1
IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : AT VISAKHAPATNAM
Present: M.Harinarayana
III Metropolitan Magistrate
Visakhapatnam
Monday, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.
D. V. C. No. 28/2015
Between:
1. Smt. Satti Satya Venkata Naga Lakshmi Nalitha W/o Raishankar, aged 34 years, Hindu, residing at H.No.14-164/4, Lakshmi Nagar, Chinnamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam-530051.
2. Kum. Satti Manjali, D/o Ravi Shankar, aged 10 years, Hindu, studying,residingatH.No.14-164/4,LakshmiNagar, Chinnamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam-530051.
3. Kum. Satti Havya, D/o Ravi Shankar, aged 3 years, Hindu, residing at H.No.14-164/4, Lakshmi Nagar, Chinnamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam-530051. (petitioners 2 and 3 are being represented by petitioner NO.1 who is their mother and natural guardian) … Petitioners And :
1. Satti Ravishankar, S/o Kasivisweswara Rao, aged 40 years, Hindu, working as Manager, Margadarsi Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Bank Street, K.Agraharam, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
2. Satti Kasivisweswararao, father's name not known, aged about 65 years, Hindu, residing at H.No.8-4-12/13, Annabathulavari street, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
3. Satti Satyavathi, W/o Satti Kasivisweswararao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, residing at H.No.8-4-12/13, Annabathulavari street, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. … Respondents
This complaint has come up on 14-02-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Mariadas, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri K.V.R.M., Advocates for the Respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.Petitioners 2 and 3 are children of the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent whereas R2 and R3 are the parents of the 1st respondent. The petitioners filed the present DVC seeking the following reliefs.
i) “Monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to each of the petitioners by the 1st respondent ii) To provide protection iii) Direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.50 lakhs towards compensation and damages for the injuries mental torture, mental 2 distress caused by the acts of the respondents iv) Direct the respondents to pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards house rent
v) Direct the respondents to give back the gold ornaments weighing 516 grams and silver articles wieghing 13 ¾ Kgs. And to return the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards adapaduchu lanchanam given at the time of marriage and also cash of
Rs.3,00,000/- given to the respondents at the time of marriage of the 1stpetitioner's younger brother and saresamanulu worth
Rs.1,00,000/- which were presented at the time of marriage and to return an amount of Rs.4,81,845/- an income derived out of the crops raised in the land belonging to the 1st petitioner from the year 2002 to 2011 given to the respondents.
2. The facts which are mentioned in the petition if narrated in narrow compass run as follows.
The marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 1st respondent was taken place on 29-11-2000 at Veeravallipalem village, that the parents of the 1st petitioner presented cash of Rs.25,00,000/- towards dowry to the respondent,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchulanchanam, that also presented various gold ornaments like Bangaru haram, weighing 64 grams, white stone neckless weighing 24 grams, Vaddanam (gold belt) weighing 80 grams, a gold biscut of 48 grams, all these items are worth of Rs.4,40,000/- and the parents of the petitioner further presented silver articles such as two silver plates weighing 2 kgs, water jug weighing 1 kg, 3 glasses weighing ½ kg plate, cup and saucer weighing ¼ kg, silver toilet box weighing 1 kg, silver pooja samanlu weighing 1 kg, astalakshmi chembu weighing ¼ kg, pooja sajja weighing ¼ kg, muvvala pallem weighing ¼ kg, two big size plates weighing 1 kg, 4 glassess weighing 1 kg, two big size plates weighing 1 kg, four small size plates weighing 1 kg, 4 3 glasses weighing 1 kg, two big size dishes with covers weighing 1 ½ kg, two small size dishes with covers weighing 1 ½ kg at the time of marriage. Thus the 1st petitioner pleads that gold articles worth Rs.4,00,000/- and silver articles worth
Rs.7,75,000/- were presented to the respondents at the time of marriage in addition to spending an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 1st respondent.
3.It is further alleged that the marriage was consummated, that the 1st petitioner gave birth to the second petitioner on 07-02-2004. It is also alleged that the 1st respondent is a regular alcoholic consumer which she came to know after marriage that the 1st respondent exhibited authoritation role and would not tolerate to speak as against him, and that he has full of lust for wealth. It is also alleged that as the 1st petitioner gave birth to a female child at the instance of 2nd and 3rd respondents, the 1st respondent started demanding additional dowry. It is also alleged that the movements of the 1st petitioner were restricted, that she was not allowed to go outside of the house and was also prevented from speaking to her parents and her relatives over phone, that the 1st respondent beat the 1st petitioner severely in a drunken condition, and that he also demanded the parents of the 1st petitioner to present gold ornaments for the second petitioner.
It is further pleaded that because of the demandeds of the respondents the parents of the 1st petitioner presented gold ornaments to the second petitioner of worth Rs.12,90,000/-, weighing around 516 gms and also a silver dinner set of weighing 5 kgs of worth Rs.2,40,000/-.
