Page No 1 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF III JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. Gayathri Vemugadda
III Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Hyderabad
Tuesday, this the 23rd day of December, 2025
Domestic Violence Case No.101 of 2019
Between:
1. Smt. Khair Unnisa Amreen, W/o. Sri. Abdul Imran Khan, Aged about: 32 years, Occ: House Wife R/o. H.No. 3-5-786/22, Marjan Apartments,
Flat No. 104, King Koti, Shergate, Hyderabad ...Petitioner
AND
1. Sri. Sri. Abdul Imran Khan, S/o. Abdul Manan Khan, Aged about: 33 years, Occ: Travel Business,
2. Smt. Fareeda Begum, W/o. Abdul Manan Khan, Aged about: 48 plus, Occ. House Wife,
3. Abdul Manan Khan, S/o. Not Mentioned, Aged about: 58 years, Occ: Work in Petrol Bunk, {All Respondents are R/o. H. No. 1-2-24/D,
Boyapally Gate, Mahabubnagar District} ...Respondents
This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M.M. Ahmed Khan, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and after hearing the learned Counsel for Petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court has delivered the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1. This application was filed by the Petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred as DV Act) before this court through Protection Officer against her husband / Respondent No.1, Parents-in- law/Respondents No.2 and 3, praying this court various reliefs under section 18 to 22 of
DV Act and other reliefs.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 2 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019
2. Brief facts averred in the complaint to the Protection Officer are as follows:
The marriage of the Petitioner with Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 15-02- 2013 at Abids Function Hall, Abids, Hyderabad, as per Muslim rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, as per the demands of Respondent No.1 and his family members, the parents of the Petitioner allegedly gave dowry of
Rs.4,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold jewellery, household articles, and performed the marriage in a grand manner. A Jahez list was prepared, and Respondent No.1 attested the same.
2.1 After the marriage, the Petitioner joined the company of Respondent No.1 at the shared household along with his parents, and they initially led a marital life. Within a short period, Respondent No.1, along with his mother and father, allegedly started harassing the Petitioner on the ground that the Jahez articles were sub-standard. It is alleged that within one week of the marriage, the mother-in-law took control of the gold jewellery and Jahez articles and did not permit the Petitioner to wear or use the same.
2.2 It is further alleged that, on the instigation of Respondents No.2 and 3, Respondent
No.1 subjected the Petitioner to physical cruelty by demanding additional dowry of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The Respondents No.2 and 3 allegedly passed sarcastic remarks stating that the parents of the Petitioner failed to fulfil their promises and that the Petitioner was not a suitable match for Respondent No.1, asserting that had he married a richer woman, they would have received more dowry.
2.3 During the subsistence of the marriage, the Petitioner was blessed with two sons, namely: One son aged about 2 years and 2 months, who is stated to be mentally challenged, and another son, Abdul Raqib Khan, aged about 13 months.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 3 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 2.4 It is alleged that all expenses relating to deliveries and medical treatment were borne by the parents of the Petitioner. After the birth of the first child, the harassment allegedly intensified, and Respondent No.1 failed to provide even day-to-day household expenses for the Petitioner and the children.
2.5 The Petitioner further alleges that Respondent No.1, at the instigation of
Respondents No.2 and 3, repeatedly subjected her to cruelty and forcibly dropped her at her parental house on several occasions after assaulting her for additional dowry. Even when her parents expressed their inability to meet the unlawful demands, Respondent
No.1 allegedly assaulted the Petitioner in their presence. Despite repeated efforts by the parents and elders to reconcile the matter, the conduct of Respondent No.1 and his family members allegedly remained unchanged.
2.6 It is further alleged that the Petitioner was forced to perform the entire household work, compelled to wake up early in the morning, and treated like a maid servant.
Respondent No.1 allegedly failed to provide basic necessities, medical care, and medicines either to the Petitioner or to the children. Respondents No.2 and 3 allegedly threatened the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 would pronounce divorce if their demands were not fulfilled. The continuous physical, mental, and emotional abuse allegedly drove the Petitioner to a state of extreme distress, though she continued to reside in the matrimonial home solely for the welfare of her children.
2.7 On 22-11-2017, Respondent No.1 and his family members allegedly picked up a quarrel demanding additional dowry. When the Petitioner refused, Respondent No.1, at the instigation of his parents, allegedly assaulted her mercilessly and drove her out of the matrimonial home along with her children, permitting her to leave only with the
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 4 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 clothes she was wearing. With no other option, she returned to her parental home and narrated the incidents of cruelty.
