1
IN THE COURT OF VII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::
VISAKHAPATNAM
(formerly III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam)
PRESENT:SRI L. JAGADEESH KUMAR
VII ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN M AGISTRATE:: VISAKHAPATNAM.
Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2019
D.V.C.31/2012
Between: Smt. Allada Sravanthi, W/o Sri Allada Poorna Satya Gowri Shankar, Hindu, aged 27 years, R/at MIG- 139, D.No: 39-33-76, Laxmi Nilayam, Madhavadhara VUDA Lay Out, Visakhapatnam.
… Petitioner
And
1.Sri Allada Poorna Satya Gowri Shankar, S/o Surya Prakasarao, Hindu, aged 32 years, R/at D.No: 46-5-30, Uppu Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. Employee in Infosys Technologies Ltd., Employment NO: 104401, 210, Manikonda Village, Lingampally, Rangareddy District, Hyderabad-500032.
2. Sri Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o not known to the complainant, Hindu, aged 63 years, R/at D.No: 46-5-30, Uppu Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
3. Smt. Allada Syamala, W/o Sri Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, aged 55 years, R/at D.No: 46-5-30, Uppu Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
4. Smt. Ukkum Dhana Laxmi, W/o Balagangadhar Tilak, Hindu, aged 40 years, R/at D.No: 46-5-30, Uppu Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
5. Smt. Yerra Gayatri, W/o Ravindranath, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/at D.No: 46-5-30, Uppu Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
…Respondents.
This petition is coming on for final hearing before me in the Presence of Sri DVVR.Pratap and Smt. R.Sarada, Advocates for the Petitioners and Sri R.R.Naidu and Sri S.S.Naidu, Advocates for the Respondents and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
O R D E R
1.The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respodnent and their marriage was performed on 1.10.2009. At the time of marriage, the
2
parents of the petitioner gave dowry of Rs.8 lakhs in cash, 20 tulas of gold, Sare saman worth of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.4 lakhs towards marriage expenses to R1. Immediately after the marriage, the nuptials were arranged on 3.10.2009 and the petitioner and the first respondent have enjoyed their first night. They stayed for one week at Rajahmundry at the house of her in-laws. Later, the petitioner joined the first respondent at Hyderabad and both of them led happy marital life. Even in first week of 2010 they went to Tirupathi and stayed there for three days and enjoyed their trip.
The petitioner used to work in Maxis at Hyderabad before her marriage with R1 but, after the arrangement of her marriage with the first respondent, she resigned her job.
However in the month of December, 2009 the petitioner joined in Xeno Soft Technologies with the permission of the first respondent and used to draw good amount as salary.
The first respondent used to harass the petitioner for more dowry, to buy a new car for him and demand the petitioner to give her entire salary to him. So many times she transferred cash from her bank account to the account of the first respondent.
While things stood thus, the petitioner became pregnant in the month of July, 2010.
On knowing the same, the first respondent became very happy and he took the petitioner to one Dr. Madhavi at Hyderabad for medical checkup and he continuously used to take the petitioner to the Doctor for regular check-ups. The petitioner came to her parents house at
Visakhapatnam in the month of January, 2011 for delivery. After she came down to
Visakhapatnam for delivery, the first respondent used to make telephone calls to her and used to allege that she is having illegal intimacy with her colleagues in her office, thereby, he used to demoralize her character. Even the parents and sisters of the first respondent used to call the petitioner over phone and threatened the petitioenr that the first respondent would give divorce to her if she did not bring additional dowry from her mother.
The first respondent used to visit USA very frequently and in the month of January and February, 2011 he came down to Visakhapanam from USA for attending the delivery of the petitioner and the petitioner underwent caesarean operation on 7.3.2011 in Subham
Prema Hosital, Rama talkies junction, Visakhapatnam and in the status of husband, the first respondent signed on concerned papers in the hospital and had also given permission to concernd Doctor R.Sashi Prabha to conduct the caesarean operation. Thereafter the first respondent also claimed the expenditure of the caesarean operation from National
3
Insurance Company Limited on 16.3.2011 at Hyderabad. He left for USA in the end of
March, 2011 and he again came down to India in the month of October, 2011 to attend
Barasala function on 5.10.2011 which took place at Rajahmundry. In that function, the first respondent, his parents (R2 and R3) and the sisters of the first respondent expressed their unhappiness about the petitioner giving birth to a girl child. So all of them started demanding the petitioner to bring more money and gold from her mother, then only, the first respondent will look after the petitioner and her infant daughter otherwise, he would give divorce to the petitioner.