4.It is further pleaded that when the 1st petitioner was talking to her brother over the phone in the year 2007, the 1st respondent picked up quarrel, slapped her and broke the cell phone of her by throwing it on to the floor, that the respondents failed to provide proper food to the 1st petitioner and neglected her child also. It is further alleged that the respondents demanded the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- failing which they would perform the second marriage to the 1st respondent. It is also alleged that when the said fact 4 was brought to the notice of the parents of the 1st petitioner, her parents agreed to give annual income derived from the Ac.6.00 of land and accordingly an amount of Rs.4,81,845/- was given to the respondents (i.e. income on the said land for the period from 2002 to 2011). It is also alleged that the respondents demanded the 1st petitioner to transfer Ac.6.00 of land in favour of the 1st respondent but on the advise of the elders the said Ac.6.00 of land was gifted in favour of the 1st petitioner on 28-6-2010 and the income there on was delivered to the 1st respondent till 2011.
5.It is also alleged that at the time of celebration of Gruhapravesam by the 1st respondent in the month of November 2010 the parents of the 1st petitioner presented cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, new clothes worth Rs.12,000/- and furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/-, that in the month of February 2011 the 1st respondent beat the 1st petitioner severely because of which the 1st petitioner left to her parents house that the 1st respondent addressed a letter on 02-04-2011 seeking apology of the 1st petitioner for the ill-treatment meted to her and considering the apology of the 1st respondent, the 1st petitioner joined her husband in the month of May 2011.
6.It is also further alleged that marriage to the brother of the 1st petitioner was fixed in the year 2011, that on the said occasion the in-laws of the brother of the 1st petitioner promised to give Rs.1,00,000/- towards Adapaduchukatnam but the respondents demanded Rs.5,00,000/- and considering the demands of the 1st respondent the parents of the petitioner agreed to give Rs.3,00,000/- i.e.
Rs.1,00,000/- promised by the in-laws of the brother of the 1st petitioner and
Rs.2,00,000/- to be given by the parents of the 1st petitioner. It is also further pleaded that the 1st respondent demanded Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest on the income derived from the land which was gifted to the 1st petitioner.
7.With regard to the harassment meeted to the 1st petitioner while she was carrying second pregnancy, it was alleged that the respondents suspected the 1st petitioner that she would again give birth to a female child and as such they 5 made attempt to abort her pregnancy with the help of an R.M.P. Doctor but she strongly resisted and subsequently the petitioner and her child were driven out of the house in the month of April 2011 without permitting her to take her belongings and as such the 1st petitioner had to leave all her gold, silver, educational certificates including gift deed that with the respondents, and that 1st petitioner gave birth to the 3rd petitioner on 19-10-2011 but the respondents did not come to see the child even after she gave birth to the 3rd petitioner.
8.With regard to the mediation efforts to conciliate the differences between the petitioner and respondents it is alleged that one N.S.V.S. Subramaneswarao (PW3), M.Bhushanam, N.Ganesh and N.Satyanarayanamediated but the respondents failed to heed their advice. With regard to the income of the 1st respondent it is stated that the 1st respondent is drawing Rs.70,000/- per month, that he possess Ac.7.00 of land and getting Rs.2,00,000/- income on the Ac.7.00 that he owns a building worth Rs.1,00,00,000/- that he is earning Rs.4,00,000/- per month towards interest, that the respondents neglected to maintain the petitioners from April 2011 onwards and as the 1st petitioner was subjected to harassment and cruelty, the present DVC is filed seeking the reliefs which were narrated above.
9.The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter denying all the allegations made by the 1st petitioner except marriage and paternity of the petitioners 2 and 3. In addition to the above, the plea of the 1st respondent was that no dowry amount was given to him except performing the marriage, that he has love and affection on the petitioners and it is the 1st petitioner who left the company of the respondents, that he put up separate family by coming out of the company of his parents as demanded by the 1st petitioner, that he has no bad habits like consuming alcohol and affairs with other women that he is getting salary around
Rs.23,000/- and he has love and affection towards the petitioners that he has no objection if the petitioners join him and he is also willing to take them into his fold, that the 1st petitioner is habituated to lead free life and as such she left his 6 company at the instance of her mother and they have tendency of dominating the family and accordingly the 1st petitioner left his company and also left the village and is staying at Visakhapatnam without there being any reason that the mediation efforts made by him to convince the 1st petitioner and her parents were not materialized and that it is the 1st petitioner who left his company without there being any reason or basis much less any cruelty or harassment and as such the 1st respondent pleads that the DVC is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same.
10.The respondent 2 and 3 adopted the counter filed by the 1st respondent.
11.The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The petitioner also examined her mother and matrimonial uncle as PW2 and PW3 and one of the elders who mediated for the marriage as PW4. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and got marked Exs. R1 to R3 on his behalf, and got examined his brother-in-law as RW2.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of arguments reiterated all the averments mentioned in the petition and he mainly relied on Ex.P3 letter addressed by R1 to the 1st petitioner in which the 1st respondent specifically mentioned “Sorry Sorry Sorry”. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying on some of the averments mentioned in
Ex.P3 like he changed alot and that the 1st petitioner would see her husband who behaved with her during the initial period of her marriage days would contend that the 1st respondent in the said letter admitted that he ill-treated the 1st petitioner. Likewise, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents tortured the first petitioner and the parents of the 1st petitioner presented cash of Rs.25,00,000/- towards dowry and also gold and silver articles worth around Rs.12,00,000/- and also performed the marriage by spending Rs.15,00,000/-. It is also pleaded that considering the demands of the respondents, the parents of the 1st petitioner due to which they presented cash of
Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of Gruhapravesam and furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/- 7 and also cash of Rs.4,50,000/-, i.e. the income derived from the land gifted to the 1st petitioner and as such the petitioner is entitled for all the reliefs as prayed by her.
