Page 1 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE CUM II ADDITIONAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: AT BHIMAVARAM.
Present: Smt. N.Jyothi
II Addl.Civil Judge(JD)/II AJFCM,Bhimavaram.
Friday, this the 28th day of November,2025.
DVC.No.08/2020
Between:
1. Grandhi Geeta Bala, w/o. Butchi Naidu, D/o. Gandham Nancharayya, age. 40 years, female, R/o. 19.16.117, Sri Sai Miracle, Sri Krishna Devaraya Nagar, Bhimavaram at present Yenamadurru village, Bhimavaram Mandal.
2. Grandhi Kusumanjili, D/o. Butchi Naidu.
3. Grandhi Manasa, D/o. Butchi Naidu (Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors represented y their next friend and mother, the 1st petitioner)
...Petitioners.
And
1. Grandhi Butchi Naidu, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, age. 51 years, Male, R/o. Kamathalapalli village, Veeravasaram Mandal.
2. Grandhi Rama Sitha, w/o. Venkateswara Rao, age 67 years, Kamathalapalli village, Veeravasaram Mandal.
...Respondents.
This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri
M.V.Ramana Rao., Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A.Siva Rama Krishna,
Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed under section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in short 'the Act', under sections 17 and 19,20,22 of
Page 2 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 the Domestic Violence Act, praying the court to pass reliefs which are mentioned in the petition.
2. Briefly, the averments of complaint are as follows :
2.1) The marriage of 1st petitioner with 1st Respondent was performed on 05-06- 1999 at Town Hall, Bhimavaram as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, they gave Rs. 2 lakhs cash, 20 sovereign of gold, silver articles and Rs.
1,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam to the respondent. Besides the above, the father of the petitioner settled Ac.1.75 cents situated in Yanamadurru village in favour of the 1st petitioner. Thereafter she joined with the respondent for kapuram at Kamatalapalli village with household articles worth of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter 1st respondent shifted his family to Vizianagaram on his business purpose. The 1st respondent started landscape business at Vizianagaram. They lived happily for some period. Thereafter respondents started harassment towards 1st petitioner both physically and mentally for want of addl.dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs. But the parents of the 1st petitioner are not in a position to meet the unlawful demand of addl. Dowry of the respondents.
2.2) While the matter stood thus, the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent have blessed with two children namely Kusumanjali and Manasa (petitioners 2 and 3 respectively). The 1st respondent used to beat the 1st petitioner at the instance of 2nd respondent and he used to suspect her character, harassed her both physically
Page 3 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 and mentally. Due to the harassment of 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner undergone mental stress and fell sick while she was carrying 2nd issue for which she took treatment in Varma Hospital,Bhimavaram. She also took better treatment in
Hyderabad for her mental stress. The 1st petitioner has purchased Ac.2.00 cents of land in Kamatalapalli village with her stridhana property. She also purchased Ac.3.
00 cents of land in the name of 2nd and 3rd petitioners in Yanamadurru village but 1st respondent used to collect Maktha and enjoying the income derived from the said land. The respondents treated the 1st petitioner as a servant maid and 1st respondent never treated the 1st petitioner as a better half. Despite of unbearable harassment of the respondents the petitioner could with stand their harassment keeping in view of future of petitioners 2 and 3.
2.3) The 1st respondent got a house constructed in Sri Krishna Devaraya Nagar,
Bhimavaram in the year 2017 and all the petitioners along with 1st respondent shifted to said house from Vizianagaram in the month of June,2017. The 1st respondent used to stay with the petitioners for some time and he shuttled from
Bhimavaram to Vizianagaram for his business purpose. Petitioners 2 and 3 were studying in Sri Chaitanya schools, Bhimavaram and Vijayawada respectively. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent demanded the petitioners to vacate the house in the month of February, 2018 for which the 1st petitioner refused. Then the 1st respondent brought the rowdy elements and knocked the doors of said house, removed the electricity fuse during night time and thereby created disturbance to
Page 4 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 the petitioners. Then 1st petitioner gave report to the police against the 1st respondent.