The first respondent applied for H1B Visa for the petitioner and infant child and he also arranged flight tickets and gave affidavit before the passport authority in India stating that the child was born to him in India. But, he changed his mind and cancelled the air tickets of the petitioner and the child and left for USA without intimating the petitioner.After the first respondent left for USA, the petitioner and her infant child were with her in-laws but, they did not look the petitioner properly and even not provided proper food and cloths to the petitioner and her infant child. R3 used to treat the petitioner as maid servant. All the family members of the first respondent harassed the petitioner both mentally and physically and not even provided proper feeding to the infant child.
To save her marital life, the petitioner has given Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent in the month of December, 2010 and even after paying that amount, the first respondent and his family members continued the harassment and demanded more money. When the petitioner has expressed her inability to pay the additional dowry to the first respondent he kept her engineering certificates with him and demanded the petitioner to sign on divorce papers otherwise, he will not return the original certifictes to her.
As the first respondent deserted her and her child at Hyderabad and left for USA, she vacated the house and went to her in-laws house at Rajahmundry. She intimated the inhuman behaviour of the first respondent to his parents but, they also supported their son and necked out the petitioner and her child in the month of October, 2011. Having no other option, the petitioner along with her child came down to Visakhapatnam and has been living with her widow mother in Visakhapatnam.
Thereafter, the petitioner placed the dispute before their caste elders by name Robbi
4
Ramana and Uppu Babji on 11.3.2012 and all of them have tried their level best to restore the marital life of the petitioner with the first respondent but, became in vain. In fact, on behalf of the first respondent, his parents and some of his relatives by name Dwara Venkata
Ramana, Robbi Ramana and Uppu Babji have attended meeting of the caste elders on 27.11.2011, 11.3.2012 and in the month of April and in the said meeting, one D.V.Ramana tried to slap the petitioner and the parents of the first respondent created forged signature of the petitioner and created some letters chastising the character of the petitioner. Further the first respondent also said over phone that he is not the father of the infant child and raised several allegations that the child is born to the petitioner through one Ch.Suman. The first respondent also got issued a legal notice dt.28.4.2012 with all false allegations and the petitioner got issued suitable reply notice on 1.5.2012 denying the allegations of the first respondent and she also expressed her willingness to join with the first respondent.
The petitioner further submitted that the first respondent used to work in Infosys
Berlin in USA and he is getting Rs.2,75,000/- per month and has immovable properties at
Rajahmundy. In view of the illegal desertion of the first respondent, she is living her life with the support of her mother. She filed maintenance case vide FCOP:631/12 and FCOP: 76/12 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Hon’ble Family Court.
Therefore, the petitioner prays this court to grant the following reliefs:
a) Direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month each towards maintenance, food, clothes, medical expenses including shelter to the complainant and her infant daughter from the date of filing of this complaint;
b) Direction to the respondents to return the dowry amount of Rs.8 lakhs including all lanchanams i.e., 20 tulas of gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.2,50,000/- given to the first respnodent at the time of marriage and also to direct the respondents to pay the marriage expenses of Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant spent by her parents;
c) Direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards mental torture and physical torture from the respondents for the entire life of the complainant;
d) direction to the respondents from non alienating the immovable properties in the name of the respondents to the III parties or any of the family members or others till
5
pending disposal of DVC.
e) to prohibit the respondents from causing violence to the complainant and direct the Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam / Station House Officer, Rajahmundry to implement the protection order that may be passed by the court in favour of the complainant and against the respondents;
f) direction to the respondents to provide shelter to the complainant or in alternative to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month rent to the complainant and;
g) for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable court deems fit and proper.