2.8 Thereafter, the Petitioner, her parents, and elders attempted reconciliation; however, Respondent No.1 allegedly refused to take her back unless his illegal demands were fulfilled. Respondent No.1 allegedly avoided her calls and did not give any proper response. Due to continuous physical and mental harassment, the Petitioner claims to be suffering from ill-health and apprehends danger to her life and the lives of her children. The acts of Respondents are alleged to constitute domestic violence.
2.9 Due to continuous harassment, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before W.P.C.S.,
C.C.S., Hyderabad, and a case was registered in Crime No. 412 of 2018 against
Respondent No.1 and others. It is alleged that Respondent No.1 is running a travel business and earning about Rs.1,50,000/- per month, apart from owning properties at
Mahabubnagar, fetching rental income of approximately ₹50,000/- per month. Despite having sufficient means, he has allegedly neglected to maintain the Petitioner and the children.
2.10 The Petitioner states that she is a homemaker with no independent source of income and is dependent upon her aged widowed mother. One of her sons requires continuous medical care due to mental disability, and the other is an infant requiring constant attention. She claims maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself, Rs.20,000/- for the mentally challenged child, and Rs.10,000/- for the younger child. The acts of domestic violence are alleged to be continuing and Respondent No.1 and his family members are stated to be threatening her with dire consequences.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 5 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 2.11 The Petitioner submits that Respondent No.1 has failed to discharge his legal, moral, and social obligation to maintain his wife and children and has not provided any accommodation. Hence, she seeks following reliefs:
a) Protection Order under Section 18 of DV Act against Respondent No.1 and his family members;
b) Direct Respondent No.1 under Section 19 of DV Act to pay ₹8,000/- per month towards rent and ₹2,000/- towards electricity and water charges for alternate accommodation;
c) Direct Respondent No.1 under Section 20 of DV Act to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioner, Rs.20,000/- to her mentally challenged son, and Rs.10,000/- to the younger son, totaling Rs.50,000/- per month;
d) Pass appropriate orders under Section 21 of DV Act restraining Respondent
No.1 and others from disturbing the custody of the children of the Petitioner;
e) Direct Respondent No.1 and others to return the dowry amount of
Rs.4,00,000/-, 15 tulas of gold jewellery, Jahez articles including electronic items, and marriage expenses of Rs.10,00,000/-;
f) Award compensation under Section 22 of DV Act to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- towards mental torture, emotional distress, and suffering caused by acts of domestic violence.
3. Basing on application and the Domestic Incident Report, this Court being satisfied that there is prima facie case of domestic violence had registered this case as DVC No.
101 of 2019 against Respondents No.1 to 3 and issued notices to them.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 6 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019
4. Brief contents of the Counter filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 are as follows:
The Respondents denied all the allegations levelled by the Petitioner. They admitted the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 15-02-2013 as per Muslim rites and customs and that after marriage, the Petitioner joined the company of Respondent No.1 at his residence along with his parents and unmarried younger sister.
4.1 It is contended that after a few days of marriage, the father of the Petitioner himself took one gold chain belonging to the Petitioner, stating that it was damaged and required repair. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of Respondent No.1 that the said ornament, weighing about 4 to 5 tulas, was mortgaged by the father of the
Petitioner at Muthoot Finance, Kachiguda Branch, for his personal requirements.
Respondent No.1 did not object to the same, as the ornament belonged to the
Petitioner.
4.2 It is admitted that two sons were born out of the wedlock; however, it is denied that the medical and delivery expenses were borne by the parents of the Petitioner.
Respondents claimed that Respondent No.1 bore all hospital and medical expenses. It is also denied that any of the children is mentally challenged.
4.3 The Petitioner frequently visited her parental house at Hyderabad, and neither
Respondent No.1 nor his parents ever objected to the same. The family of Respondent
No.1 belongs to a rural background and follows the practice of waking up early in the morning. The Petitioner, having been brought up in a metropolitan environment, was accustomed to waking up late. Even then, Respondent No.1 adjusted and merely advised her to adopt a healthier routine.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 7 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 4.4 It is contended that soon after the marriage, the Petitioner started insisting that
Respondent No.1 shift permanently to Hyderabad, citing discomfort with the amenities available at Mahabubnagar. She repeatedly threatened that she would not return to the matrimonial home and would initiate false cases if her demand was not accepted. Having regard to the good reputation of Respondent No.1’s family, the parents of the
Petitioner also got their other daughter, Anjum Unnisa, a divorcee, married to the maternal uncle of Respondent No.1. Even in that marriage, similar pressure was exerted to shift to Hyderabad.