2.4) The police persons called the respondent and admonished him. Later the matter was placed before the elders and the 1st petitioner requested the 1st respondent to join with them, after receipt of notice issued by the respondent. But he refused to take the 1st petitioner into his fold unless she brought Rs.3 lakhs addl.dowry. The 1st respondent send messages to the 1st petitioner that he would kill the petitioner. Said messages created fear in the minds of petitioners 1 to 3. The 1st respondent also gave missed calls to the petitioners so as to create fear in their mind. Due to the harassment of the respondents the petitioner No.1 is unable to work and to maintain her and petitioners 2 and 3. The 1st respondent has been working in land Scape irrigation and getting income of Rs. 70,000/- per month and also doing money lending business, getting Rs. 50,000/- per month. He has building worth of Rs. one Crore. Hence the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners, whereas they are unable to maintain themselves. Hence the report.
3. After receipt of notice, respondents 1 and 2 made their appearance before the court through their counsel. Counter of Respondent NO.1 and adoption memo of respondents No. 2 are filed by denying the averments of petition.
Page 5 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 3.1) The respondents admitted the marriage between 1st petitioner and 1st respondent; and that they have blessed with two female children by name
Kusumanjali aged about 15 years and Malathi aged about 13 years and their relationship ; and that after the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined with the 1st respondent at her matrimonial home at Kamathalapalli village and they lead happy marital life for 2 years. Thereafter the 1st respondent along with the 1st petitioner shifted his residence to Vijayanagaram for his business purpose. The 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner lead marital life at Vijayanagaram, till 30-3-2017.
But he denied the other allegations of the petition.
3.2. From the very inception of the matrimonial life, the 1st petitioner has been showing adamant nature and behaving indifferently like lunatic. Thereby the 1st respondent brought the 1st petitioner to the psychiatrists 1) Dr. D.V.Sudhakar,
Kasturbai Hospital, Hyderabad 2) Dr. Himakar, Vizag, 3) Dr. Bhagyaraj, Vizag, 4)
Dr. Tirumala Prasad, Tirumala Hospital, Vijayanagaram, 5) Dr. Prasad, Padmaja
Hospital, Vijayanagaram, 6) Homeopthic hospital, Vijayanagaram and at present the 1st respondent is providing treatment to the 1st petitioner in Varma Hospital,
Bhimavaram, so due to the said mental illness, the 1st petitioner has not treating the 1st respondent, their children and her mother-in-law properly and especially the 1st petitioner is treating the 1st respondent with cruelty.
3.3) 1st petitioner left her matrimonial home with Rs. 2 lakhs cash, 10 sovereigns
Page 6 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 of gold articles and other house hold articles on 30-3-2017 at night time and she has been residing at her parental home in Yenamadurru village. The 1st respondent herein both personally and through mediators made several attempts to bring back the 1st petitioner to his matrimonial fold. But she bluntly refused to join with the 1st respondent. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner has been making false report against the respondents 1 and 2 herein in Bhimavaram police station. The said police personnel also admonish the 1st petitioner about her false reports against the respondents 1 and 2 herein.
3.4) Further submits that, due to the 1st petitioner’s high handed and indifferent behavior, the 1st respondent has been subjected to mental agony and depression and the 1st respondent is also suffering lot due to lack of the 1st petitioner’s association and the 1st respondent’s mother i.e.,the 2nd respondent is aged 70 years, who is also suffering due to lack of proper welfare. The 1st respondent herein got a legal notice dt.02-02-2019 to the 1st petitioner demanded her to cooperate for taking divorce. The 1st petitioner received the said notice and she got issued a reply notice dt.20-02-2019 issued through her counsel to the counsel for the 1st respondent with false and untenable allegations. Thereby, the 1st respondent herein filed HMOP No. 62/2019 against the 1st petitioner herein under sections 13(1) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court,
Bhimavaram, on 30-3-2019.
