitioner number one, the respondent beat her mercilessly on her womb and the respondent drove the petitioner number one out of their house several times and the parents and the elders of petitioner number one went to the house of respondents and requested to take back the petitioner number one into their company. The respondents drove the petitioner No 1 away from their house finally in the month of October, 2020 and since then petitioner No 1 along with her minor children ie., petitioner No 2,3 are residing at the residence of parents of petitioner no 1. The parents of petitioner No 1 also conducted panchayath at their village in the presence of elders and advised respondants not to harass the petitioner No 1 but the respondants did not heed to the advice of the elders.
17. As already seen from the record, the respondants remained exparte and did not contest the case. There is no ground seen to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 . Hence this court is inclined to accept the case of the petitioners.
18. Now the question that arises is “ whether the acts of the Respondants as stated in the petition would constitute the offence of Domestic
Violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
19. To understand the same, let us analyse Section 3 of Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.
20. Section 3. Definition of domestic violence - Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
21. The petitioner in the petition clearly stated that the respondent beat her several times and that he harassed the petitioner No 1 for want of
additional dowry of Rs 2,00,000/- from her parents. Further the
respondent at the instigation of his family members beat the petitioner number 1 to bring the additional dowry of Rs 2,00,000/- from her parents. The respondents necked out petitioner No 1 from their house and did not allow her into the house as she did not fulfill their demand of
additional dowry of Rs 2,00,00/-. Since then the petitioner along with her
children ie., petitioner No 2 to petitioner No 3 are residing at the residence of her parents. It appears that the respondent have not taken any step to bring back the petitioners into his society. As per the section 3 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act ,2005 , all the above acts of the Respondents constitutes the offence of Domestic Violence. Hence it is held that the petitioner No 1 was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents. I answered the point accordingly.
22. Point 2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ? As petitioner number 1 sufficiently established that the respondents caused domestic violence against her, the petitioners are entitled to the relief under protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.
23. The first relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondent number 1 not to commit any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person. As the petitioner was able to prove that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents , She is entitled to this relief. Hence the first relief is allowed. The respondents shall not commit any act of Domestic Violence against the aggrieved person herein after.
24. The second relief sought by the petitioner is to pass an order against respondent number 1 for paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.10,000/- each to petitioner number 2,3 per month from the date of this application towards their maintenance. According to section 20 of protection of women from domestic violence act, the
magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet
expenses incurred and loss suffered by aggrieved person which may include loss of earnings, medical expenses, maintenance for aggrieved person. The overall evidence clearly shows that due to domestic violence and harassment of the respondents, the petitioner left the society of the respondent and residing at her parents house along with petitioner number 2,3 . There is a clear negligence on part of the respondent number 1 to maintain petitioners. It is the bounded duty of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. The petitioner No 1 contended that Respondent number 1 is working as assistant manager in Green Honda car showroom at Nagole and is getting a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month and that he’s also having residential houses at LN Nagar on which he is getting monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- and that the respondent number two is also working as Goldsmith and is getting monthly income of Rs.40,000/- and that the respondents are having sufficient source of income to maintain them . However ,there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent. Hence,considering all the factors, a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to petitioner number 1 and Rs 2,000/- per month each to petitioner number 2,3 is ordered to be paid by the first respondent from the date of this petition. Hence the second relief sought is partly allowed.
25. The third relief is to direct respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the first petitioner for causing mental agony and physical torture to her . The petitioner is seeking Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony and emotional distress caused by the respondent number 1 by the acts of domestic violence. But, the court cannot come to the conclusion in the compensatory orders as there is no documentary evidence placed before this court showing that the first respondent is having capacity to pay the compensation as sought by the petitioners. Hence the compensation sought by the petitioners are rejected by this court.
26. The fourth relief is to order the respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.30,000 towards cost of this proceedings. but there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent number 1 . However , an amount of Rs.5,000/- is directed to be paid by the respondent number 1 to the petitioner towards the cost of this proceeding.
27. The last relief sought by petitioner is to restrain the respondent number 1 from alienating the immovable properties. But there is no available documentary evidence with regard to the property of the respondent number 1 . There is no single clue with regard to the properties existing in the name of the respondent number 1. Hence the court cannot order for the this relief sought . Hence, this relief is rejected. Accordingly, the second point is answered.
28. Point 3: To what relief ? The respondent number 1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No 1, Rs 2,000/- each to petitioner number 2,3 from the date of filing this petition. The arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid within six months from the date of this order by respondent number 1 to the petitioner number 1. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount to petitioners on or before 10th of every calendar month .
29. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner number 1 towards cost of the proceedings within six months.
30. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner 1, Rs 2,000/- each to petitioner No 2,3 commencing from the date of filing of this petition. The respondent is further directed to deposit the arrears of monthly maintenance amount till this date within 6 months from the date of this order . The respondent No 1 shall also deposit the regular monthly maintenance amount on or before 10 th of every calendar month to petitioner No 1. Further, respondent number 1 shall pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner number 1 towards the cost of the proceedings within six months. Other reliefs are dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand cancelled.
31. Any breach by the respondents under the act will be held liable for punishment under section 31 of the act.
32. Concerned SHO is directed to assist in implementing the above orders without any delay, if any request is made by the petitioner in this regard.
33. The office is directed to forward copy of the order to concerned SHO for implementation, if any, at their end.
34. Surve copy of this order to the parties free of cost under section 24 of the act.
Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on
this the 22 nd day of June , 2023.
FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class
Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined
For Petitioner For Respondents
PW1Adulabad Venkata Laxmi -None- Exhibits marked
For Petitioner For Respondents
Ex.A1Original marriage photographs (3)-Nil - to Ex.A3
FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class
Spl(Mobile)Court, Kamareddy.