4.5 A panchayat was held on 29-05-2018, during which Respondent No.1 and his parents assured that they would consider shifting to Hyderabad if Respondent No.1 secured suitable employment there. However, the Petitioner remained adamant in her demand. Having failed in all efforts to persuade the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 issued a legal notice dated 18-05-2018 through his counsel calling upon the Petitioner to join his company. The Petitioner neither replied to the said notice nor joined the company of
Respondent No.1.
4.6 Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed F.C.O.S. No. 1 of 2018 before the Hon’ble Family
Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Petitioner remained ex parte, and the said petition was decreed on 06-05- 2019, directing the Petitioner to join the company of Respondent No.1 within one month. The Petitioner failed to comply with the decree.
4.7 It is admitted that the Petitioner lodged a criminal complaint which was registered as Crime No. 412 of 2018 at W.P.S., C.C.S., D.D., Hyderabad. It is alleged that the criminal complaint and the present DVC were initiated only after Respondent No.1 refused to accede to the demand of the Petitioner to shift to Hyderabad. The Petitioner has on
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 8 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 several occasions threatened Respondent No.1 that she would harass him and his family members by filing false cases.
4.8 The father of the Petitioner prevented Respondent No.1 from meeting his children even during festival occasions and used abusive language stating that “Law kuch bhi nahi ukhad sakta,” which incident was video-recorded. On another occasion, an elderly mediator by name Mohammed Jabbar, who was also cited as an independent witness in
Crime No. 412 of 2018, was abused and threatened by the father of the Petitioner when he attempted reconciliation. The said incident was also recorded in the form of a CD.
4.9 It is denied that Respondent No.1 earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month or that he owns properties fetching rental income of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Respondent No.1 is a typist/DTP operator earning approximately Rs.500/- per day by running a small table near the MRO office at Mahabubnagar. He does not own any house and resides in his mother’s house. The Petitioner is a Commerce graduate and IATA-qualified and is capable of earning. As such the demand of Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance is exorbitant and untenable.
4.10 The Respondent No.1 has always been willing to resume cohabitation and maintain the Petitioner and children according to his modest means. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is prayed to dismiss the petition, as the Petitioner has approached this Court with false, frivolous, and baseless allegations and is not entitled to any relief under DV Act.
5.During the course of inquiry, the Petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exhibits: P 1 to P 6 in support of her case. Respondent No.1 was examined as
R.W.1, but no documents were marked on his behalf. The chief examination of RW1 was
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 9 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 closed vide docket order dated: 06-12-2024. Later vide docket order dated: 26-05-2025
RW 1 evidence was eschewed from consideration. After closure of Respondents evidence, the matter was posted to arguments.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The arguments of the Respondents is taken as heard vide docket order Dated: - 10-11-2025. The Petitioner has filed her
Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (hereinafter referred to as ‘ADAL’). Since
Respondent No.1 failed to file the same, an adverse inference was drawn against him vide docket order dated: - 29-09-2025. Perused the case record.
7.The following points arise for determination:
1. “Whether the Petitioner established domestic relationship with the
Respondents?
2. “Whether the Petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the
Respondents?”
3. “Whether the Petitioner is entitled for all the reliefs prayed for?”
4. “To what relief?”
8. Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner established domestic relationship with the
Respondents?
8.1It is well settled that establishing the existence of a domestic relationship is a sine qua non for fastening any allegation of domestic violence under DV Act. In the present case there is no dispute regarding the familial relationship between the parties. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No.1 and that two sons were born out of the wedlock. It is further undisputed that, after the marriage, the Petitioner joined the company of Respondent No.1 and resided in his house along with his parents and unmarried younger sister.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 10 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 8.2 In view of the admitted fact of the Petitioner residing together with Respondent
No.1 and his family members in the shared household after marriage, this Court holds that the existence of a domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the
Respondents is clearly established within the definition of domestic relationship under section 2 (f) of DV Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
9. Point No2:-
“Whether the Petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the Respondents?”