3.In this case, the first respondent did not file any separate counter. R2 to R5 filed counters. R2 and R3 are no other than the in-laws of the petitioner. The counters of R2 and
R3 are the same. R4 and R5 who are the sisters of R1 filed counters stating that they are living with their respective families at Eluru and Duvvada respectively and they never lived with the petitioner and the first respondent under shared house hold and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable against them. However, R4 and R5 adopted the counter filed by R2 and R3 as far as it is relevant to the facts of the case.
The counters of R2 and R3 read that the allegations made in the petition do not disclose any grievance suffered by the petitioner within the meaning of the provisions of
Domestic Violence Act. Even no part of the cause of action took place at Visakhapatnam or at least, within the reasonable time prior to filing of this DVC, as such, this DVC is liable to be dismissed with costs.
R2 and R3 contended that Devanga Welfare Society had convened meeting to settle the issue earlier and recorded minutes. The gist of the minutes recorded by that society was that: “The first respondent is an aggrieved party and the petitioner ill treated the first respondent”.
R2 and R3 admitted the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent on 1.10.2009 at TTD Kalyanamandapam, Rajahmundry. However, they denied the receipt of dowry, gold and sare saman and marriage expenses.
6
R2 and R3 further contended that there was no conjugal relation between the petitioner and the first respondent. R2 and R3 raises dispute on 9.5.2010 in the presence of mediators by name D.V.Ramana, friend of the petitioner’s father Narayana and his wife and brother etc. stating that the petitioner was not leading conjugal life with the first respondent ever since from the marriage till then and in that meeting, the elders informed R1 to R3 that the petitioner was under great depression due to loss of her father on 12.5.2009 and that she would cooperate with the first respondent in leading family life in future and assured the respondents that there would not be any problems in future between the petitioner and the first respondent on that ground.
They further requested the first respondent to take the petitioner to Psychiatrist for treatment. Accordingly, the first respondent took the petitioner to Psychiatrist Smt BSM.
Lakshmi in Hyderabad and the said Psychiatrist expressed that the petitioner was suffering from some mental depression due to family problems etc., and advised the first respondent not to indulge in any kind of conjugal relationship with her for one year. Therefore, the first respondent did not indulge in any conjugal relation with the petitioner even after 9.5.2010., yet the petitioner was declared as pregnant in July, 2010. That news shocked the first respondent and he was unable to appreciate the infidelity of the petitioner and made arrangements to work at abroad and left India on 24.12.2010. That occasion gave the petitioner to sent so many E-mail messages to her paramour. The messages categorically disclose that the baby is of the petitioner and her paramour Suman. That the petitioner’s blood is of Suman and the petitioner is living with the first respondent only for the sake of money and her daughter.
The first respondent returned to India for performing Barasala function of the baby and while searching the baggage for certain articles, then suddenly traced e-mail letters sent to paramour Ch. Suman by the petitioner. On further investigation of the mobile phone bills, the first respondent traced the number of telephone calls in between the petitioner and her paramour each day which cleared the doubt about the petitioner's extra marital relationship with the said Suman. So, the first respondent became disgusted and stopped talking to the petitioner. The cancellation of tickets after Barasala was for the above reasons. In fact, R1 to R3 performed the barasala function of the infant child Sri Chaitra on 5.10.2011 by spending Rs.50,000/- with lot of joy and gaiety.
They contended that the petitioner prior to her marriage with the first respondent
7
worked in Maxis at Hyderabad along with one Ch. Suman and there was adulterous relationship between the petitioner and the said Suman and was continuing. The same was also confirmed by the said Suman over phone with caste elders on 27.11.2011. The purpose behind resigning from the job in Maxis, Hyderabad by the petitioner was only a ploy adopted by the petitioner, her mother and the brothers only to suppress the petitioner’s adulterous life with her paramour Suman. When the Devanga Welfare Society,
Visakhapatnam mediated the issue and recorded the minutes of the meeting and those minutes would clearly reveal the presence of Paramour Suman, admission of the petitioner leading adulterous relationship with him and her intention to have divorce with the first respondent but, contrary to her stand before the elders, she filed OP:76/12 on the file of
Hon’ble Family Court, Rajahmundry for restitution of conjugal rights followed by a case in
Cr. NO:526/12 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC r/w 2 &3 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Kancharapalem P.S. at Visakhapatnam, OP:631/12 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court,
Visakhapatnam for maintenance and the present DVC. The petitioner also attempted to get the first respondent arrested at the time of reconciliation proceedings on 1.9.2012 conducted in OP:76/2012 by filing complaint under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 2 & 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act but, the first respondent luckily escaped the arrest on 1.9.2012 and left India immediately.
