Page No. 1 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD
Present: Smt.Harisha, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
Dated this the 30th day of April, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12 of 2025
Judgment in Criminal Appeal:Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025
From what court the Appeal :II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First is preferredClass, Nizamabad.
Number of the case in that : Domestic Violence Case No.14 of court2016
Number of the Appeal:Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2025
Name and description of: 1Shaik Meeran, S/o Shaik AppellantsAbdullah, Aged: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-13/2, Wajidnagar (V), Bichkunda (M), Dist. Nizamabad, Now Dist. Kamareddy 2Khaja Begum, W/o Shaik Meeran, Age: 38 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.4-13/2, Wajidnagar (V), Bichkunda (M), Dist. Nizamabad, Now Dist. Kamareddy Name and description of: Smt. Farzana Begum, W/o Shaik Meeran Respondent Sahab, Age: 42 years, Occ: Household, R/o 11-1-611,ChandrashekarColony, Nizamabad. The sentence and law under: The Respondents No.1 and 4 and other Respondents are given direction by the which it was imposed in the Trial court not to cause any Domestic Trial court Violence against the aggrieved person by harassing physically or mentally in any manner by causing any sort of nuisance,
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 2 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 harassment, ill-treatment or otherwise sufferancetowardsthe Complainant/aggrieved person at any place or at the place of her residence or at the place of her work;
The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the aggrieved person as compensation for causing mental agony;
The Respondent no.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month by 10th of every succeeding month to the aggrieved person towards alternate accommodation since the date of this complaint in case he fails to provide alternate accommodation and the arrears shall be paid within 3 months from the date of the pronouncement of this order;
The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1500/- (Rupees Fifteen Hundred) per month towards maintenance of the aggrieved person from the date of Complaint, the Respondent No.1 shall pay the maintenance amount to the Complainant/ aggrieved person on or
before 10th of every month to the
aggrieved person no.1 and the arrears shall be paid within 3 months from the date of the pronouncement of the order;
The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the aggrieved person. The Respondent No.1 is directed to pay the above said compensationamounttothe Complainant within 3 months from the date of pronouncement of the order.
The Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses. The Respondent no.1
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 3 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 shall pay the same within three(3) months from the date of pronouncement of the order.
Whether confirmed, revised :In the result, the criminal appeal is and if modifiedDismissed by confirming the order passed by the II Addl. Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in
Domestic Violence Case No.14 of 2016
dated 13.02.2025.
This Criminal Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 17.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, counsel for the Appellants and Sri Muneer Khan, Counsel for the Respondent and on hearing the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.This is an Appeal filed under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act against the Order passed by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nizamabad in Domestic Violence Case No.14 of 2016 dated 13.02.2025 giving directions under various heads.
2.The brief facts of the case before the Trial court are that;
a)Aggrieved person filed the Domestic Violence Case against
Respondent nos.1 to 6, stating that the Respondent No.1 is her husband.
Respondent No.2 and 3 are the parents of Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.4 is the second wife of Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No.5 and 6 are the sister and brother in law of Respondent
No.1 respectively.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 4 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
b)It is submitted that the marriage of the aggrieved person with
Respondent No.1 was performed in the year 1991 as per the customs and traditions prevailing in the Muslim community and at the time of marriage, the parents of the aggrieved person presented net cash of
Rs.7,000/- as Jode Ki Rakham, ½ tula gold, 15 tulas silver, Jahez articles worth of Rs.25,000/- and also incurred marriage expenditure of
Rs.25,000/-. Immediately after the marriage the aggrieved person joined the conjugal society of the Respondent No.1 at Wajidnagar and lead happy married life and she blessed with male son namely Shaik Majid on 6.7.1993 and then the Respondent no.1 and his family members started harassing her for want of additional Dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which she showed her inability to bring the said additional Dowry amount from her parents, as the parents of the aggrieved person are very poor persons and they cannot pay the additional dowry amount.
c)The Respondent No.1 and his family members Syed Moulana, Syed
Abdullah and Ameena Bee @ Jani Bee confined the aggrieved person in a room in their house on 22-05-1995 and performed the second marriage of Respondent no.1 with Respondent no.4 (Khaja Begum) who is the daughter of Md. Sadaq and Smt. Nayeema Bee fully knowing that the Respondent no.1 is already in marriage with the aggrieved person as
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 5 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 husband for which she made a Telugu written complaint before the P.S.