Before proceeding with the discussion, let me refer to the definition of Section 3 of
Domestic Violence, in DV Act. It reads as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the Respondent No.1 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;
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 11 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019
(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 No.1 constitutes "domestic violence"
under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be
taken into consideration.
9.1 To substantiate her case, the Petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and relied upon documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1, the Marriage Certificate issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board dated 14-06-2018, and Ex.P2, the marriage photograph, clearly establish the marital relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1.
Ex.P5, the Aadhaar cards of the minor sons, namely Master Abdul Raqib Khan and Master
Abdul Haseeb Khan, coupled with the admitted fact, establish that the parties were
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 12 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 blessed with two children, born on 18-11-2017 and 07-10-2016 respectively. These documents affirm the subsistence of a shared household and family life between the parties.
9.2 Ex.P3 is the true copy of FIR in Crime No.412 of 2018 registered by WPS, CCS,
Hyderabad. A perusal of Ex.P3 reveals that the Petitioner had approached the police alleging acts of cruelty, harassment, and dowry-related demands by Respondent No.1 and other Respondents. The registration of the said FIR during the subsistence of marital relationship lends corroboration to the version of the Petitioner that she was subjected to domestic violence. Though an FIR by itself does not amount to proof of guilt, it is a contemporaneous document reflecting the grievance of the aggrieved person and cannot be lightly brushed aside, particularly at proceedings under DV Act, which are civil in nature and governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
9.3 In her chief examination affidavit filed in lieu of Examination-In- Chief, PW.1 reiterated the allegations made in her complaint to the Protection Officer regarding physical, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she did not file documentary proof to show payment of cash dowry, gold jewellery, or household articles, nor did she produce medical records to evidence physical injuries. However, mere absence of medical or documentary proof does not ipso facto discredit her testimony, especially when domestic violence often occurs within the four walls of the matrimonial home, where independent witnesses or documentary evidence may not be readily available.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 13 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 9.4 PW.1 further explained that she did not immediately approach the police in respect of certain incidents, as she was hopeful of reconciliation and was constrained by circumstances, including her post-operative condition following a Caesarean delivery.
Such explanation appears natural and plausible. Her evidence remained consistent with the averments in the complaint and the contents of Ex.P3.
9.5 It is crucial to highlight that, though Respondent No.1 filed his chief examination affidavit as RW.1, his evidence was eschewed from consideration vide docket order
dated 26-05-2025. Consequently, the material allegations of the Petitioner regarding
domestic violence have remained unrebutted by any legally admissible evidence on behalf of the Respondents.
9.6 Having regard to the oral testimony of PW.1, the contemporaneous registration of
FIR under Ex.P3, the admitted marital relationship, and the absence of rebuttal evidence from the Respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has been able to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she was subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the DV Act. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.3:
“Whether the Petitioner is entitled to all the reliefs as prayed for?”
The Petitioner has sought, inter alia, a Protection Order under Section 18 of DV A. In view of the findings recorded under Point No.1 and Point No.2, wherein the existence of a domestic relationship and commission of domestic violence have been held to be established, this Court proceeds to examine the entitlement of the Petitioner to such relief.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 14 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 10.1 The material on record discloses that the Petitioner has specifically alleged instances of physical abuse at the hands of Respondent No.1, including assault during the subsistence of marital life and particularly during a vulnerable period surrounding childbirth. The Petitioner has further expressed a reasonable apprehension of repetition of such acts of violence in the event of any interaction or proximity with the
Respondents. Such apprehension is not unfounded, having regard to the strained relationship between the parties and the prior acts complained of.
10.2 Considering the allegations of physical abuse, the apprehension expressed by the
Petitioner, and the object and spirit of Section 18 of the DV Act to secure the safety and dignity of the aggrieved woman, this Court is of the considered view that grant of a
Protection Order is necessary to prevent further acts of domestic violence and to safeguard the Petitioner from abuse of any kind.
Accordingly, Protection order is hereby granted in favour of the Petitioner under
Section 18 of the DV Act, restraining Respondents from committing any act of
domestic violence against the Petitioner.