The second and third respondents denied the allegations that the first respondent used to harass the petitioner for money and the petitioner used to transfer the amounts.
They contended that the first respondent went to USA in the month of September, 2010 and returned to India in the 3rd week of October, 2010 and thereafter from 24.12.2010 he is continuously in USA till date. The other respondents are living elsewhere while the petitioner and her mother are living at Visakhapatnam. Hence, the question of harassment does not arise.
They further contended that the petitioner goaded the first respondent to purchase a house site at Cheemalapalli in the joint names of the first respondent and the petitioner.
The first respondent purchased the said property by taking loan by pledging ornaments of
R3. The first respondent invested Rs.35,000/- each in fixed deposits with Visakha Grameena
Bank in F.D. Bonds bearing Nos: 1294710 to 1294810 dt. 29.2.2010. The petitioner used to withdraw substantial amounts from the account of the first respondent during their stay together and used to pay to her paramour Suman, the first respondent nearly sent Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner when she was at Visakhapatnam for delivery.
8
The second and third respondents denied the allegations that the petitioner used to give amounts to the first respondent as he was demanding more dowry. They contended that the first respondent used to spend all his salary for the family whereas, the petitioner used to retain her salary with her only and used to give the salary to Suman or her mother but not to the respondents. The petitioner is a well educated woman and worked in Xeno
Soft Technologies at Hyderabad up to September, 2011 and have capacity to earn for her livelihood and also she did not allege any inability to earn as such she is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the respondents requested this court to dismiss the petition.
4. In order to prove her case, the Petitioner had let in the evidence of herself as PW1 and her mother as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. On behalf of the Respondents, the father of the first respondent examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs. R.1 to R.13.
5.Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the petitioner was subjected to any domestic violence and if so whether she is entitled for reliefs as prayed for?
6.Point:
As seen from the allegations of the Petitioner and the counter allegations of
Respondents, the first and foremost contention of the Respondents is that the allegations made in the Petition did not disclose any grievance suffered by the Petitioner within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. Even otherwise no part of the cause of action occurred at Visakhapatnam or at least within reasonable time prior to filing of this DVC, as such this DVC is liable to be dismissed.
In the light of the above contention that this Court has no jurisdiction, as seen from
Sec.27 of Domestic Violence Act the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which- (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen; shall be the competent Court to grant a protection order and other orders under this
Act and to try offences under this Act.
As per the averments of the Petition, it is the case of the Petitioner that after the 1st
Respondent had deserted the Petitioner and even her in-laws necked her out, she has come
9
down to Visakhapatnam and has been living with her widow mother, as such, as per (a) of
Sec.27 of DVC Act, this Petition is maintainable at Visakhapatnam.
6.1As seen from the case of the Petitioner, that her marriage with R1 was performed on 1-10-09 and it was consummated on 3-10-09 itself. They stayed for one week at
Rajahmundry at their in-laws' house and thereafter she joined R1 at Hyderabad and led happy marital life. Even both of them alone went to Tirupathi in the 1st week of 2010 and stayed there for 3 days and enjoyed their trip.
The allegations levelled by the Petitioner against R1 are that he used to harass the
Petitioner for more dowry, so also for a new car for him and also for her salary. So many times she had transferred cash from her account to the account of R1.