Page 7 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 3.5) Subsequent to filing of the above divorce petition, the 1st petitioner herein filed an O.S.No. 359/2019 against the 1st respondent herein on the file of the 1st
Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram, for permanent injunction etc.,
reliefs, claiming that she has peaceful possession and enjoyment of the extent of 289 Sq.yards of site and an RCC building situated in 26th ward of Bhimavaram
Municipality. But, at present the 1st petitioner highhandedly occupied the said upstair building and has been collecting rentals. The 1 st respondent also obtained
loan from the bank for construction of the said upstair building and he has
been paying EMI regularly to the said Bank. The 1st respondent purchased an extent of Ac.1.50 and Ac.1.49 cents of wet land in Yanamadurru village,
Bhimavaram in favour of his daughters (Petitioners 2 and 3), and the same have been in the possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner. The parents of 1st petitioner gave Ac.1.72 ½ cents of wet land in R.S.Nos.289/1, 229,299/1 situated in
Yenamadurru village, Bhimavaram Mandal and she has been in possession and enjoyment of said land. The 1 st respondent purchased an extent of Ac.2.04 ½
cents wet land (comprising in R.S.Nos.1089/3,1089/10,1090/6) situated in
Kamathalapalli village of Dusanapudi Gram panchayat in the name of 1 st
petitioner and she has been in the possession of said land. Thus, the petitioners are having sufficient means to maintain themselves. So, the 1st respondent is not liable to maintain the petitioners herein. No property has been left for the 1st respondent for maintenance of Pws 1 to 3. Because all his properties either movable or immovable are in the hands of the petitioners. Due to the
Page 8 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 abnormal behavior of the 1st petitioner, the 1st respondent is not able to do any work and he has been sustained mental agony and suffering with mental depression lack of conjugal society of the 1st petitioner. Thus the 1st respondent is not able to maintain himself. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
04. Petitioner examined herself as PW1/Grandhi Geetha bala
PW2/Gandham Lakshmi Bai, and Ex.P1 is marked on her behalf. Ex.P1 is marriage wedding card of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent dt.6-5-1999. On behalf of respondents, Rw.1/Grandhi Butchi Naidu, RW2/G.Jaya Krishna are examined and no documentary evidence is adduced on their behalf.
05. Now the points that arises for determination are:
1. Whether there was any valid marriage in between petitioner and R1?
2. Whether the petitioner was subjected to physical and psychological violence, verbal and emotional abuse and economic violence, for want of additional dowry?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relieves sought for in her petition under various provisions of the domestic violence Act?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 20 soverigns of gold which is said to be in the custody of respondents?
5. To what relief?
06. POINT NO. 1:
Whether there was any valid marriage in between 1petitioner and R1?
The ocular evidence of PW1, RW1 coupled with admission by the respondent in their counter that the marriage of respondents No.1 was performed with 1st petitioner on 05-6-1999 at Town Hall,Bhimavaram as per Hindu rites and customs.
Page 9 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
The marriage was solemnized. Out of wedlock, they have blessed with two children (petitioners 2 and 3). So, the marriage of Respondent No.1 and 1st petitioner is clearly established. Therefore it can be safely held that there is valid marriage between respondent No.1 and petitioner and there is a domestic relationship between the respondents and petitioners by marriage. Accordingly point No.1 is answered.
7. Points Nos.2 to 4
2. Whether the petitioner was subjected to physical and psychological violence, verbal and emotional abuse and economic violence, for want of additional dowry?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relieves sought for in her petition under various provisions of the domestic violence Act?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 20 soverigns of gold which is said to be in the custody of respondents?
Section 2(f) of the Act defines Domestic Relations Ship. As per said section, domestic relationship means a relation ship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or family members living together as a joint family. As discussed in preceding paras the marriage between respondents No.1 and petitioner No.1 is undisputed and out of wedlock they have blessed with two children, who are petitioners 2 and 3 herein respectively. When it so, the 1st petitioner got relationship with respondent No.1 by marriage. The relationship between petitioners 2 and 3 with respondent No.1 is by consanguinity. It is undisputed that respondent No.2 also resided with the 1st respondent and petitioners after the marriage. Therefore,
Page 10 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 the domestic relationship between petitioners and respondent is established. At this juncture it is apt to extract what is domestic relationship and shared household as defined under (f) and (s) of sections 2 of the Act respectively which are as follows :
(f) Domestic Relationship : Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or thorugh a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or or are family members living together as a joint family.