Bichkunda against the Respondent No.1, his second wife and other family members for which the police Bichkunda after proper investigation and enquiry registered a case against the Respondent No.1 and (6) others and issued F.I.R.No. 47/1995 for the offence punishable
U/Sec. 342, 498-A, 494 R/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed Charge sheet against them vide
C.C.No.44/1995. After registration of the case, Respondent no.1 agreed that he will look after the aggrieved person very well and stated that he will look after the aggrieved person and will not harass in future for which she compromised the matter and withdrawn the above case against them. Thereafter the aggrieved person and Respondent no.1 lead conjugal life and she blessed with a daughter Rubeena Begum on 14.7.1999 and then the Respondent no.1 lead happy married life.
d)Thereafter the Respondent no.1 went to abroad for livelihood purpose and in the absence of the Respondent no.1, her in laws used to harass and ill treat her and used to abuse in most foul and filthy language but she tolerated the same as her husband was at abroad and thereafter in March, 2015 the Respondent No.1 returned from abroad and after arrival of her husband, the Respondent No.1 on the instigation
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 6 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 of his parents, second wife, sister and brother in law used to harass the aggrieved person for additional Dowry and threatened her with dire consequences and used to beat her mercilessly and the Respondent
No.1 and in-laws beat her mercilessly and necked out her from their house on 23.12.2015. Since then the aggrieved person is residing with her parents at Chandrashekar colony, Nizamabad. The aggrieved person has also lodged a complaint against Respondent No.1 and his family members before Women Police Station, Nizamabad for their harassment and additional demand of dowry and the WPS, Nizamabad after proper investigation and enquiry registered a case against the Respondent No.1 and his family members and issued F.I.R.No. 12/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the same is still pending before the I Addl.JFCM, Nizamabad. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.1 on the instigation of other Respondents used to harass the aggrieved person mentally and physically and all the
Respondents demanded the aggrieved person to bring additional dowry amount.
e)It is further submitted that the aggrieved person was unable to tolerate the harassment of the Respondents made a complaint before the WPS, Nizamabad who in turn after investigation and enquiry
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 7 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 registered a case against the Respondents. She further submitted that she has no source of income of her own and she is residing at her parents house along with her children and depending upon them for each and every need of her and their children and she has no separate residence and income of her own to maintain herself and her children.
The Respondent no.1 never paid single pie to her towards maintenance and the Respondent No.1 also never paid any education fees of his children also. She is a pardanashin lady and do not know any other work except the house hold work, and leading life in miserable condition and whereas, the Respondent No.1 is a gulf return and also doing business, agriculture work and also getting rents from his property and earning
Rs.60,000/-to Rs.70,000/- per month.
f)It is submitted that the aggrieved person has no source of income of her own and she has been residing at her parents house and depending upon them for each and every need. She has no separate residence and income of her own to maintain herself. Due to illegal acts of the Respondents, the aggrieved person along with her children have been suffering from mentally, physically and financially and for which the Respondents are responsible for consequences and for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is submitted that since acts of the
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 8 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Respondents are willful and intentional, the aggrieved person is compelled to approach this Court to get proper relief or reliefs against the Respondents.
g) That the Respondent No.1 and his family members are the absolute owners and possessor of the agricultural lands in Sy. No.632/A, 831/A, 590/A, 77/Ε, 76, 781A, 786/Ε, 297/RU, 299/E, 300/E, 655/A, 654/A, 841/2, 662/A, 664, 657, 658/A, 917/1, 76, 77/A, 78/A, 66, 297/U, 299/E, 299/RU, 300/EE, 300/UU, 653/A, 596/A, 596/A, 596/A2, 596/E total to an extent of approx. 17 acres at Wajidnagar and also a House bearing GP. No. 4-13/2 at Wajidnagar, Nizamabad. Hence, the Petition
before the Trial court.
3.After service of summons, the Respondent no.1 filed the counter which was adopted by Respondents no.2 to 5. The contents of the counter is as follows:
a)It is submitted that he married the aggrieved person in the year 1991. No Jode ki Rakam gold, silver or Jahez articles were presented to him. He submitted that the aggrieved person used to harass the
Respondent No.1 to live away from his parents (R 2 and R3) who are 92 yrs and 87 yrs. In the year 1993 the aggrieved person went for delivery to her parents place and after the birth of her son in 1993 the aggrieved
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 9 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 person did not return back to her matrimonial house and she was very adamant with him that only if Respondent No. 1 lives separately from his family members she will return if not she is contended by having a male child. She also mentioned that she will file false cases against the
Respondents and harass them. The Respondent No.1 tried to convince her and also held panchayats but all his efforts were failed by the aggrieved person and she did not return to her matrimonial house and she did not join the conjugal society of Respondent no.1. He submitted that they never demanded any additional Dowry from the side of the
Respondents. As the parents of the Respondent no.1 were old and there was nobody to take care of them as such Respondent no.1 married
Respondent No. 4.