The other main allegation is that the Petitioner became pregnant in July, 2010. In fact, R1 became very happy and he took the Petitioner to one Dr.Madhavi at Hyderabad for check up and up to six months R1 used to take the Petitioner to the doctor for regular check ups. The Petitioner came to her parents house at Visakhapatnam in the month of January, 2011 for delivery. Thereafter R1 used to make telephone calls to her and say that she was having illegal intimacy with her colleagues in her Office and used to demoralize her character. All the respondents also started harassing the Petitioner to bring additional dowry from her mother else R1 would give divorce to her.
The Petitioner underwent Caesarean Operation on 7-3-2011 in Subham Prema
Hospital, Rama talkies Junction, Visakhapatnam. R1 came down from USA and he even signed on concerned papers for conducting caesarean operation on the Petitioner. R1 also claimed the operation expenses from National Insurance Company Ltd on 16-3-2011 at
Hyderabad. He also attended the Barasala function on 5-10-2011 which took place at
Rajahmundry. In that function R1 and his family members expressed their unhappiness about the Petitioner giving birth to a female child and started demanding the Petitioner to bring more money and gold from her mother, else R1 would give divorce to the Petitioner.
R1 applied for H1B Visa for himself, Petitioner and their child in the month of
September, 2011 and also arranged flight tickets. He also gave an affidavit before Passport authorities in India stating that the child was born to him in India. But the 1st Respondent alone left for USA leaving the Petitioner and her child to their fate.
10
6.2On the other hand the Respondents denied that there was conjugal relationship between the Petitioner and 1st Respondent. They contended that R2 and R3 i.e., the parents of R1 raised a dispute on 9-5-2010 alleging that the Petitioner was not leading conjugal life with R1 subsequent to the marriage till then. The issue was placed before elders viz., Dwara Venkata Ramana, the friend of the father of the Petitioner by name
Narayana Rao and his wife and family members of the Petitioner and R1 and in that meeting the elders informed R1 to R3 that the Petitioner was in great depression due to the loss of her father on 12-5-2009 and that she would co-operate with R1 in leading family life in future and assured the Respondents that there would not be any problem in future between Petitioner and R1 on that ground. The elders also requested R1 to take the
Petitioner to psychiatrist for treatment. Accordingly, after the said mediation at
Visakhapatnam the Petitioner joined R1 and R1 took her to Psychiatrist by name Smt
B.S.M.Lakshmi at Hyderabad. The said Psychiatrist expressed that the Petitioner was suffering from some kind of mental depression due to family problems and advised R1 not to indulge in any kind of conjugal relationship with her for a period of one year. Therefore,
R1 even after 9-5-2010 did not indulge in any kind of conjugal relationship with the
Petitioner. Yet the Petitioner was declared as pregnant in July, 2010 and it was a shock for
R1 and therefore he left for USA unable to appreciate the infidelity of the Petitioner.
R1 did not file any separate counter or examined himself. The main contention of R2 and R3, who are no other than the parents of R1 is that there was no cohabitation between the Petitioner and R1. In fact, R1 is the best person to speak about whether there was cohabitation between himself and the Petitioner right from their marriage. There is no dispute that the marriage of the Petitioner and R1 was performed on 1-10-09. According to the Petitioner, their marriage was consummated on 3-10-09 and she joined R1 at
Hyderabad after one week of their stay at Rajahmundry. They led the marital life happily. It is not the case of R2 and R3 that the Petitioner and R1 never lived together. Even R2 (RW1) admitted about the arrangement of nuptials on 3-10-09 in his cross-examination. R2 and
R3 straightaway stated in their counters that R2 and R3 raised a dispute on 9-5-10 stating that the Petitioner did not lead conjugal life with R1 subsequent to the marriage till that date. Even they did not state as to how they came to know that the Petitioner was not at all leading conjugal life with R1. Had there been no conjugal relationship between the
Petitioner and R1 from 1-10-09 to 9-5-2010 and the Petitioner was not co-operating for conjugal relationship, R1 should have brought the same to the notice of R2 and R3 immediately after the marriage.