(s) shared household: means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.
So, on careful perusal of the above said provisions and on plain reading of it, it clearly established by the petitioner, that 1st petitioner is in domestic relationship with, by nature of marriage, the respondents 1 and 2 and they all lived together and have resided in a shared household.
8.So far as, getting the reliefs of Domestic Violence Act, the petitioners have to prove the domestic relationship between the petitioners and respondent, they are residing in a shared household wherein the respondents cause domestic violence in any of the means as prescribed under section 3 of the domestic violence Act I.e, mental, physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. It is undisputed that petitioners and respondents are lived under one roof. So, by virtue of above said discussion, it can be conclude that there is a domestic relationship among petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and they all have resided in the shared
Page 11 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 household. At this juncture it is to be revived that what is shared household. Where an aggrieved person at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or jointly along with the respondent in a house whether it is rented or own by the respondents said house is treated as shared household. Having made discussion interalia, the petitioners established that there is a domestic relationship among them and they resided in a shared household. Now the petitioners have to prove that whether the respondents committed the act of domestic violence with the help of provisions referred above.
(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” (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.
Now the court has to see whether the 1st petitioner was subjected to physical, mental, verbal, emotional and economically abuse by the respondents 1 and 2. Section 3 of the Act defines Domestic violence, which includesphysical, sexual, verbal, emotional abuse and economic abuse meted out by the aggrieved person in the hands of respondents. It is the grievance of PW1 that she was subjected to physical and psychological violence, verbal and emotional abuse and economic violence by the respondents for want of additional dowry. In spite of matter was placed before the elders for amicable settlement, none of the
Page 12 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 respondents agreed her to take back and that apart, she was being humiliated by assassinating/touching her character.
09. In contra, the respondent specifically contended that due to the harassment of the 1st petitioner, he was mentally suffered and respondent No.2 who is aged about 70 years is also suffering from old age ailments. The petitioner even did not look after his old aged mother in fact he purchased properties in the name of petitioners 1 to 3 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. In fact the harassment extended by the 1st petitioner, as such the life of the respondent No.1 was spoiled and his health was deteriorated. The 1st respondent never intended to desert the 1st petitioner and their children (petitioners 2 and 3)and never intended to neglect them. He always ready to take the 1st petitioner into his fold but she is not willing to accept his offer and she is very stubborn.
10.1) Now the court has to see the oral evidence of both parties carefully. The petitioner is examined as PW1. Her evidence affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination is nothing but reiteration of her case as mentioned supra. During cross examination of PW1, denied that respondent No.1 married her without taking any dowry and presentations in view of the relationship between their families. She categorically admitted that respondent No.1 got a house constructed in a road which lead to Yanamadurru and that he purchased said land for construction of house. The tax stands in the name of 1st respondent but PW1 version is that she is
Page 13 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 paying tax. Evidently and admittedly, coupled with pleadings of the petitioners
she filed the suit against the respondents on the file of I AJCJ court,
Bhimavaram for permanent injunction. Further the cross of RW1 elicited that
said suit was decreed by granting injunction against the respondents that not
to evict the petitioners from the building, where they are residing.
10.2) So, it clearly shows that all the petitioners are residing in the house/shared household purchased by the respondent. She denied that respondent No.1 purchased prawn tanks in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 and leased out the said tanks. Evidently and admittedly the prawn tanks also are in the possession of petitioner No.1 but she denied that she along with petitioners 2 and 3 are enjoying the income derived from the properties of respondent No.1.
11.The mother of the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW2 who also corroborated the evidence of PW1 in her chief examination. During cross of PW2 she admitted that, one Grandhi Venkata Narayanamma is the elder sister of the 1st respondent ; and that she is daughter-in-law of their village; and that the husband of the Grandhi
Venkata Narayanamma is relative of her husband; and that the marriage alliance of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent was brought through said G.V.Narayanamma; and that her husband is working in town Hall, Bhimavaram; and that at the time of marriage of PW1 they have thatched house ; and that R2 is aged about 70 years ; and that as on the date of marriage the 1st respondent was residing at
Page 14 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
Vizianagaram on account of his business purpose; and that R1 is financially settled person as such they accepted the marriage alliance and performed the marriage of
R1 and PW1; and that their marriage was performed in a town hall with permission of its authorities since husband of PW2 was working therein. Surprisingly, she stated that she does not remember whether they have purchased gold, silver ornaments in the month of April,1999; no document is filed by them showing that they have presented Ac.1.75 cents of agricultural land to PW1.