13.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the parents of the 1st petitioner have no means to present such huge cash and they live on agriculture and they only performed the marriage of the 1st petitioner and except that nothing was given by them. It is also pleaded that the respondents agreed to marry the 1st petitioner as she is a educated woman and as such without taking dowry they agreed for marriage and accordingly the marriage was performed. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner herself left the company of her husband without any reason or basis and as such the 1st petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
14. The learned counsel also submitted across the bar that the 1st respondent is willing to pay maintenance to 2nd and 3rd petitioners at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month to each child and a memo was also filed to that effect.
15.Now the point for consideration is whether the 1st petitioner has succeeded in proving that she was subjected to any sort of domestic violence in the hands of the respondents or not; and if so, whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs which she sought for.
16.The fact of marriage between the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent is not in dispute likewise the paternity of 2nd and 3rd petitioners is also not in dispute.
17.Now this court wants to decide whether the parents of the 1st petitioner presented cash of Rs.25,00,000/- towards dowry, Rs.2,00,000/- towards
Adapaduchu lanchanam and also presented gold and silver articles worth
Rs.12,15,000/- and also performed the marriage by spending Rs. 15,00,000/- or not. In this case, the father of the first petitioner who performed the marriage and who generated such huge amount was not examined by the 1st petitioner.
However, the 1st petitioner examined her mother as PW2. Why the 1st petitioner failed to examine her father who is a crucial witness to depose the facts of the 8 presentation of cash, gold and silver articles is not known. Non examination of the father of 1st petitioner creates a doubt about the very presentation of cash, gold and silver articles and also spending huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage.
18.Now this court wants to analyze the evidence on record as to whether the parents of the 1st petitioner have the capacity to give such huge cash, gold and silver articles or not. PW1 though pleaded that her parents presented cash, gold and silver articles worth around Rs.37,00,000/- (Rs.25,00,000 towards cash, gold articles worth Rs.4,40,000/- and silver articles worth Rs.7,75,000/-), no document is filed before this court to prove the above said fact. However, Ex.P1 photograph would indicate presentation of silver jug and some other articles. It is a known fact that at the time of marriage the parents of the bride would naturally present some gold and silver articles to their daughter. Merely because those gold and silver articles were presented it does not mean that the same were presented on the demand of the bride-groom or his parents. Even the chief testimony of PW1 would indicate that on demand of the respondents her parents presented gold and silver articles. When the respondents insisted the parents of the 1st petitioner to present huge amount dowry, gold and silver articles worth around Rs.37,00,000/- even prior to the marriage, it is not known as to why the parents of the 1st petitioner agreed to give her in marriage with the 1st respondent is not known. Thus it shows that the parents of the 1st petitioner willingly presented silver and some gold articles as shown in Ex.P1 photograph at the time of marriage but not on the demands of the respondents. Therefore, this
Court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that there was no demand on the part of the respondents for presentation of dowry or gold and silver articles.
19.As discussed above, except oral testimony of PW1 no document is filed to show that how the parents of the 1st petitioner generated such huge cash for presentation towards dowry and for purchase of gold and silver articles and also 9 cash of Rs.15,00,000/- for performing the marriage. Non production of any document before this court would create a doubt about the very allegation made by the 1st petitioner that her parents presented huge amount of cash towards dowry, gold and silver articles. As per chief affidavit, the age of the 1st petitioner was shown as 34 years. The marriage was taken place in the year 2000. Thus it shows that on the date of marriage the age of the 1st petitioner was around 15 to 16 years. If such being the case it is very difficult to the 1st petitioner because of her tender age at the time of marriage, to know how much amount was given to the respondents towards dowry and also the presentation of gold and silver articles. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the best person to speak about presentation of dowry is the father of the 1st petitioner. For the reasons best known to the 1st petitioner, she failed to examine her father as a witness on her behalf. However, the 1st petitioner examined her mother as PW2.
20.PW2 in her chief testimony corroborated the testimony of PW1 with regard to the presentation of gold and silver articles and presentation of cash of
Rs.25,00,000/- towards dowry and spending Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage. In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that her parents gave land properties but she could not re-collect the total extent of the said property. Thus it shows that she has no knowledge about the extent of land which was given to her by her parents. In the cross-examination she also admitted that they never purchased gold for investment purpose and that prior to 2000 i.e., prior to the marriage they did not purchase any gold biscuit. PW2 also admitted in her cross- examination that she has no idea about extent of land possessed by her husband.
The above admission of PW2 in her cross-examination would draw an inference that her husband played active role or takes care of all the properties and family affairs. Under those circumstances, the testimony of PW2 that huge amount of cash, gold and silver articles were presented at the time of marriage is highly doubtful.