b)That after coming to know about the second marriage of
Respondent no.1, the aggrieved person filed false complaint under section 498-A in the police station and a case was registered and charge sheet was filed vide CC No. 44 of 1995. Later after a lot of convincing the aggrieved person demanded that if a separate house is built for her she will withdraw the said case and live amicably with the Respondent no.1. Likewise a separate house was constructed and the aggrieved person along with her son lived in the newly constructed house and the
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 10 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 second wife (R4) lived along with the other family members of
Respondent no.1 and was taking care of the old aged parents of this
Respondent. In the year 2012, Respondent no.1 went to Saudi Arabia for livelihood and he transferred a lot of amount in the account of the aggrieved person which in turn she deposited in the account of her son for his education. The receipts of the money transferred and the college fee receipts are being filed along with this counter During the stay of this Respondent in Saudi Arabia the aggrieved person and Respondent
No. 4 lived like sisters and they used to go together to the Beedi rolling factory every day.
c)That after the Respondent No.1 returned from Saudi Arabia, the son of Respondent no.1 had grown up and he was already in college pursuing B.Tech. His son failed in few subjects in the second year and
Respondent no.1 mildly scolded his son to study well and work hard. By this the aggrieved person put a quarrel with Respondent no.1 stating that Respondent no.1 was not here to take care of his children as such now he has no right to scold her children by quarreling with Respondent no.1 and on this account she left the house of Respondent no.1 and started living at her parent's house.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 11 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
d)That the Respondent no.1 further submitted that in the year 2006, all the three brothers of Respondent no.1 partitioned the property which belonged to their ancestors. The aggrieved person immediately started harassing Respondent no.1 that she should get half the share of the share he got through partition and thus Respondent no.1 transferred Ac. 4-20 guntas (Sy. Nos.811/A4, 811/1/5, 649/488, 786 situated at Wajidnagar (V) and Pulkal Shivar of Bichkunda Mandal, Dist.
Kamareddy) in the name of the aggrieved person herself and in the year 2007 again a property was purchased in the name of the son of the aggrieved person which amounts to Ac 0-20 guntas. The aggrieved person has given her lands for tilling to other farmers and she collects rents from them. She also does Beedi rolling and earns Rs.100 per day and also gets a pension of Rs.1000/- under Aasara scheme of the govt for Beedi rollers. In the year 2012, Respondent no.1 went to Saudi
Arabia for livelihood and he transferred a lot of amount in the account of the aggrieved person which in turn she deposited in the account of her son for his education.
e)The Aggrieved Person left the company of the Respondent no.1 and living with her parents inspite of Respondent no.1 providing separate residence to her in the house and the aggrieved person is not
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 12 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 living there just to file false cases and to harass the Respondents.
Respondent no.1 does not own any property and does not get any rents.
It is submitted that there was no Domestic Violence from the side of the
Respondents and the Respondent No.2 & 3 are old aged persons,
Respondent No.2 is the father of Respondent no.1 and is aged 92 years and Respondent No.3 is the mother of Respondent no.1 and she is aged 87 years. Both the parents of Respondent no.1 are visually impaired and are not able to move out of bed. The Respondents No. 5 and 6 are living separately from the time of the marriage of Respondent No. 1 and from past four years they have been residing with their sons at Hyderabad.
f)It is submitted by Respondent no.1 that he has dry land of Ac 2-00 guntas and it is not in cultivation and not in a state of cultivation as there is no source of water to it. He also submitted that he is a labourer and earns Rs.3000 per month approximately. He has no permanent job and no other source of income. The second wife of Respondent no.1 i.e.,
Respondent no.4 does Beedi rolling and meets the ends with great difficulty. There was never any Domestic Violence or harassment by the
Respondents as the aggrieved person has been living separately and always has been demanding a separation. The aggrieved person is rolling Beedies and earning Rs 4000/- for month and she gets Rs.1000/-
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 13 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 as Aasara Pension and she gives the land as lease and gets Rs. 70,000/- per month as lease amount and her son is also working and maintaining her and she does not need any maintenance from Respondent no.1. On the other hand Respondent no.1 has only meager income of Rs.3000/-
P.M. and has old aged parents, second wife and 4 children. Respondent no.1 is not keeping Good health and not able to work. He also submitted that he is ready to take the aggrieved person into his company and live with her. It is submitted that aggrieved person is harassing them by making false claims and aggrieved person is enjoying the property of Respondent no.1 and to harass and extract money she has filed this case and also a case under 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
Given the above, Respondents no.1 to 5 requested this Court to dismiss the application.
4. During the course of Trial aggrieved person was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19 in her evidence. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and on behalf of Respondents, Sri. Dastha Goud was examined as RW2 and Ex.R1 to R5 were marked in the evidence of RW1.