11
On the other hand it is the case of the Petitioner that R1 was very happy on hearing the news that Petitioner became pregnant and he used to take the Petitioner for medical check ups to one Dr.Madhavi at Hyderabad. Even it is the case of R2 and R3 that R1 came down to India for performing Barasala function of the baby and they i.e., R1 to R3 performed the Barasala function of Sri Chaitra on 5-10-2011 by spending Rs.50,000/- with lot of joy and gaiety. RW1 (R2) admitted in his cross-examination that R1 came down to
India from USA at the time of delivery of the Petitioner. Had it been the real contention of the respondents 1 to 3 that there was no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and
R1 right from their marriage, they would not have at all performed the Barasala function.
From the facts on record after the marriage from 1-10-09, the Petitioner had been residing with R1 till January, 2011. Her pregnancy was confirmed in July, 2010. The daughter Sri Chaitra was born on 7-3-2011. The Petitioner came down to Visakhapatnam in the month of January, 2011 to her parents house for delivery.
Sec.112 of Indian Evidence Act speaks that any person, who was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at anytime when he could have been begotten.
Here, it is not at all the case of R2 and R3 that the Petitioner and R1 had no access to each other at any time when the child could have been begotten. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that there is no possibility for the Petitioner giving birth to Sri Chaitra through R1.
R1 did not even file his counter in the DVC. If R1 really wanted to dispute the paternity of the child, the burden of proof lies on him to prove the same. In the light of it, as seen from the record, they are all the admitted facts that the Petitioner filed a Crl.M.P in this DVC before this Court for DNA test which was allowed by this Court and R1 preferred an appeal against the said order and the same was dismissed. Further, he did not choose to prefer any revision against the said Order. So the order of this court became final. But R1 did not choose to undergo DNA test. The docket order dated 2-2-2017 reveals that R1 to R3 were present before the Court on that day, so also the Petitioner and her baby girl. On that day Petitioner was willing to appear before the Medical Officer for subjecting herself and the child for DNA Test whereas R1 represented to the Court that he was not willing to go for
12
DNA Test. If really the contention of R2 and R3 that there was no cohabitation between
Petitioner and R1 right from their marriage, absolutely there should not have been any objection for R1 to undergo DNA Test.
Moreover, had really there was no cohabitation between Petitioner and R1 right from the beginning of their marriage and he was believing that the Petitioner got pregnancy through somebody, R1 should not have come down to India to see the Petitioner and child at the time of delivery and he should not have even attended the Barasala function. But, it is categorically stated in the counters of R2 and R3 that R1 to R3 had attended the Barasala function and even performed the same with gaiety.
The first respondent also filed divorce OP vide FCOP:933/13 and it is admitted by
RW.1 in his cross examination that the ground for filing of divorce petition is that the child
Sri Chaitra is not born to the petitioner through RW.1 but through one Suman. In order to say that that petitioner has got illicit intimacy with one Suman, the respondents relied upon
Ex.R3 photocopy of love letter said to have been addressed by the petitioner to the said
Suman dt. 5.10.2011 at 11.15 p.m., Exs. R4 and R5 the photocopy of messages in three pages dt. 14.3.2011, 16.3.2011 and 24.12.2010, Ex. R.6 photocopy of the letter dt. 3.7.2012 issued by caste elders, Exs. R.7 to R.9 photocopy of minutes of the meeting in the presence of caste elders dt. 27.11.2011, 11.03.2012 and 23.04.2012 and Ex. R.13 note book with the name Sravanthi. Exs. R4 and R5 photocopy of messages are received and marked only subject to the objection of the counsel for the petitioner that they are not certified by the concerned authorities under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. Likewise, Ex.R.3, Exs.R.6 to
R9 are also marked subject to the objection by the counsel for the petitioner that those documents are photocopies only and they are inadmissible in evidence.
Admittedly, the respondents did not file original of the alleged love letters said to have written by the petitioner to one Suman. Even no attempt is made by the respondents 2 and 3 at least for comparison of the handwriting of the petitioner with her admitted handwritings.
According to the case of the respondents, one Devanga Welfare Society who mediated the issues between the petitioner and the first respondent and Exs. R.7 to R9 are the minutes of those meeting and Ex. R.6 is the letter issued by the said society dt.
3.7.2012. As seen from Exs. R.6 to R.9 they are all photocopies. Had there been
13
negotiations by the said Devanga Welfare Society, the respondents would have been produced the original minutes said to have been recorded by the said society. More over, no such elders are produced before this court to substantiate the version of the respondents. Keeping aside all the things, when it is the contention of the respondents that there was no cohabitation between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent would have undergone DNA test to substantiate their case. In the absence of such factor, this court hesitates to appreciate the contention of the respondents.
It is very admitted fact by R2 and R3 even in the counter itself that the first respondent had left for USA as he was unable to appreciate the infidelity of the petitioner but, they failed to prove the same. Therefore, the act of the first respondent deserting the petitioner and her minor child to their fate on the ground of her infidelity seriously comes under Domestic Violence under section 3 of the Act.
Even R2 and R3 contested this DVC on the ground that the petitioner is having illegal intimacy with one Suman. According to the case of the petitioner that R2 to R5 never lived with the petitioner and the first respondent at any point of time during their marital tie.
Both the petitioner and the first respondent stayed at Rajahmundry at her in-laws house for a period of one week immediately after the marriage. Even as seen from the petition, the first respondent used to harass the petitioner for more dowry and for a car and for her salary after she joined in Xeno Soft Technologies on 18.12.2009. The first respondent started harassing the petitioner that she has illegal intimacy with her colleagues after she came to her parents house at Visakhapatnam for delivery. R2 and R3 were never at any point of time, lived with the petitioner and the first respondent.
According to the petitioner, the parents and sisters of the first respondent (R2 to R5) used to make telephone calls to her to threaten her that the first respondent would give divorce to her if she did not bring additional dowry from her mother without having any courtesy that she was carrying the pregnancy of eighth month. It is not the case of the petitioner in her petition that R2 to R5 harassed her that she has an illicit intimacy with anybody.
However, even it is as per the case of the petitioner that immediately after the marriage, she joined with the first respondent at Hyderabad, she stayed only for one week at Rajahmundry at the house of her in-laws. Even according to her version, after the first
14
respondent left for USA deserting herself and her children at Hyderabad, she came down to
Rajahmundry to the house of her in-laws in the month of October, 2011 but her in-laws also supported their son and they have necked out her and her infant child from their house in the month of October, 2011. So during the entire marital tie, the petitioner did not reside along with R2 to R5 at any point of time. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner and her infant child resided at Rajahmundry even in the month of October, 2011 and at that point of time, R2 and R3 harassed the petitioner and necked her out. Had the first respondent not been deserted the petitioner on the allegation of her adulterous life, there would not have been any domestic violence in this case. Therefore the first respondent alone is liable for the domestic violence against the petitioner.
I)Coming to the relieves sought by the petitioner, she sought Rs.25,000/- per month to herself and her minor girl towards maintenance, food, clothes, medical expenses including shelter etc.,
In the light of this relief sought by the petitioner, as seen from her case, she did job in Maxis at Hyderabad even prior to her marriage and even after the marriage she joined in Xeno Software Technologies. It is her own case that she used to draw good amount as salary. So, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is an educated woman and able to maintain herself. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner for the maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month is hereby dismissed.
ii)Coming to the maintenance of her infant child Sri Chaitra, the Hon’ble Additional
Family Court, Visakhapatnam granted Rs.10,000/- per month which is sufficient. Hence, the relief of maintenance for the minor child is hereby dismissed.
Iii)Further the relief sought by the petitioner for return of dowry, gold ornaments and house hold articles is dismissed as there is no proof for payment of dowry and other articles.
iv)Further the relief sought by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents from non alienating the immovable properties which stand in the name of the respondents to the third parties or any of the family members is also dismissed as there is no proof for the
15
properties possessed by the respondents and their attempts for any alienation.
v)Coming to the relief sought by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards mental torture from the respondents:
As seen from Sec.22 of the Domestic Violence Act, this court can order for payment of compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents.