21.PW2 also admitted in her cross-examination that after the marriage of the 10 1st petitioner, her son was sent to abroad for higher education by raising loan in a bank. When her family was in a position to part with lakhs of rupees to perform the marriage of the 1st petitioner, what was the need to go for loan for the purpose of the education of the brother of the 1st petitioner is not known. The very admission of PW2 that they availed loan to send her son to abroad for education purpose would draw an inference that the financial capacity of her family is very moderate and they are not so rich as projected by PW1. PW2 also admitted in her cross-examination that they presented gold, silver and cash to the 1st petitioner by selling all her properties. However, she specifically pleaded she is not in a position to file any document to show that they sold the lands.
When they sold the lands to perform the marriage of the 1st petitioner, it is not difficult to PW2 or to the petitioner or to PW3 who is maternal uncle of the first petitioner to bring on record the sale deeds to show that they raised huge amount to perform the marriage of the 1st petitioner by selling the lands. Non production of any document to show that how the amount was generated and also non production of any bill or receipt to show that they purchased gold and silver articles and also non filing of any bank statement to show the financial capacity of the parents of the 1st petitioner would create a doubt with regard to the allegation made by the first petitioner that her parents presented huge cash, gold and silver articles to the respondents at the time of or prior to the marriage.
22.It is also pleaded by the 1st petitioner that they performed the marriage by spending Rs.15,00,000/-. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the marriage was performed at her parents’ house. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that there were several marriage function halls in her native place i.e. Veeravallivaripalem which is a major Panchayath. The suggestion put to PW1 that her parents did not perform the marriage by spending
Rs.15,00,000/- was denied by her. When the marriage of the 1st petitioner was allegedly performed by spending an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, naturally the marriage might have been performed in a function hall. Why the parents of the 11 petitioner failed to perform the marriage in a marriage function hall which is as well available are available in her native village is not known. Non performance of the marriage in a marriage function hall and performing the same at residence of the 1st petitioner, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondents that the parents of the first petitioner performed the
marriage in a simple way but not in grand way.
23.PW3 who is maternal uncle of PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that for common man, securing Rs.25,00,000/- in the year 2000 is very difficult.
It is also a ground reality. If such being the case, securing cash of
Rs.50,00,000/- by the parents of the 1st petitioner is a herculean task for them.
In the absence of any documentary evidence and considering the admission made by PW3 in his cross-examination that it is very difficult to secure Rs.25,00,000/- in the year 2000, this court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the parents of the first petitioner did not present cash of
Rs.25,00,000/- towards dowry, spend Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage and also present gold and silver articles worth Rs.12,00,000/-. ThoughPW4, who is an elder for the marriage of the first petitioner, in his evidence stated that a month prior to the marriage, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-was given towards dowry and Rs.2,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanam in his presence. Yet this Court is of the view that the said oral testimony testimony cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any documentary evidence brought on record to show how the parents of the 1st petitioner generated such a huge cash. PW4 in his cross-examination, admitted that an amount of Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/- would be given towards lease for one year to an acre depending on the fertility of the soil. Even if it is assumed that if a farmer cultivates one acre of land on his own, he may earn Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per acre. After excluding expenditure, a farmer may earn net amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. In this case, as admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination that her father has
Ac.12.00 of coconut garden and also Ac.5.00 of land which was gifted to her in 12 the year 2010. In the chief testimony of PW1, she categorically stated that her parents agreed, on demands made by the respondents to give annual income derived out of the crops raised in the Ac.6.00 of land (the said land was agreed to be given to the 1st petitioner in the marriage towards gift and accordingly it was gifted to the 1st petitioner in the year 2010) and her parents gave total amount of
Rs.4,81,845/- towards income from 2002 to 2011 i.e., for a period of 10 years.
It means, an amount of Rs.49,000/- was given towards income for total Ac.6.00 of land. Even if it is assumed that the parents of the 1st petitioner had Ac.18.00 of land at best they would have earned income of Rs.2,70,000/- per year i.e., net income valued @ Rs.15,000/- per acre. If such being the financial capacity of the parents of the 1st petitioner, it is very difficult for them to generate huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- that too for the purpose of performing marriage of the 1st petitioner. Therefore, this court finds force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the parents of the first petitioner had no financial capacity to spend such huge amount and that they performed marriage in a simple way by spending Rs.2,00,000/- .
24. Even if it is assumed that the respondents demanded dowry and gold articles at the time of or prior to the marriage, now it has to be seen whether such acts of the respondents would amount to 'domestic violence' or not. In this connection, this court wants to consider the meaning of 'domestic violence' as defined under Section 2(g) read with Section 3 of the DVC Act. To bring the case of the petitioner within the meaning of the Section 3 of the DVC Act, the petitioner has to prove that any omission or commission or conduct of 'the respondent' which causes harassment or ill-treatment to the aggrieved person i.e., petitioner herein. Now it has to be seen who is 'the respondent' as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. 'The respondent' as defined under the said Section would indicate that any adult male person who is or has been in a 'domestic relationship' with the aggrieved person. To bring a person within the parameters of 'the respondent' the aggrieved person have to prove that she lived 13 with the respondents on the date of presentation of dowry and gold articles, and there should be 'domestic relationship' between the aggrieved person and the respondents. What is the meaning of the 'domestic relationship'. Section 2(f) of the DVC Act defines 'domestic relationship' which means that there should be relationship between the aggrieved party and the respondents by way of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Thus a conjoint reading of the definitions of the 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Act, 'the respondent' under Section 2(q) of the Act and also the 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the Act would clearly indicate that there should be some relationship between the aggrieved party and the respondents either by way of marriage, adoption and they should live or have lived together as a joint family at the time of payment of dowry. Then only the alleged acts of the respondents would cover within the ambit of the DVC Act. In this case, at the time of payment of dowry, there was no relationship between the petitioner and respondents and that they did not live together at any point of time either on the date of payment or prior to the payment of dowry and presentation of gold articles. Even a reading of Sub-Section (8) of Section 19 of the DVC Act which deals with 'Residence Orders' would empower the Magistrate to direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person for 'Stridhan' or 'any other property' or 'valuable security' to which she is entitled to.
The said Section did not cover 'the dowry'. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the parents of the petitioner presented gold and cash towards dowry, the same cannot be ordered to be returned as there was no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondents herein and the respondents herein would not fall within the intrinsic meaning as defined under 'the respondent' in the DVC Act.
Hence, the relief prayed for by the petitioner to direct the respondents to return of the dowry and gold articles which were presented prior to the marriage cannot be acceded to and accordingly the relief sought for by the petitioner is hereby negatived.
14
25.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the parents of the 1st petitioner gave Rs.4,81,845/- towards income derived from the
Ac.6.00 of land which was promised to be given to the 1st petitioner at the time of marriage and the said amount was also taken away by the respondents and used for his own and taking the said amount by the 1st respondent would amount to domestic violence. Now it has to be seen whether the 1st petitioner proved that her parents gave such amount to her and if so whether the said amount was taken away by the respondents or not. As discussed above, no document is filed
before this court to show that parents of the 1st petitioner gave the said amount
to her or to the first respondent. As discussed above, no document is filed before this court to show that parents of the 1st petitioner gave the said amount to her.
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents was that no amount was given to the 1st petitioner by her parents and on the other hand the amount of the 1st petitioner was used by the parents of the 1st petitioner for the purpose of education of their son. When such specific stand was taken by the respondents, the burden heavily lies on the 1st petitioner to show that the said amount was given to her. Except her oral testimony, no document is filed before this court. It is pertinent to note that PW2 who is mother of PW1 did not whisper anything about payment of Rs.4,81,845/- to the 1st petitioner. Had the said amount been given to the 1st petitioner by her parents, PW2 would have stated the said fact in her chief testimony. Non mentioning anything about giving the said amount of Rs.4,81,845/- to the 1st petitioner in the chief testimony of PW2 would doubt the very version of PW1.
26.PW2 further stated in her cross-examination that when they were unable to give the annual income derived out the Ac.4.00 of land (which was gifted in favour of the 1st petitioner in the year 2010) he forcibly collected
Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest from the due amount payable to the 1st petitioner.
In this connection, some of the observations made by PW2 in the cross- examination, at the cost of repetition, are to be discussed as they are very much 15 relevant. Pw2 in her cross examination admitted that she has no idea about the extent of land possessed by her husband, that her parents gave land properties to her but she did not recollect the total extent of the said property and that she did not know the total population of her village. The above version of PW2 in her cross-examination would indicate that she has no knowledge or interest to know about the properties possessed by her husband and also how her husband was cultivating the said lands. If such being the case, how it could be possible to PW2 to know that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the 1st respondent towards interest on the amount which was due to PW1. This Court is of the view that to depose the above said facts, the father of the first petitioner is the competent witness and non examination of such witness by the first petitioner creates doubt about payment of such interest on the due amount on the demand of the respondent no.1. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that in the absence of any documentary evidence like bank passbook etc. it is difficult to believe the version of PW1 and PW2 that R1 received Rs.4,81,845/- and also Rs.2,00,000/- towards interest on the amount which was due to be payable to the 1st petitioner and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that R1 forcibly took the above amounts from the 1st petitioner and her parents is highly doubtful and accordingly it is disbelieved.
27.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that at the time of marriage of the brother of the 1st petitioner, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- was offered towards Adapaduchu katnam to PW1 but the 1st respondent demanded Rs.5,00,000/-, that to satisfy the 1st respondent the parents of the 1st petitioner added Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- that was agreed to be given towards Adapadachu katnam by the in-laws of the brother of the 1st petitioner. To pay the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 1st respondent, as observed above, PW2 has no independent financial capacity. If such being the case, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- might have been given to R1 by the father of the 1st petitioner. The father of the 1st petitioner was not brought 16 into the witness box. Even the in-laws of the brother of the 1st petitioner was not examined to prove the allegation against the first respondent that he demanded
Rs.5,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam. Therefore, the allegations made by
PW1 and PW2 that R1 demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam and to satisfy R1, the parents of the 1st petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000/- in addition to
Rs.1,00,000/- Adapaduchukatnam is highly difficult to believe it. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first respondent demanded Rs.5,00,000/- towards adapadachu katnam is also negatived.
28.The next contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was that the parents of the 1st petitioner presented cash of
Rs.2,00,000/-, furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/- and new clothes worth Rs.12,000/- in the month of November 2010 on the occasion of Gruhapravesam by the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. Naturally when son-in-law constructed a new house, in-laws of such son-in-law would present some clothes on the occasion of
Gruhapravesam by blessing their son-in-law and daughter. Some persons would also lend helping hand by way of giving cash for the purpose of construction of the house. In this case, the version of PW1 was that at the time of
Gruhapravesam her parents presented cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, furniture worth
Rs.1,00,000/- and new clothes worth Rs.12,000/-. It is not the version of PW1 was that the same were presented on the demanded of the 1st respondent.
Presentation means giving something on their own on an occasion. In this case, the above alleged items were presented to the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent on the occasion of their Gruhapravesam. As those items were presented on their own, it cannot be said that the same were given to them on the demand made by the 1st respondent. As discussed above, it is not the case of the 1st respondent that her parents gave the said amount because of the demand made by her husband. Apart from that, no documentary evidence is brought on record to show payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and also Rs.1,00,000/- for furniture except oral 17 testimony of PW1 and PW2. Hence it is held that the petitioners failed to prove the presentation of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and furniture worth Rs.1,00,000/- on the occasion of Gruhapravesam. Even if it is assumed that the parents of the 1st petitioner presented the same it cannot be said that the same were presented because of ill-treatment meted to her daughter. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that mere presentation of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- and furniture worth
Rs.1,00,000/- and new clothes worth Rs.12,000/- cannot be said that it is because of harassment meted by the respondents to the 1st petitioner.
29.Admittedly, the 1st petitioner with her two daughters are residing at
Visakhapatnam. Why the 1st petitioner has chosen to reside at Visakhapatnam is not known. But as per the testimony of PW1 it would indicate that she opted to reside at Visakhapatnam for the education of her daughters i.e. petitioners 2 and
3. As per the pleadings, petitioners 2 and 3 are aged about 13 years and 6 years (2nd petitioner was born on 7-2-2004, whereas the 3rd was petitioner born on 19-10-2011). Considering the age of the petitioners 2 and 3, they are school going children. As per the admissions made by PW1 in her cross-examination her children are studying in Minerva Public School at Chinamushidiwada. The school is being run by PW3. In the cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he is the
Chairperson of Minerva School at Chinamushidiwada. Thus it shows that the children of the 1st petitioner are studying in a school established by PW3 but not in any international school. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that she is residing in a house of one Rama Krishna in Chinamushidiwada as a tenant, that
Amalapuram is a Municipality and that it is a big city, that there are number of good schools and colleges at Amalapuram. The respondents are residents of
Amalapuram. Thus it shows that when there are good schools at Amalapuram.
When there are good schools at Amalapuram what prompted PW1 to settle at
Visakhapatnam that too for the purpose of education of her two daughters who are school going children is not known. If there are any differences between the 1st petitioner and her husband, she could as well stay with her parents and can 18 provide good education to her children at Amalapuram. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that even the mother of the 1st petitioner separated from her husband and now the 1st petitioner with the mis- guidance of her mother, she is staying at Visakhapatnam without any reason or any purpose. As discussed above this court is of the opinion that the 1st petitioner is staying at Visakhapatnam for the purpose of education of her children is highly un-tenable and for the reason best known to her she had chosen to settle at Visakhapatnam and staying independently by leaving her husband.
30.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner suffered ill-treatment in the hands of her husband and the 1st respondent had bad vices like drinking, debachery and developed affairs with several women and as such the 1st petitioner left to Visakhapatnam. Now it has to be seen whether the 1st petitioner proved that the 1st respondent has habit of consuming liquor regularly and she suffered ill-treatment in the hands of the 1st respondent and whether she witnessed the 1st respondent moving closely with any other woman or not. Thus the testimony of PW1 indicates that she gave birth to second petitioner on 7-2-2004 and thereafter she noticed abnormal change in the behaviour of the respondents. It is also the version of PW1 in her chief testimony that R1 used to drink heavily and beat her demanding gold ornaments for the newly born baby, that in the month of June 2007 when she was speaking over phone with her brother the 1st respondent picked up quarrel with her and broke the cell phone and also slapped on her face and also warned her not to talk with any one of her family members and that the 1st respondent also failed to provide proper food. It is also alleged that the 1st respondent exhibited ill- treatment for every minor issue blaming her for no reason and also demanded the parents of the 1st petitioner to transfer the land of Ac.6.00 in his name but on the advice of elders R1 agreed for transfer of Ac.4.00 of land in favour of the 1st petitioner by way of gift and accordingly a gift deed was executed on 28-6-2010.
19
Another serious allegation made against the 1st respondent was that while she was carrying second pregnancy he tried to abort her pregnancy and when she resisted she was necked out in the month of April 2011 along with the second petitioner, that she gave birth to the 3rd petitioner on 19-10-2011 but the respondents did not come to see the 3rd petitioner though they were informed. It is also alleged that they sent some mediatiors but the respondents did not hear their advice. One of the mediators was examined as PW3 who is none other then the maternal uncle of PW1. The above version of PW1 would indicate that she was subjected to harassment from 2004 onwards till she was driven out in the month of April 2011. As per the version of PW1 some conciliatory efforts were also made to convince RW1 through some elders but the same was not materialized. Even the version of PW1 would indicate that the respondents did not turn up to see the second daughter even though the same was informed to them. If the above version of PW1 was taken as true, as to why the 1st petitioner or her parents were remained silent for not filing any complaint either with the police or with the court till filing of the present DVC. The present DVC was filed on 20-11-2014 which shows that the 1st petitioner and her parents remained silent for a period of three years. The delay of three years for not knocking the doors of law courts is not explained. When the efforts made by the parents of the 1st petitioner to convince the respondents were not materialized, and when the harassment was not abated, the only option left to the 1st petitioner or to her parents would be lodging of a complaint with the police. Even as per the testimony of PW1 it appears that no complaint was filed even till today also. Non filing of any complaint with the police and failure to take any action for a considerable period of three years against the respondents even after alleged mediation efforts made by the parents of the petitioner were not materialized would indicate that the allegations made against the respondents are highly doubtful.
31.Apart from that PW2 categorically stated that the 1st respondent had an 20 affair with one woman of her village, that her daughter (PW1) complained about such affair and that they came to know about the affair of the 1st respondent after marriage only. If the 1st respondent has been maintaining an affair with a woman of Veeravanipalem, naturally PW2 or PW1 who are natives of the said village would have the knowledge about the name of the such woman. In the cross- examination, PW2 admitted that she has no idea about the name of the woman with whom R1 allegedly maintaining illicit relationship and that they did not make any attempt to find out the name of the said woman so that they can sort out the differences between the 1st petitioner and R1. Being mother of PW1 and being a woman, it is very difficult to PW2 to digest such illicit relationship of her son-in- law with a woman of her village. When the said fact came to her notice it would have been placed before the elders with a view to sort out the differences between the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent. Unfortunately, PW2 admitted in the cross-examination that no such efforts were made by them. PW3 who is the maternal uncle of PW1 stated in his evidence that it is an open secret that the 1st respondent has been living in adultery with a woman of Amalapuram, Whereas the version of PW2 was that the 1st respondent has an affair with a woman of her native village. It is pertinent to note that no allegation of adultery was attributed to R1 by the 1st petitioner. What all the allegations made against the 1st respondent by the 1st petitioner were that he had habit of consuming liquor, lust for money, dominating nature and used to beat her and except that she did not attribute any allegation of adultery to R1. Therefore, the testimonies of PW2 and
PW3 are that R1 is living in adultery with a woman even prior to his marriage is an allegation invented to defame the 1st respondent and to gain the sympathy of the court without there being any remotely tenable basis. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner has been residing at Visakhapatnam for the purpose of education is highly difficult to believe and that there is no reason or basis to the 1st petitioner to stay in Visakhapatnam by leaving and deserting her 21 husband.
32.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that it is the 1st petitioner who deserted the respondents and in support of such contention the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would draw the attention of this court to the some of the answers given by PW1 and PW2 in their cross-examination. PW1 admitted in the cross-examination that in the month of
August 2011 she left her husband and thereafter she did not join him, that PW1 categorically replied to a specific suggestion put to her that she was not willing to join her husband. PW1 also stated in her cross-examination that she intimated her husband about her intention to settle in Visakhapatnam but not to invite him to live with her in Visakhapatnam. It shows that she only intimated to her husband about her willingness to stay at Visakhapatnam not with a view to stay along with R1 in Visakhapatnam. PW1 also categorically stated in her cross- examination that she is not willing to go along with her husband to Amalapuram and that she is not willing to permit her husband to join her at Visakhapatnam to lead marital life. However, the suggestion put to PW1 was that without any reason she left her matrimonial company was denied by her. In the preceding paragraph this court categorically observed that there was no justifiable reason to the 1st petitioner to stay at Visakhapatnam by deserting her husband. In view of such categorical conclusion reached by this court coupled with the fact that PW1 has expressed her willingness to lead marital life with her husband at
Visakhapatnam and she also categorically and specifically stated that she is not willing to permit her husband to join her to lead marital life, this court, without any hesitation, is of the opinion that the 1st petitioner herself left her husband on her own without there being any reason much less justifiable reason and that the 1st petitioner also failed to prove that she was subjected to any harassment or violence much less element of domestic violence in the hands of the respondents.
33.It is also to be noticed that the testimony of PW4 would indicate that he is the elder of the marriage and in his presence the alleged dowry amount was 22 given to the respondents a month prior to the marriage. If such being the case if there was any mis-behaviour or objectionable conduct of R1 was noticed by the 1st petitioner and her parents, the said fact would have been brought to the notice of PW4 who happened to be the elder of the marriage and at whose instance the marriage negotiations were taken place. It is not the version of PW4 that the alleged adulterous behaviour of R1 was brought to his notice. Had R1 maintained any illegal affair with any woman, the said fact would have been brought to the notice of PW4. Non bringing the said fact to the notice of PW4 would draw an inference that the allegations made against R1 that he had an affair with a woman of Veeravanipalem village has to be doubted. On this ground also, this court disbelieves the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that R1 had an affair with a woman.
34.As the 1st petitioner failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty, this court is not inclined to undertake much exercise to discuss the testimony of
RW1 and RW2. As the initial burden lies on the 1st petitioner was not discharged and as this court disbelieves the allegation made against the respondents of ill- treatment meeted to the 1st petitioner and also disbelieves the specific allegation made against R1 that he had an affair with an woman, this court is of the opinion that the initial burden lies on the first petitioner was not discharged and as such it is held that the petitioner failed to prove that she was not subjected to any harassment or violence much less any domestic violence which enables her to have the reliefs which she prayed for.
35.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by relying on Ex.P3 letter, admittedly written by R1 to his wife I.e 1st petitioner would contend that in the said letter the 1st respondent pleaded mercy of his wife and also specifically mentioned the word “sorry” for number of times. Had the 1st respondent not ill- treated or employed violence on the 1st petitioner there is no need to the 1st respondent to offer “sorry” several times in the said letter. The learned counsel
for the petitioners would contend that the fact of seeking excuse of the 1st
23 petitioner by the 1st respondent in Ex.P3 letter would draw an inference that the 1st petitioner was subjected to cruelty and violence and as such the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs which they sought for. This court has gone through
Ex.P3. A reading of all the contents of Ex.P3 would indicate that he was trying to convince the 1st respondent to join him and not to leave him. In the cross- examination RW1 admitted that he wrote Ex.P3 letter with a view to convince the 1st petitioner to join him and not to be carried away by any suspicion. In Ex.P3
RW1 also made a promise to PW1 that she would see abnormal change in his behaviour in future. However, in the cross-examination, RW1 clarified that he would closely behave with her by leaving his parents which she used to demand and in that context only he wrote the above text but not he was admitting that he was ill-treating PW1. Apart from that an over all reading of the contents of Ex.P3, this court is of the opinion that, it would indicate RW1 was trying to convince his wife not to leave him and was requesting her to join him and also projecting that whatever the doubts she entertained on his behaviour are not true. Hence this court does not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners that the 1st respondent through Ex.P3 admitted his ill-
treatment towards the 1st petitioner and subjected her to violence cannot be accepted and accordingly it is rejected.
36.With regard to the petitioners 2 and 3 the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent is willing to pay
maintenance of Rs.3,500/- to each of the petitioner 2 and 3 as he was drawing only Rs.23,000/- towards his salary from Margadarshi Chit funds. A perusal of the chief testimony of PW1 indicates that his father has a house and some land properties which were inherited by him. It also shows that the 1st respondent also constructed a new house. Thus it shows that the 1st respondent has sufficient income to maintain petitioners 2 and 3. As the petitioners 2 and 3 are school going children and for their maintenance this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the 1st respondent is directed to pay maintenance 24 of Rs.5000/- to each petitioner i.e. total Rs.10,000/- from the date of the filing of the petition i.e. 19-11-2014. The arrears amount which has to be paid by the 1st respondent from the date of filing of the petition till the month of February, 2017 has to be kept in a fixed deposit in the name of petitioners 2 and 3 and the 1st respondent has to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to each petitioners 2 and 3 on or before first week of succeeding month i.e. payable from the month of March 2017. The first petitioner is directed to furnish her bank details and the 1st respondent shall deposit the said amount in the said bank account of 1st petitioner. With the above observations, the DVC is dismissed.
37.In the result, the DVC is dismissed as against the petitioner No.1.
The 1st respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5000/- to each of the petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of filing of the petition. The arrears of the maintenance from the date of filing of the DVC i.e 19-11-2014 till February 2017 shall be kept in fixed deposit. The monthly maintenance of Rs,.5000/- to each of the petitioner 2 and 3 shall be payable on or before 1st week of every succeeding month commencing from March 2017. The first petitioner is directed to furnish her bank details and the 1st respondent shall deposited the said monthly maintenance amount in the said bank account of the 1st petitioner.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me
in open court, this the 27 th day of February, 2017.
III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
Petitioners/Complainants PW1/ Satti Satya Venkata Naga Lakshmi Nalitha PW2/ Domisetti Varalakhsmi PW3/ N.S.V.S. Subramaneswararao PW4/ Nageswara Rao 25
Respondents/Accused: RW1/ Sathi Ravisankar RW2/ V.Venkata Satyanarayana Raju RW3/ Chinta Venkata Brahmananda Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
Petitioners/Complainants Ex.P1/ Marriage photograph Ex.P2/ Wedding card Ex.P3/ Letter of R1 addressed to 1st petitioner
Respondents/Accused: Ex.R1/ Payslip of the R1 dated 30-9-2016 Ex.R2/ Photocopy of the TDS returns of R1 (self attested) Ex.R3/ Photocopy of salary certificate of R1 (self attested) (Ex.R2 and Re are marked subjected to objection that they are photocopies and inadmissible)
III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
VISAKHAPATNAM.