5.Basing on oral and documentary evidences the Trial court has given directions to the Respondents as mentioned above and the
Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are the Appellants herein.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 14 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
6.Having aggrieved with the said order of the Trial court, the
Appellant Nos.1 and 2/Respondent Nos.1 and 4 preferred this Appeal on the following grounds:
a)That the order under Appeal is erroneous and against the principles of natural justice, the Trial court has not properly appreciated the relevant facts of the case, evidence on record, thus arrived at a wrong conclusion which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The order of the learned magistrate is contrary to law, weight of evidence and against the probabilities of the case.
b)The Learned Magistrate has not applied the principles of the appreciation of evidence in a Domestic Violence Act, which enjoins that each and every ingredient ought to be proved by the aggrieved person.
The Learned Magistrate erred in allowing the Domestic Violence Case when the evidence on record does not establish the essential ingredients of Domestic Violence.
c)The Learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence in proper perspective way and recorded findings in a Mechanical fashion. The
Learned Magistrate erred in allowing the Domestic Violence Case in part when the evidence on record does not establish or satisfy the legal tests of the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Magistrate erred in
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 15 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 making inferences without any legal or reliable evidence relating to the
Domestic Violence.
d)That the Trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of PW1, in coming to the conclusion that Respondent No.1 caused Domestic
Violence against the aggrieved person, it is in evidence that the aggrieved person herself left the company of the Respondent No.1 when the Respondent No.1 admonished the son, as the son failed in
B.Tech exams, when the Appellant No.1 was working abroad and sending fees for the studies and as the aggrieved person was taking care of the child, it is natural reaction when the child fails in exams and when the aggrieved person was taking care of the child as the Respondent
No.1 was living at Abroad on employment.
e)The Trial Court erred in allowing the Domestic Violence Case though the aggrieved person failed to prove that the Appellants caused any Domestic Violence, this caused miscarriage of Justice. That the Trial came to a wrong conclusion that there was physical abuse by
Respondent Nos 1 to 3, without there being any evidence led by the aggrieved person to the said effect, this led to miscarriage of justice.
That Trial court erred in holding that there was emotional abuse caused by Respondent No 1, observing that the second marriage caused
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 16 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 emotional abuse, court having come to conclusion that though the law permits for a second marriage, the said marriage will cause emotional abuse, in this regard it is the evidence that the aggrieved person left the company of the Respondent No.1 /husband and did not return in spite of efforts and as there was no women in the house hold to look after the aged parents R2 & R3 and out of whom Respondent was
Respondent No.2 was suffering with vision problem, the court ought to have considered this fact in favour of the Respondent No.1/husband, as such no emotional abuse has occurred.
f)That the Trial court erred in coming to conclusion that there was harassment as defined U/sec.3 (b) of Domestic Violence Act, as such there is Domestic Violence, the observation of the Trial court is that nothing could be elicited in cross examination as such aggrieved person proved that there was harassment, the said observation and conclusion of the Trial court is against the law and evidence Act, it is for the aggrieved person to prove cogently that there is harassment, the Trial court believed the self-statement of the aggrieved person without any further corroboration. The Trial court ought to have taken the judgment of the Criminal court passed in CC.320 of 2016 wherein the criminal court acquitted the Respondents for the offence U/sec.498 A of Indian
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 17 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act after elaborate evidence led by the aggrieved person and this case is also filed after filing the criminal case under 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the same facts without any change in circumstances and events, as such the Trial court caused injustice by assuming harassment for the purpose of allowing the complaint.
g)That according to Trial court, physical abuse against R4 to R6 is not proved, verbal abuse is proved only against Respondent No.1 and coming to the allegations of Domestic Violence the aggrieved person did not prove against Respondent No.3 to 6, emotional abuse is proved only against Respondent No.1, the persons left are Respondents No.1 & 2 and one of the Respondents died during pendency of the case. The
Trial court in Para No 21 of the order observed that the aggrieved person did not prove Domestic Violence against R3 to R6 and Para
No.23 it holds that the aggrieved person proved Domestic Violence against R1 to R3, which is contra to the conclusion arrived at Para No.21.
This shows that the Trial court passed a moral order rather than a legal order. As such it cannot be held that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 caused
Domestic Violence, as such the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 18 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
h)That basing on the evidence on record, the aggrieved person failed to prove that the Respondent No.1 has committed Domestic Violence, in absence of proving Domestic Violence the aggrieved person is not entitled for any reliefs under the Act, but the Trial court erred in granting monetary reliefs to the aggrieved person. The Trial court in
Para No.23 (vi) observed as "upon careful examination of Exhibits P1 to
Ex.P18 and R3 it discloses that aggrieved person has more extent of land in her possession than Respondent No.1. Ex-R3 pattedar Pass Book discloses that she has Acres 3.30 guntas on her name in various survey numbers which is more than Respondent No1. The Respondent failed to prove the income from the said land, only suggestions were given to that extent without any valid proof". The said land was purchased by the
Respondent No.1, the said land would fetch income, the question put to
PW1 was that "you and your son are giving those lands on lease and earning Rs.50,000/- PM (Rs.6,00,000/- PA) to this, her answer was blunt reply not true, it is not her case that she is not giving the land on lease and not getting any income from the said agricultural lands, in view of this the Trial court ought to have drawn adverse inference and assessed the income from the agricultural which stood on the name of the aggrieved person, in view of the above the aggrieved person income and
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 19 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 needs no maintain from the Respondent No.1/husband and she is not entitled for any maintenance. The aggrieved person also admitted regarding receiving old age pension from Government. Thus the Trial erred in granting maintenance @ 1500/- pm from the date of the petition.