10.3 The petitioner sought to direct Respondent No.1 to pay rent of Rs.8,000/- per month plus Rs.2,000/- for maintenance, electricity and water charges for alternate accommodation and Rs.20,000 to her and her mentally retarded son and Rs.10,000/- to her another son, total Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance on the premise that
Respondent No.1 is earning substantial income from a travel business and rental properties. On the contrary, Respondent No.1 has denied such income and projected himself as a daily earning typist with modest income.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 15 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 10.4 The Petitioner during her cross examination admitted that she has not placed documentary proof to conclusively establish the exact income of Respondent No.1 as claimed. However, it is pertinent to note that Respondent No.1 has also failed to file
ADAL, despite being required to do so. In such circumstances, an adverse inference necessarily arises against Respondent No.1 regarding suppression of true income particulars.
10.5 The version put forth by Respondent No.1 that he earns merely Rs.500/- per day by providing DTP services by placing a table near the MRO office does not inspire confidence, particularly when he is admittedly a B.Com graduate and when the
Petitioner has consistently asserted that he was engaged in a travel-related business.
While this Court refrains from accepting the exact quantum of income as pleaded by the
Petitioner in the absence of proof, it is evident that Respondent No.1 is an able-bodied person with the capacity to earn sufficiently to maintain his wife and children.
10.6 As regards the status of the Petitioner, there is no material on record to show that she is gainfully employed. Mere educational qualification or IATA certification, without proof of present employment or income, cannot be construed as a source of sustenance. The Petitioner has consistently stated that she is a homemaker and is presently dependent upon her parents for survival.
10.7 It is crucial to highlight the important and compelling factor in this case, which is the condition of the elder son, Master Abdul Haseeb Khan. Exhibit P6 establishes that the said child is diagnosed with permanent mental retardation with 90% disability. This document has not been challenged in cross-examination, thereby lending it full evidentiary value. The special needs of the said child, including continuous medical care,
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 16 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 supervision, and medication, undeniably increase the financial burden upon the
Petitioner.
10.8 Taking into consideration the obligation of Respondent No.1 to maintain his wife and children, the failure of Respondent No.1 to disclose his true income, the absence of any proof that the Petitioner is earning, the special medical needs of the elder child, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs sought by the Petitioner deserve to be partly allowed, in a manner that is just, reasonable, and proportionate.
lAccordingly, Respondent No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) per month each to the Petitioner and her minor sons, Master
Abdul Haseeb Khan and Master Abdul Raqib Khan, aggregating to Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per month, towards maintenance. Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month towards rental expenses to the Petitioner, from the date of filing of the DVC. The arrears of maintenance and rent shall be paid within five (5) months from the date of this order. Respondent No.1 shall deposit the aforesaid monthly maintenance and rental amount into the bank account of the Petitioner on or before the 5th day of every succeeding calendar month.
10.9 The Petitioner has sought a direction under Section 21 of DV Act, restraining the
Respondents from disturbing the custody of her children.
Section 21 of the DV Act empowers the Magistrate to grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or to any person making an application on her behalf, during the pendency of the proceedings, if such arrangement is considered
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 17 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 necessary for the welfare of the child. The said provision is enabling and interim in nature, intended to regulate custody during the subsistence of domestic violence proceedings, and does not contemplate the issuance of a negative injunction restraining the other party from disturbing custody, particularly when no competing claim for custody is pending before the Court.
10.10 In the present case, it is not in dispute that the children are already in the custody of the Petitioner. Issues relating to permanent custody, guardianship, or visitation rights are required to be adjudicated before the competent civil or family court under the appropriate personal law or guardianship statutes, and not under
Section 21 of the DV Act.
Therefore, the relief sought by the Petitioner under Section 21 of the DV Act,
restraining the Respondents from disturbing the custody of the children, is not
maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
10.11 The Petitioner has sought a direction to the Respondents to return an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards dowry, 15 tulas of gold jewellery, standard jewellery articles, electronic items, and other marriage-related expenses allegedly amounting to
Rs.10,00,000/-.
10.12 During the course of cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that cash amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, gold jewellery weighing 15 tulas, or household articles were given to the Respondents at the time of marriage. Though the Petitioner stated that she possesses slips evidencing the same, no such documents have been produced before this Court.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 18 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 10.13 It is the further version of the Petitioner that a jahez list was prepared and that
Respondent No.1 had attested the same. However, no such jahez list has been marked in evidence to substantiate this assertion. In the absence of the alleged list or any supporting documentary or corroborative material, the claim remains unsubstantiated.