Here, from the facts on hand, the first respondent deserted the petitioner on the allegation of her adulterous life and the infant child Sri Chaitra is not born to the petitioner through the first respondent. As already discussed supra, the first respondent failed to substantiate his contention and even he denied to undergo DNA test in support of his version.
Imputing unchastity against a woman and making allegations that even the child is not born through the husband amounts to great mental torture and emotional distress to a woman in the society. Deserting by the husband with such allegations is a continuous mental torture to a woman throughout her life. It is a scar on her character and conduct in the Society. Moreover, the child is the ultimate victim. The future of the child is at bay. In fact, the said mental torture and emotional distress cannot be compensated in terms of money but, it is the only means available for this court at least to compensate the petitioner to some extent.
According to the case of the respondents, the first respondent was working at Info- sys at Hyderabad and subsequently he was doing job at USA. It is categorically admitted by
RW1 in his cross-examination that R1 was working at Info-sys, Hyderabad and the Infosys company sent him to USA. One US dollor would fetch more than Rs.60/- in Indian Currency.
Even if it is assumed that R1 is earning Rs.10,000/- US dollors, it would fetch Rs.6,00,000/- per month. Therefore, this court has no hesitation about the financial capacity of the first respondent. There is justification in seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- by the petitioner. Hence, the first respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh) to the petitioner towards mental torture and emotional distress caused to the petitioner by the first respondent.
16
7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed; directing the 1st respondent to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) to the petitioner towards mental torture and emotional distress caused to her, within six months from the date of this order.
The rest of the relieves sought by the petitioner are dismissed.
Typed to my dictation in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2019.
Sd/- L.Jagadeesh Kumar,
VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PetitionerRespondent PW.1- Allada Sravanthi RW.1-A.Surya Prakasharao PW.2- Basina Lakshmi
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER: Ex.P.1- wedding card Ex.P.2- marriage photographs Ex.P.3- marriage certificate Ex.P.4- Bank statement of the petitioner Ex.P.5- Medical Prescription Ex.P.6- Medical claim made by the respondent Ex.P.7- concerned letter of the respondent Ex.P.8- Legal notice issued by the respondent Ex.P.9- Reply notice issued by the petitioner Ex.P.10- Postal receipt Ex.P.11- birth certificate of the petitioner’s daughter Ex.P.12- salary particulars of the first respondent Ex.P.13- confirmation of appointment to USA along with H1B Visa of the petitioner and her daughter Ex.P.14- order in OP:933/13 on the file of
Hon’ble Addl. Family Court, Visakhapatnam dt. 9.10.2014
Ex.P.15- Order in transfer C.M.P.No:522,523 & 524/2014 dt. 1.12.2014 on the file of Hon’ble High Court Ex.P.16- common order in FCOP: 631/1, FCOP:931/13 and FCOP:933/13
RESPONDENS: Ex.R.1- Rejoinder Ex.R.2- sale deed Ex.R.3- photocopies of love letters addressed by the petitioner to her paramour Ch.Suman Ex.R.4- photocopy of the message dt. 5.10.2011 Ex.R.5- photocopy of the messages in three pages with dates Ex.R.6- letter dt. 3.7.2012 issued by caste elders. Ex.R.7 to R.9- minutes of the meeting in the presence of caste elders dt. 27.11.2011, 11.03.2012 and 23.04.2012 respectively Ex.R.10- details about the movable properties and bank accounts of the petitioner Ex.R.11- certified copy of legal notice by the first respondent to the petitioner Ex.R.12- certified copy of reply notice from the petitioner to the first respondent. Ex.R.13- note book with the name Sravanthi in the first page along with Ex. P.3 photocopies of letters.
Sd/- L.Jagadeesh Kumar,
VII AMM/VSP //True copy//
VII AMM/VSP
17
Both parties are
Orders pronounced (VSO)
In the result, the petition is partly allowed directing the 1st respondenttopay compensationof Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) to the petitioner towards mental torture and emotional distress caused to her, within six months from the date of this order. The rest of the relieves sought by the petitioner are
18
dismissed.
VII AMM/VSP
Order