i)That the Trial court failed to appreciate that earlier also when the aggrieved person left the company of the Respondent, he went and brought her back and even after she lodging a complaint before the police, Bichkunmda for the offence U/s 498 A of the Indian Penal Code he again went and brought her into his company. Now during pendency of this case, the Respondent No.1 expressed his willingness to take the aggrieved person into his company and lead marital life, but the aggrieved person refused to join the company of the Respondent
No.1/husband. All these circumstances ought to have been considered in favour of the Respondent No.1 by the Trial court and ought not to have granted any payment towards alternate accommodation, this led to miscarriage of Justice.
j)That the Trial court failed to appreciate all the relevant facts and came to a wrong conclusion on assumptions and presumptions against the law and evidence on record and this led to miscarriage of Justice.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 20 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
The Trial court erred in allowing the Domestic Violence Case, though the law is that after filing of Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code case, no
Domestic Violence can be filed without fresh cause of action. This
Domestic Violence Case is filed on the same cause of action of the complaint filed for the offences U/sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which ended in acquittal vide
Ex.R5. That the Trial Court erred in allowing the Domestic Violence Case, though the aggrieved person did not prove that Domestic Violence was committed by the Respondents. Hence it is prayed to allow this Appeal.
7.For the sake of convenience the parties in this Appeal is referred as they were referred before the Trial court.
8. Now the points that arise for determination are :
i).Whether there are any sufficient grounds to interfere with the order of the Trial court ?
ii).To what Relief?
Point No. i:-
9.Heard both sides. Perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellants who are Respondent Nos.1 and 4 before the Trial Court argued that though the petitioner in Domestic Violence Case is not entitled for amount of compensation and other reliefs from the
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 21 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Respondents, but the Trial court without considering the documents and evidences on record, wrongly made the order, in para No.23 (II) (vi) it is clearly mentioned by the Trial court that upon careful examination of Ex.P1 and P18 and Ex.R3 it discloses that aggrieved person has more extent of land in possession than Respondent no.1, Ex.R2 Pattadar passbook discloses that she had total land of Ac.3-30 guntas in her name in various survey number, which is more than Respondent No.1, the
Trial Court committed error in allowing the Petition in favour of the
Petitioner therein, he prayed the Court to allow the Appeal and to set aside the order of Trial Court.
10.The learned counsel for theRespondent submitted written arguments and argued that the Trial Court did not commit any error in awarding the compensation and other reliefs in favour of aggrieved person, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. A lengthy written arguments filed before the Court and the gist of written arguments are that the Trial Court did not commit any error in delivering the judgment, the husband’s liability is to maintain his wife and it is a settled principle of law, as per Section 20 of Domestic Violence Case Act the monetary reliefs including the maintenance can be granted to the aggrieved person, the transfer of property in the name of aggrieved person does
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 22 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 not absolve the liability, as the Trial Court consistently held that mere subsistent income does not disentitles a wife from maintenance as Rw.1 in the cross examination, admitted that he did not pay any maintenance since separation. The Respondent is a businessman, agriculturist and he returned from Gulf country, he is having substantial capacity.
Maintenance is not a charity but it is a legal right of a wife. the Courts in many cases held that the maintenance must ensure the wife can live with dignity and maintain the same standard of living enjoyed during cohabitation. Infact, there is admission on the part of Respondent no.1 that he performed second marriage, it itself is an emotional abuse and humiliation to the first wife. As the aggrieved person suffered with
Domestic Violence she is very much entitled to the shared household as well as alternative accommodation allowance. The Trial court even though granted reliefs to the aggrieved person but the quantum of monetary reliefs and compensation are not enough to meet the requirement of aggrieved person. It is prayed the Court to dismiss the
Criminal appeal and it is prayed to enhance the relief of maintenance, compensation and even the amount of alternative accommodation, the litigation expenses, etc.,
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 23 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
11.It is seen from the record that the Respondent herein filed the
Domestic Violence Case against the present petitioners and others.