12. PW2 categorically admitted that the respondent No.1 purchased agricultural lands on his name and purchased agricultural lands in an extent of Ac.2.99 cents in the name of 2nd and 3rd petitioners and that said lands are converted into fish tanks but she denied that the income is derived from the fish tanks is taken by the petitioners and that they issued legal notice to the lessee of the prawn tanks .
Admittedly, the building, where the petitioners are residing is belong to respondent
No.1 but she does not know whether respondent No.1 got the said building constructed by obtaining loan. Admittedly, the 1st respondent filed the divorce petition against the 1st petitioner on the ground of cruelty, ill health and desertion of
PW1. Further it is elicited during cross examination of RW1 that said divorce petition is dismissed. The careful perusal of oral evidence, it is categorically revealed that the petitioners need not pay any rents as they are residing in the house of 1st respondent. She denied the suggestion that the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home by taking 256 grams gold purchased by the respondent. Since
Page 15 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 categorically elicited that the petitioners in a
shared household they need not require any residence order under section
17(1) of DV Act or alternative accommodation.
13. In order to substantiate his contention, the 1st respondent is examined as
RW1 who reiterated the contents of counter in his chief examination. The cross
examination of RW1 and PW2 it is elicited that a legal notice was issued to
the lessee to the prawn tanks seeking lease amount and civil suit was filed
and pending between the petitioners and respondent which shows that the
lease amount is taken by the respondent No.1. At present his elder daughter is studying MBBS final year in AIMS Mangalagiri and 2nd daughter is studying at VIT,
Madras. Nothing was elicited that respondent is providing maintenance to his children. He denied the suggestion that he is getting income of Rs.1,50,000/-per month.
14.1) The nephew of RW1 is examined as RW2 he also corroborated the version of RW2 as a parrot talk. The petitioner version is that, while the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent demanded the petitioners to vacate the house in the month of February, 2018 for which the 1st petitioner refused. Then the 1st respondent brought the rowdy elements and knocked the doors of said house, removed the electricity fuse during night time and thereby created disturbance to the petitioners. Then 1st petitioner gave report to the police against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent send messages to the 1st petitioner that he would
Page 16 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 kill the petitioner. Said messages created fear in the minds of petitioners 1 to 3. The 1st respondent also gave missed calls to the petitioners so as to create fear in their mind. Due to the harassment of the respondents the petitioner No.1 is unable to work and to maintain her and petitioners 2 and 3. The 1st respondent has been working in land Scape irrigation and getting income of Rs. 70,000/- per month and also doing money lending business, getting Rs. 50,000/- per month. He has building worth of Rs. one Crore. Hence the respondent has sufficient means to maintain the petitioners, whereas they are unable to maintain themselves, said facts are not denied by the respondent in the cross examination of PW.1, so non denial of material facts is nothing but admission of said facts. So, it can be held that said facts are remained proved.
14.2) A point is to be noted that failure to cross examine on material aspects nothing but admission of the case of the opposite party. In this regard it is appropriate to remind the authority in case of: Chakali manikanta Vs. Hon’ble
Election Tribunal cum Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, Kadapa District &
others 2023 (3) ALD 825 (AP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court of AP at Amaravathi
held that “failure to cross examine on important aspects-means opposite party accepts the contention as held in AIR 1961, Calcutta 359, this is not merely a technical rule of evidence, rule of essential justice-it serves to prevent surprise at tribe and miscarriage of justice.” as stated supra as the respondents nowhere denied that 1st respondent brought the rowdy elements and knocked the doors of said house, removed the electricity fuse during night time and thereby created disturbance to the petitioners. Then 1st petitioner gave report to the police
Page 17 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent send messages to the 1st petitioner that he would kill the petitioner. Said messages created fear in the minds of petitioners 1 to 3. The 1st respondent also gave missed calls to the petitioners so as to create fear in their mind. Due to the harassment of the respondents the petitioner
No.1 is unable to work and to maintain her and petitioners 2 and 3. So, said facts are remained proved. So, the respondent caused verbal and emotional abuse by repeated threatswhich cause physical pain to the petitioners. Having considering the discussion made inter alia, it can be safely said that the petitioners was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of respondents. Therefore, they are entitled to relief of protection from domestic violence under section 18 of the Act.