10.14 While proceedings under the DV Act are summary in nature, the relief sought for return of dowry amount and articles necessarily requires at least prima facie proof of entrustment and existence of such articles. Mere self-serving assertions or self- assessment of value, without any documentary support, cannot form the basis for granting such a relief.
In view of the above admissions and the absence of documentary evidence, this
Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has failed to establish her entitlement to the relief sought for return of dowry amount, jewellery, and other articles.
Accordingly, the relief sought by the Petitioner for return of dowry amount,
gold jewellery, articles, and other marriage expenses is hereby dismissed.
10.15 The Petitioner has sought a direction to the Respondents to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards mental torture and emotional distress allegedly suffered by her due to acts of domestic violence.
10.16 It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner has not specifically pleaded or explained the basis for quantification of the said amount. Further, no medical records have been produced to establish that the Petitioner suffered any physical injuries requiring treatment. Nevertheless, compensation under Section 22 of DV Act is not confined solely to physical injury and extends to mental agony and emotional distress.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 19 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 10.17 From the evidence on record, particularly the consistent version of the
Petitioner, it is evident that the Petitioner has undergone considerable mental agony, emotional trauma, and suffering on account of domestic violence. It is also an admitted position that the Respondent No.1 is not providing any financial or emotional support to the Petitioner and the minor children, including the elder son who is suffering from permanent mental retardation and requires continuous care and medication.
10.18 Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of domestic violence established, the continued neglect of the Petitioner and the children, and the absence of any mitigating conduct on the part of the Respondents, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the claim of Rs.50,00,000/- is excessive and disproportionate.
10.19 At the same time, denial of compensation altogether would defeat the object of
Section 22 of the DV Act. Therefore, this Court deems it just, reasonable, and proportionate to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental torture and emotional distress suffered by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, Respondents No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards compensation to the Petitioner
within five (5) months from the date of this order. Point No.3 is answered partly in affirmative.
11. POINT No.3:- To what relief:-
In the result, the application is partly allowed as follows:
l Protection Order is hereby granted in favour of the Petitioner under Section 18 of DV Act, restraining the Respondents from committing any act of domestic violence against the Petitioner.
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 20 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019 lRespondent No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month each to the Petitioner and her minor sons, Master Abdul Haseeb Khan and Master Abdul Raqib Khan, aggregating to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) per month, towards maintenance. Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay a sum of
Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month towards rental expenses to the
Petitioner, from the date of filing of the DVC. The arrears of maintenance and rent shall be paid within five (5) months from the date of this order. Respondent No.1 shall deposit the aforesaid monthly maintenance and rental amount into the bank account of the
Petitioner on or before the 5th day of every succeeding calendar month.
lRespondents No.1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) towards compensation to the Petitioner within five (5) months from the date of this order.
lRespondents No.1 to 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings.
lThe reliefs sought with respect to non-interference with custody and return of dowry amount, gold jewellery, Jahez articles, and other marriage expenses are dismissed.
The office is directed to furnish a free copy of this order to both parties to the application and forward a copy to the Protection Officer and the Officer-In-Charge of
Police Station Narayanguda and Officer-In-Charge of Police Station falling within the jurisdictional limits of residence of Respondent No.1.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd day of December, 2025.
III Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad
Page No 21 of total 21 pages DVC No. 101 of 2019
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner For Respondents
PW1Khair Unnisa Amreen, RW1Abdul Imran Khan, Respondent No.1 Petitioner(eschewed)
Documents Marked
For Petitioner
Ex.P1Marriage certificate of the Petitioner with Respondent issued by the Telangana state waqf board dated 14.06.2018. Ex.P2One Marriage photograph of the Petitioner with Respondent. Ex.P3True copy of FIR in Crime No. 412/2018 of WPS CCS Hyderabad Ex.P4Copy of Aadhar Card of the Petitioner. Ex.P5Copy of Aadhar Card of the sons of the Petitioner by names Abdul Raqib Khan and Abdul Haseeb Khan. Identity card person of disability of Abdul Haseeb Khan dated 28.09.2019 and Ex.P6certificate for percent disability issued by the Government of Telangana medical board of hospital, Hyderabad dated 01.12.2019.
For Respondents
NIL
III Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad
Date: 23-12-2025 III JMFC, Hyderabad