Husband of aggrieved person is shown as Respondent No.1, parents of
Respondent no.1 before the Trial court are shown as Respondent Nos.2 and 3, second wife of Respondent No.1 before the Trial Court is shown as Respondent no.4, Respondent nos.5 and 6 before the Trial court are the sister and brother-in-law of Respondent No.1 before the Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the Judgment of Trial court the Respondent No.1 and 4 therein have filed present Criminal Appeal.
12.Before the Trial Court, the aggrieved person is examined as Pw.1, she got marked Ex.P1 to P19. Ex.P1 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No 00102123 in respect of Sy. No.658/A extent of 0-0500 guntas situated at
Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy. Ex.P2 is the
Certified copy of Pahani No.00102124 in respect of Sy No.655/AA extent of 0-0450 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy, Ex.P3 is the Certified Copy of Pahani
No.00102125 in respect of Sy No.654/AA extent of 0-0750 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy,
Ex.P4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102126 in respect of
Sy.No.662/A extent of 0-01500 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 24 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy Ex.P5 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102127 in respect of Sy.No.664 extent of 0-0200 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy,
Ex.P6 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102128 in respect of
Sy.No.657 extent of 0-01200 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of
Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy Ex.P7 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102129 in respect of Sy.No. 78/AA extent of 0-1000 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist, Kamareddy
Ex.P8 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102130 in respect of
Sy.No.653/AA extent of 0-0500 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of
Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy Ex.P9 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102131 in respect of Sy.No.596/A extent of 0-0025 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy .
13.Ex.P10 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102132 in respect of
Sy No.596/AA1 extent of 0-0250 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist Kamareddy. Ex.P11 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102133 in respect of Sy No.596/AA2 extent of 0-0250 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist
Kamareddy, Ex.P12 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102134 in respect of Sy.No.596/E extent of 0-0500 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 25 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy, Ex.P13 is the Certified
Copy of Pahani No.00102135 in respect of Sy.No.658/AA1 extent of 0- 0250 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist.
Kamareddy. Ex.P14 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102198 in respect of Sy.No.632/A extent of 0-1100 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.
14.Ex.P15 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102216 in respect of
Sy.No.590/AA extent of 0-0300 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of
Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy, Ex.P16 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102217 in respect of Sy.No.831/A extent of 1-0400 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy,
Ex.P17 is the Certified Copy of Pahani No.00102121 in respect of Sy.
No.775/EE extent of 0-0250 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of
Bichkunda mandal, Dist. Kamareddy Ex.P18 is the Certified Copy of
Pahani No.00102122 in respect of Sy.No.300/EE extent of 0-0100 guntas, situated at Wajidnagar village of Bichkunda mandal, Dist.
Kamareddy. Ex.P19 is the Certified copy of FIR No.12/2016 dt. 23.2.2016 of P.S. Women, Nizamabad.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 26 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
15.The Respondent No.1 therein is examined as RW.1, an independent witness is examined as Rw.2 to support the contention of Rw.1 before the Trial court.
16.It is the version before the Trial court by the aggrieved person is that the marriage of the aggrieved person with Respondent No.1 was performed in the year 1991 as per the customs and traditions prevailing in the Muslim community and at the time of marriage, the parents of the aggrieved person presented net cash of Rs.7,000/- as Jode Ki Rakham, ½ tula gold, 15 tulas silver, Jahez articles worth of Rs.25,000/- and also incurred marriage expenditure of Rs.25,000/-. Immediately after the marriage the aggrieved person joined the conjugal society of the
Respondent No.1 at Wajidnagar and lead happy married life and she blessed with male son namely Shaik Majid on 6.7.1993 and then the
Respondent no.1 and his family members started harassing her for want of additional Dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- for which she showed her inability to bring the said additional Dowry amount from her parents, as the parents of the aggrieved person are very poor persons and they cannot pay the additional dowry amount and then the Respondent No.1 and his family members Syed Moulana, Syed Abdullah and Ameena Bee @ Jani Bee confined the aggrieved person in a room in their house on
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 27 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 22-05-1995 and performed the second marriage of Respondent no.1 with Respondent no.4 (Khaja Begum) who is the daughter of Md. Sadaq and Smt. Nayeema Bee fully knowing that the Respondent no.1 is already in marriage with the aggrieved person as husband for which she made a Telugu written complaint before the P.S. Bichkunda against the
Respondent No.1, his second wife and other family members for which the police Bichkunda after proper investigation and enquiry registered a case against the Respondent No.1 and (6) others and issued F.I.R.No.
47/1995 for the offence punishable U/Sec 342, 498-A, 494 R/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed Charge sheet against them vide C.C.No.44/1995.
17. After registration of the case, Respondent no.1 agreed that he will look after the aggrieved person very well and stated that he will look after the aggrieved person and will not harass in future for which she compromised the matter and withdrawn the above case against them.
Thereafter the aggrieved person and Respondent no.1 lead conjugal life and she blessed with a daughter Rubeena Begum on 14.7.1999 and then the Respondent no.1 lead happy married life. Thereafter the
Respondent no.1 went to abroad for livelihood purpose and in the absence of the Respondent no.1, her in laws used to harass and ill treat
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 28 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 her and used to abuse in most foul and filthy language but she tolerated the same as her husband was at abroad and thereafter in March, 2015 the Respondent No.1 returned from abroad and after arrival of her husband, the Respondent No.1 on the instigation of his parents, second wife, sister and brother in law used to harass the aggrieved person for
additional Dowry and threatened her with dire consequences and used
to beat her mercilessly and the Respondent No.1 and in-laws beat her mercilessly and necked out her from their house on 23.12.2015. Since then the aggrieved person is residing with her parents at Chandrashekar colony, Nizamabad. The aggrieved person has also lodged a complaint against Respondent No.1 and his family members before Women Police
Station, Nizamabad for their harassment and additional demand of dowry and the WPS, Nizamabad after proper investigation and enquiry registered a case against the Respondent No.1 and his family members and issued F.I.R.No.12/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
18. It is the version of Respondent No.1 before the Trial Court that he married the aggrieved person in the year 1991. No Jode ki Rakam gold, silver or Jahez articles were presented to him. He submitted that the aggrieved person used to harass the Respondent No.1 to live away from
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 29 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 his parents (R 2 and R3) who are 92 yrs and 87 yrs. In the year 1993 the aggrieved person went for delivery to her parents place and after the birth of her son in 1993 the aggrieved person did not return back to her matrimonial house and she was very adamant with him that only if
Respondent No. 1 lives separately from his family members she will return if not she is contended by having a male child. She also mentioned that she will file false cases against the Respondents and harass them. The Respondent No.1 tried to convince her and also held panchayats but all his efforts were failed by the aggrieved person and she did not return to her matrimonial house and she did not join the conjugal society of Respondent no.1. He submitted that they never demanded any additional Dowry from the side of the Respondents. As the parents of the Respondent no.1 were old and there was nobody to take care of them as such Respondent no.1 married Respondent No. 4.
19.After coming to know about the second marriage of Respondent no.1, the aggrieved person filed false complaint under section 498-A in the police station and a case was registered and charge sheet was filed vide CC No. 44 of 1995. Later after a lot of convincing the aggrieved person demanded that, if a separate house is built for her she will withdraw the said case and live amicably with the Respondent no.1.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 30 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Likewise a separate house was constructed and the aggrieved person along with her son lived in the newly constructed house and the second wife (R4) lived along with the other family members of Respondent no.1 and was taking care of the old aged parents of this Respondent. In the year 2012, Respondent no.1 went to Saudi Arabia for livelihood and he transferred a lot of amount in the account of the aggrieved person which in turn she deposited in the account of her son for his education.
The receipts of the money transferred and the college fee receipts are being filed along with this counter During the stay of this Respondent in
Saudi Arabia the aggrieved person and Respondent No. 4 lived like sisters and they used to go together to the Beedi rolling factory every day.
20.Subsequently the Respondent No.1 returned from Saudi Arabia, the son of Respondent no.1 had grown up and he was already in college pursuing B.Tech. His son failed in few subjects in the second year and
Respondent no.1 mildly scolded his son to study well and work hard. By this the aggrieved person put a quarrel with Respondent no.1 stating that Respondent no.1 was not here to take care of his children as such now he has no right to scold her children by quarreling with Respondent
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 31 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 no.1 and on this account she left the house of Respondent no.1 and started living at her parent's house.
21.Further that in the year 2006, all the three brothers of
Respondent no.1 partitioned the property which belonged to their ancestors. The aggrieved person immediately started harassing
Respondent no.1 that she should get half the share of the share he got through partition and thus Respondent no.1 transferred Ac. 4-20 guntas (Sy. Nos. 811/A4, 811/1/5, 649/488, 786 situated at Wajidnagar (V) and
Pulkal Shivar of Bichkunda Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy) in the name of the aggrieved person herself and in the year 2007 again a property was purchased in the name of the son of the aggrieved person which amounts to Ac 0-20 guntas. The aggrieved person has given her lands for tilling to other farmers and she collects rents from them. She also does
Beedi rolling and earns Rs.100 per day and also gets a pension of
Rs.1000/- under Aasara scheme of the govt for Beedi rollers. In the year 2012, Respondent no.1 went to Saudi Arabia for livelihood and he transferred a lot of amount in the account of the aggrieved person which in turn she deposited in the account of her son for his education.
22. The Aggrieved Person left the company of the Respondent no.1 and living with her parents inspite of Respondent no.1 providing
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 32 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 separate residence to her in the house and the aggrieved person is not living there just to file false cases and to harass the Respondents.
Respondent no.1 does not own any property and he is not receiving any rents. It is submitted that there was no Domestic Violence from the side of the Respondents and the Respondent No.2 & 3 are old aged persons,
Respondent No.2 is the father of Respondent no.1 and is aged 92 years and Respondent No.3 is the mother of Respondent no.1 and she is aged 87 years. Both the parents of Respondent no.1 are visually impaired and are not able to move out of bed. The Respondents No. 5 and 6 are living separately from the time of the marriage of Respondent No. 1 and from past four years they have been residing with their sons at Hyderabad.
23.On careful perusal of he record the Trial court has discussed all aspects at length and the Trial court separately answered in regard to the issues in point Nos.1 to 4 at length. Before the Trial court the domestic relationship of aggrieved person with Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not proved. Even the physical, verbal abuse is not proved against the aggrieved person by Respondent Nos.4 to 6. The emotional abuse against the aggrieved person is proved before the Trial court by
Respondent nos.1 to 3 and even the Domestic Violence against her by
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 33 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Domestic Violence against the aggrieved person by Respondent nos.3 to 6 is also not proved.
24.As per the order, the Trial court discussed in para 18 (ii) (c) and also in para 20 as under:
“Emotional abuse:-
Pw.1 in her evidence deposed that R1, Respondent No.2, R3 and R6 confined her in a room and performed the second marriage of R1 with R4. Even Respondent admitted about the second marriage of R1, in cross examination of Pw.1, they gave a suggestion that aggrieved person refused to join the company of Respondent No.1 as such for the needs of his parents i.e., R2 and R3 he performed second marriage.
Though second marriage is permissible under Shariat law, but such second marriage will definitely cause so much mental agony and mental injury on the mental health of first wife. Though the Respondent adduced a reason of neglect by aggrieved person in looking after his parents, mere suggestion does not take the place of proof. Given the above, aggrieved person proved before this court about the emotional abuse by
Respondent No1.
Coming to other allegations, PW1 deposed that after the birth of her son,
Respondent No.1 and his family members started harassing her for want of additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- and after returning of R1 from abroad, R1 at the instigation of R2 to R6 used to harass the petitioner for want of additional dowry. It clearly attracts
Sec.3(b) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. But to discredit the testimony of PW1, counsel for Respondent gave several suggestion which were simply denied by PW1. Mere suggestion does not shake the case of the aggrieved
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 34 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025 person, as such Aggrieved person sufficiently proved before this court about the
Domestic Violence caused by R1 to R3.”
25.The Trial Court discussed that that though aggrieved person got more land than Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 utterly failed to prove the income accruing from the said land, only suggestions were given to that extent without any valid proof. As even as per evidence of
Rw.1 he got Ac.2-00 guntas of land but it is dry land and he is not getting any income from the said land.
26.This court opines that admittedly, the relationship of Respondent nos.1 and 4 is not denied with aggrieved person and there is clear admission on the part of Respondent no.1 before the Trial court during his evidence and also in the counter that he performed second marriage with Respondent no.4 to look after his parents. Admittedly, aggrieved person is not residing with Respondent no.1, it is suggested to the Pw.1 that her son is earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month he is working in
Nizamabad by doing private job, but nothing is brought on record by the cogent evidence as to the income of son of aggrieved person, even otherwise the aggrieved person so far did not perform second marriage and her marriage with Respondent no.1 is still in subsistence, the
Respondent no.1 cannot escape from his liability as discussed by the
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 35 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Trial Court. This Court also feels that the income source of aggrieved person is not brought on record by the Respondent nos.1 and 4 before the Trial Court, there is no proper evidence before the Court as to how much income the aggrieved person is earning from the lands possessed by her. It is an admitted fact that the Aggrieved person is not residing with the Respondent no.1 and even he is not providing any maintenance to her, It is clearly brought on record that the aggrieved person is residing In a separate accommodation. Acquittal in criminal case does not dis entitles the wife to claim maintenance or compensation from her husband, Acquittal in criminal case does not mean that there is no
Domestic Violence against the Aggrieved person. On considering the above discussed aspects this court feels that the Trial court rightly allowed the Petition in favour of the aggrieved person and the order of
Trial court needs no interference. This point is answered against
Appellants.
27. POINT No.ii: As per findings in point no.i, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order passed by the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in Domestic Violence Case No.14 of 2016 dated 13.02.2025.
I ADJ, Nzb.
Page No. 36 of 36 Crl.Appeal No.12 of 2025
Dictated to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in open
court this the 30th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Appellants For Respondent
-NONE--NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Appellants For Respondent
-NIL- -NIL-
Sd/-
I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.
I ADJ, Nzb.