15. Added to it except the statement that he paid Rs,10,000/- to the petitioners. 2 and 3, there is no evidence that he has been looking after the welfare of children and spending amounts towards their educational expenses. So, the version of respondent that he purchased some properties for his children, and those properties yielding some income, it can not be treated that they have sufficient means. So he is not spending money to their educational expenses which is very much burden to the 1st petitioner in these days, apparently to get their children pursue higher studies. So, this is nothing but domestic violence for not spending money for the education of children. At present his elder daughter is studying
MBBS final year in AIMS Mangalagiri and 2nd daughter is studying at VIT, Madras, which is higher education. Nothing was elicited that respondent is providing
Page 18 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 maintenance to his children including educational expenses. So, it can be safely held that the respondents mentally and physically harssed the petitioners.
16. So far as giving of dowry is concerned, no document is filed by the 1st petitioner showing that she gave dowry and presentations to the respondents at the time of marriage. After their marriage the 1st petitioner joined with the respondents and out of wedlock they have blessed with two children.She categorically deposed that she has been residing separately with the respondent. Rw.1 categorically, admitted that he filed HMOP No. 62/2019 against the 1st petitioner herein under sections 13(1) (ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, on the file of the Hon’ble Senior Civil
Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram, on 30-3-2019 and same was dismissed. So, he is not
willing to live with the 1st petitioner.
17. Though the respondents contended in their counter that the 1st respondent always ready to take back the petitioner into his fold but she herself paid deaf ears to his word. But no single suggestion was put to Pws 1 and 2 that when the 1st respondent offered to the 1st petitioner to join with him and when she refused to join. In addition to that no elder was examined to whom the respondent alleged to be sent to bring petitioner for kapuram. No iota of evidence is adduced by the respondents that the 1st respondent made attempts to join with the petitioner.
Apparently, no notice was issued to the 1st petitioner by the 1st respondent for restitution of conjugal rights though the petitioner has been residing separately.
Page 19 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
Which clearly shows that the contention of the 1st respondent that he ready to take back her into her matrimonial home is proved to be false and he raised said plea so as to escape from his liability to maintain the petitioner and her child.
18. Since, the respondent did not take steps to bring the petitioner and her children back to her matrimonial home even he did not issue notice for restitution of conjugal rights which shows his readiness and willingness and to convey his intention to the petitioner. Therefore the court safely conclude that just in order to escape from his liability, he raised false allegations against the petitioners and he went up to the stage of attributing cruelty of the the petitioner towards him.
19.So far as the maintenance is concerned, it is to see whether petitioner and her children is able to maintain themselves and the 1st respondent intentionally and willfully neglected to maintain them inspite of his obligation. The respondents failed to elicit, as discussed in the preceding paras, that the 1st petitioner herself deserted the 1st respondent and leading luxurious life. While fixing the quantum of maintenance it has to see the standard of life of the persons against whom the order of the maintenance is sought for. It is settled principle of law that the court is also must see that the wife and children must live in the status in which the husband/father is living. The evidence Rws 1 and 2 categorically proves that RW1 is hale and healthy and RW1 is working in land scape trip irrigation business and getting hand some amount though specific amount is not proved. Thus the
Page 20 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 petitioners are entitled to get maintenance.
20.So far as return of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-, 20 sov of gold ornaments, silver articles worth of Rs. 50,000/- and household articles worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- are hereby declined as no documentary evidence is adduced showing that the parents of the 1st petitioner paid said amount and presented said articles. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for return of said amount and articles. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled said relief of return of gold jewelry and etc.
21. One of the reliefs that is claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondent No.1 to provide maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to her. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners are unable to maintain herself whereas the respondent No.1 having sufficient income neglecting the petitioner and hence petitioner is entitled for maintenance. In grant of maintenance, the scale and mode of living, the age, habits, wants and class of the life of the parties has to be regarded and maintenance being such that the wife could live in a reasonable comfort, considering her status and mode of living which she was used to while living with her husband. While granting maintenance, the factors to be taken into consideration are 1) Status of the parties 2) Reasonable wants of the claimant 3)
The independent income and property of the claimant 4) The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain 5) The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home 6) Non-applicant liabilities,
Page 21 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 if any 7) provision for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment of the applicant 8) payment capacity of the non-applicant. while granting maintenance the court must take into consideration the status of parties and the capacity of spouse to pay the maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceedings. As rightly submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that under section 20(1)(d) of the Act, the petitioners are entitled for maintenance under the Act in addition to the maintenance granted under section 125 of Cr.P.C. or any other Law. Therefore, keeping in view of the maintenance of the petitoners, earning capacity of the respondent and the age of the Petitioners, this court is inclined to grant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand each ) per month to the Petitioner 1 to 3 towards maintenance, from the date of this order, payable by the respondent No.1 on or before 10th of every succeeding month.
22.The another relief that is claimed by the petitioners is to direct the respondents to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation. It was held supra that the respondent No.1 subjected PW1 to domestic violence. Therefore, Keeping in view of earning capacity of respondent No.1, mental agony suffered by her, this court is inclined to grant Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees five lakhs only-) towards compensation to the petitioners, payable by the respondent No.1, within six months from the date of this order. Accordingly Points No.2 to 4 are answered.
Page 22 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
23. POINT No.5 :
To what relief ?
In view of the findings on points 1 to 4 this Court is of the opinion that the petition is to be allowed in part.
24.In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the following reliefs are hereby granted in favor of the petitioner.
i) A protection order under section 18 of the Act is granted hereby in favour of the petitioners, whereby the respondents prevented from committing, aiding or abetting the commission of any Act of Domestic violence.
ii) A residence order u/s.19 of the Act is granted hereby infavour of the petitioners in the building of the respondent No.1 which he has and where the petitioners are presently residing and accordingly the respondents are restrained to evict the petitioners from dispossessing the petitioners in any manner.
iii) A monetary relief u/s 20 (d) of the PWDV Act is granted hereby in favor of the petitioners whereby the respondent-1 is directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) per month to the 1st Petitioner from the date of this order, payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month.
iv) A monetary relief u/s 20 (d) of the PWDV Act is granted hereby in favor of the petitioners 2 and 3 whereby the respondent-1 is directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) per month each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners respectively from the date of the petition till they attains majority, payable on or before 10th of every
Page 23 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025 succeeding month.
iv) The petition in respect of grant of compensation is partly allowed and the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees five Lakhs only ) to the petitioner towards compensation, for the physical, mental torture of the respondents, within six months from the date of this order.
v. The other reliefs sought for by the petitioner/complainant namely return of dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/-, 20 sov of gold ornaments, silver articles worth of Rs.
50,000/- and household articles worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- are hereby declined for the reasons indicated in the order.
vi. Officer is directed to serve the copy of order on both parties at free of cost as per Sec. 24 of the Act on proper acknowledgment. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the concerned protection officer and concerned police for the purpose of assistance in its effective implementation.
Typed my dictation by stenographer Gr-III on computer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of November,2025.
sd/-Smt. N. Jyothi
II Addl.Civil Judge(JD) cum II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.
Page 24 II AJFCM,BVRM DVC No.8/2020 Date.28-11-2025
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )
PETITIONER:
PW1: Grandhi Geetha bala
PW2: Gandham Lakshmi Bai,
For Respondents.
RW.1 : Grandhi Butchi Naidu,
RW.2 : G.Jaya Krishna
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 is marriage wedding card of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent dt.6-5-1999.
FOR RESPONDENT:
nil sd/-Smt. N. Jyothi
II Addl.Civil Judge(JD) cum
II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram.