1
D.V.C. No.06 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KADAPA.
Present:- Sri M. Pradeep Kumar,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Kadapa. Dated: Thursday, this the 18 th day of November, 2022.
D.V.C.No. 06 of 2019
Bandi Sai Sindhu, W/o. B. Srinivasulu, aged 25 years, R/o.D.No.2/802, Sri Hari Rao Street, Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City. … Petitioner
Vs.
1. B. Srinivasulu, S/o. B. Subbarayudu, aged 32 years.
2. B. Venkata Lakshumma, W/o. B. Subbarayudu, 58 years.
3. B. Subbarayudu, S/o. not known, aged 60 years.
All are residents of D.No.2/575, Bellala Street, Jammalamadugu Mandal, Kadapa District.
… Respondents.
This petition coming on 15-11-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkateswara Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri P.
Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, having heard on both sides, having perused the material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-
O R D E R
The present case is filed by the aggrieved person/petitioner against the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are her husband and in-laws respectively for the reliefs u/Secs.18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Herein after referred as “the Act”).
2. The brief facts of the petition are that :-
The marriage of petitioner took place with the respondent No.1, who is Software Engineer working at Bangalore, on 14.06.2014 at Tirumala as per
Hindu rites and customs and their marriage is a love marriage. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.1 stayed at Proddatur for four days
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:26:45 +0530
2
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
and later they shifted their family to Bangalore as the respondent No.1 was working as a Software Engineer and lived happily for a period of three months.
Subsequently the respondent No.1 with the able assistance of respondent
Nos.2 and 3 used to harass her as she is the only daughter to her parents, she shall give their assets to the respondent No.1 instead of gifting away them to their relatives. Further the petitioner is in the habit of performing pooja as a customary rite on every Friday by wearing a traditional saree and present the traditional and sacred beetal leaves (Thambulam) to the neighbours for seeking blessings, the respondent No.1 used to make her character assassinate on that issue stating that she wore the saree by adorning gold for attracting some others and used to abuse her in vulgar language whenever she used to follow the customary rite of wearing traditional dress. Thus, the respondent
No.1 subjected her to mental cruelty by character assassination as to why she wore saree, vermilion and bath and she could not even express her mental cruelty in writing. The petitioner never informed the said harassment to her parents as she married the respondent No.1 against the whims and choice of her parents. In spite of bearing the torture, she got conceived pregnancy and used to talk with her mother over phone now and then. Later the respondent
No.1 started subjecting her to cruelty and harassing her for want of additional dowry. Subsequently, she requested her parents and came to her parents house for delivery. After delivery, she was residing along with her parents for a period of 1½ years and the respondent No.1 used to harass her in her parents house also. On the demand of respondent No.1, her parents gave amounts to him, but there is no change in the attitude of respondent No.1 against the petitioner and also demanded additional dowry of Rs.45,00,000/- and to register the Flat and site in his name. The respondent No.1 also threatened the petitioner as he belongs to Jammalamadugu which is a faction village and they will kill her and her parents. While so on 23.08.2018 at about 7.30P.M., the
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:26:57 +0530
3
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and one Guru Prasad came to the parents house of petitioner for talking purpose, but all of them beat the petitioner and her parents with stones and threatened them with dire consequences and the neighbours called police and the police asked them to come to police station.
Thus, the respondents by virtue of their acts, caused domestic violence to her besides abusing her mentally, verbally, emotionally and economically.
3.On perusal of the material on hand, it was taken on file by this Court and numbered it as DVC No.06/2019 and issued summons to the respondents and thereafter, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court and sought time for counter.
4.The respondent No.1 to 3 filed a detailed counter by admitting the marriage with the petitioner by the respondent No.1, who is working at
Bangalore and their marriage was a love marriage and they were blessed with a male baby on 01.06.2016 during their wedlock and they lived happily for a period of one and half year and denied the remaining allegations of the complaint. They further contended that the petitioner left the house of the respondent No.1 and went to her parents house and stayed one and half year.
They further contended that after one and half year, some differences cropped in between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 resigned for his job at the pressure of the petitioner and trying for Government job and they came to Jammalamadugu and lived for few days and thereafter the petitioner went to her parents house for delivery and after she gave birth to a male child, the petitioner did not come back and join with the respondent
No.1 at Jammalamadugu, though the respondent No.1 requested her several times as the petitioner stated that whenever the respondent No.1 get government job, she will come. The respondent No.1 attended as many as examinations, but he could not get Government job. They further contended
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:07 +0530
4
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
that the petitioner pressurized the respondent No.1 for partition of their properties and get his share and also demanded to sell his share and come to
Kadapa. They further contended that the sisters of respondent No.1 are dumb and deaf and the brother of the respondent No.1 is also sick and all of them getting fits as such the primary responsibility is on the shoulders of the respondent No.1 to look after his parents as well as his brother and sisters.
They further contended that when the respondent No.1 went to the parents house of the petitioner to see his son Chathurved, they did not allow the respondent No.1 to see his son and the parents of the petitioner are not in a position to send her along with the respondent No.1. Though the respondent
No.1 convinced the petitioner that they intend to go abroad, the petitioner convinced for some time and at the pressure of her father, she refused to go abroad. They further contended that the father of the petitioner is trying to separate the petitioner and the respondent No.1 as their marriage is a love marriage as such they even could not attend the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. They further contended that the petitioner preferred a false case against the respondent No.1 and his parents and his brother to
Woman Police Station, Kadapa in Cr.No.23 of 2018 for the offences U/s. 498-A and 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.4 of D.P. Act and the same is numbered as
C.C.No.406 of 2018 which is pending before the Hon'ble Excise Court, Kadapa.
They further contended that the respondents are having very good reputation in the society and due to arrogant nature of the petitioner and her parents, they are residing separately. They further contended that the respondent No.1 is also fond of love and affection towards the petitioner and his son as a dutiful husband and the respondent No.1 is ready and willing to receive the petitioner and her son even till today. They further contended that the petitioner never harassed the petitioner at any point of time and only at the pressure of parents of the petitioner, the petitioner did not come back to join with the respondent
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:18 +0530
5
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
No.1 to lead marital life because the petitioner is only daughter to her parents.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim anything from them and prays to dismiss the petition.
5.At the time of enquiry, the petitioner herself got examined as P.W.1 and also examined her father as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 which are the original complaint given to the Protection Officer, marriage Photograph of petitioner with respondent No.1, school fee receipts, Certified Copy of Deed of delivery of possession, Certified Copy of Sale Deed, Original Form 1-B issued by
Mee Seva, Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, letter issued by Assistant
Executive Engineer/Tech, Public Information Officer and Certified Copy of
Registered Sale Deed. On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent got examined as R.W.1 and also examined the respondent No.2 as R.W.2 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the marriage was not disputed and that the petitioner has been suffering from mental and emotional distress due to the harassment meted out by the respondents which cannot be measured and even if so, she is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the petition and as such prayed the court to grant the reliefs accordingly.
7.Per contra the respondent Nos.1 to 3 contended that the petitioner has resided with respondent No.1 only for a period of one and a half year and without any sufficient reason, she herself left the company of respondent No.1 and filed this petition along with other cases for unlawful gain and the petitioner has to prove the domestic violence to get any relief under this Act and the petitioner failed to prove the same and as such the petitioner is not entitled to sought any such relief.
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:28 +0530
6
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
8. Now the points for consideration are:-
1) Whether the petitioner is able to prove the domestic violence, if so to what extent?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs u/sec.18 to 23 of the Act as prayed for?
3) To what relief ?
POINT NO.1 :-
9.The P.W.1 who is the petitioner reiterated the contentions of her petition in her chief examination affidavit and on her behalf Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked. She prays to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month,
Rs.15,000/- towards residence and compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- towards loss of life. During the cross examination, she admitted that she studied upto
B.Tech (Electricals) and she never worked anywhere at any point of time, but she made efforts to get employment. She further deposed that she was dropped by her husband at Hyderabad for coaching to get employment in
Transco Department and by that time, her husband resigned his employment.
She admitted that except respondent No.1, the rest of his siblings i.e., one brother and two sisters are mentally retarded and his father is a diabetic and his foot was recently amputated. She further deposed that she do not know whether her in-laws are having any business establishment or not. She further deposed that their livelihood is on rents on their house. She further deposed that her father had also not visited her house at Bangalore. She admitted that she was provided with treatment through her husband when she fell sick. She further deposed that she was financially assisted by her parents by way of cash and the amounts belongs to her father. She further deposed that her parents had not supported her love with respondent No.1 till her marriage. She further deposed that she has not specifically mentioned the nature of harassment with its dates in her complaint and also as to instances of harassment. She further added that she stayed for about three months in her in-laws house. She
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:38 +0530
7
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
further deposed that after marriage, herself and respondent No.1 stayed at
Bangalore till December 2014 and thereafter, they came over to
Jammalamadugu by which time respondent No.1 resigned his employment and she stayed about 1½ month at Jammalamadugu by that time. She further deposed that again herself and respondent No.1 left to Bangalore, till 28.12.2015, respondent No.1 was at Bangalore. She further deposed that herself and respondent No.1 came to Kadapa on 28.12.2015, when her mother came to her and she stayed at Kadapa since that day. She further admitted that she never came to Court in Saree, even if the adjournment fell on Friday.
She admitted that the specific dates, places and the mode of making additional demand of dowry is also not mentioned in her chief affidavit and also in Ex.P.1 and also in the report given to police. She admitted that none demanded for getting of transfer of properties on the name of her husband. She further deposed that she is not willing for reunion though respondent No.1 intends to.
She further deposed that she has been residing separately from the respondent
No.1 just ten days before filing of this case.
10.PW.2 (Poola Bala Narasaiah) who is the father of P.W.1 also supported the version of P.W.1 in all aspects. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he never went to the house of respondent No.1 and petitioner when they resided in Bangalore City. He further deposed that his daughter informed all the incidents of harassments after she returned from Bangalore. She further deposed that the Sreemantham of the petitioner was performed by him in the year 2016 and he invited all the in-laws of petitioner for the said Sreemantham function. He admitted that there were no disputes between the petitioner and respondents at the time of Sreemantham Function.
11.To substantiate the case of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, the respondent
No.1 himself got examined as RW.1. RW.1 reiterated the counter averments in
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:49 +0530
8
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
his chief examination affidavit. During his cross examination, he admitted that he is working as a Software Engineer and prior to his marriage also he was working as a Software Engineer in Bangalore. He deposed that his salary is
Rs.76,000/- p.m, and he has been working in Tricon Infotech Company. He further deposed that he resided in the parents house of the petitioner at the time of petitioner giving birth to his son, for couple of weeks. He admitted that his son is studying 2nd class in Sharmila Kids School, Raja Reddy Street, Kadapa
City. He admitted that he never paid any amount towards school fee or books or clothes for his son. He further admitted that he never paid any amount to the petitioner. He further deposed that he did not file any petition in the Court of Law for restitution of conjugal rights. He further deposed that he will get 1/6th share of a land to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents. He admitted that he own a land to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in Jammalamadugu town worth of
Rs.6,00,000/-. He further admitted that they are receiving rental amounts from the said houses. He admitted that a case U/s.498-A of I.P.C. was filed against him and his relatives and after filing of the same, the DVC case was filed. He admitted that he filed one G.O.P. in the Court of II Additional District Judge's
Court, Proddatur and thereafter the said petition was transfered to Kadapa on the request of petitioner and the same was numbered as G.O.P.No.02/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Family court, Kadapa and the same is pending. He admitted that during the pendency of all the cases, mediation took place between them.
He admitted that the mediation was conducted before the Permanent Lok
Adalat. He admitted that himself and the petitioner filed joint memo before the
Mediation Centre in G.O.P.No.02 of 2019 by mentioning that he agreed to pay
Rs.22,00,000/- towards final settlement for his son only. He admitted that they also mentioned in the said joint memo that he can visit and see his son at the petitioner parental house on alternate Sundays. He admitted that as per the joint memo, the petitioner did not ask for any amount towards her
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP
KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:27:59 +0530
9
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
maintenance. He admitted that the matter was returned back to said Hon'ble
Family court, Kadapa as the matter was not settled as he did not agree for the terms. He added that he did not agree for the terms as the petitioner did not show him their son. He admitted that one mediation took place between them in the building of DLSA, Kadapa. He admitted that in the said mediation in
DLSA Building, Kadapa, the petitioner brought her son and showed to him. He admitted that the said joint memo in G.O.P. Case was prepared by the consent of his both parties and both counsel and both parties and both counsel affixed their signatures on the said joint memo.
12.R.W.2 (Bandi Venkata Lakshumma) who is respondent No.2 has reiterated the counter averments in her chief examination affidavit. She admitted that she visited the house of petitioner and respondent No.1 in
Bangalore only once and she resided for a period of ten days at that time. She admitted that the parents of petitioner invited them for the Sreemantham function of the petitioner and she and her family members attended the said function at the house of petitioner's parents. She admitted that they all went to Gurrappa Kona near Jammalamadugu for performing tonsure ceremony of her grand son and they performed the said ceremony. She admitted that till the date of puberty function of the daughter of the 1st respondent's sister, their both families have good talking and visiting terms without any disputes. She admitted that the respondent No.1 owns a car. She deposed that she do not know that it is false to say that the petitioner demanded the respondent No.1 for partition of properties and get share and to sell his share and to come to
Kadapa and the same was refused by the respondent No.1. She further deposed that she do not know that the petitioner demanded the respondent
No.1 for "illatam son-in-law"
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:08 +0530
10
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
13.In order to examine as to whether there has been any act, omission, or commission or conduct so as to constitute domestic violence, it is necessary to examine some of the definition clauses under Section 2 of the DV Act. Section 2(a) of the DV Act defines the expression “aggrieved person” as follows:
“2(a). “Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”
Section 2(f) defines the expression “domestic relationship” as follows:
“2(f). “Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
Section 2(s) defines the expression “shared household” and reads as follows: “2(s). “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
Section 2 (q) defines respondent as follows:-
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:18 +0530
11
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
2(q) respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner Domestic violence which is defined in Sec.2
(g) reads as under:
2 (g) domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in Sec.3.
Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence. The said provision reads as follows:-
3. Definition of domestic violence:- For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it
(a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety,life, limb or well-being whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
14.On close perusal of the above and keeping in view of the explanation 1 and 2 of the said section of this Act, it is to be established by the parties for determining whether any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic violence, under this section and the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:28 +0530
12
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
15.It was admittedly brought on record that the petitioner is the wife of respondent No.1 and their marriage took place on 14.06.2014 at Tirumala against the wishes of petitioner's parents as their marriage is a love marriage and during their wedlock, they were blessed with a male baby on 01.06.2016.
It is further admitted by both the parties that at the time of marriage the respondent No.1 was working as Software Engineer at Bangalore and at present also the respondent No.1 is working as Software Engineer and earning
Rs.76,000/- per month. It is further admitted by both the parties that P.W.1 lodged a criminal case against the respondents in Women Police Station,
Kadapa.
16.There is no any evidence brought up by the P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to harassment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 against the petitioner. Admittedly the respondent No.1 is residing at Bangalore and whereas the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Jammalamadugu along with their disabled children.
Hence, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are residing separately with the respondent
No.1 and P.W.1. Hence the petitioner failed to establish the domestic violence committed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 against her.
17.The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of I.P.C. or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act. One has to make distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:38 +0530
13
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
constitute domestic violence. A person may be threatening in person or by messages etc., this may amount to an offence under IPC, but, this cannot amount of domestic violence.Similarly emotional blackmail, economic abuse and physical abuse can take place even when persons are living miles away.
Such abuses are not covered under Domestic Violence Act but they are liable to be punished under Penal laws. Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence.
18.As per the above said admissions, it is clear that respondent Nos.2 and 3 never resided with P.W.1 and R.W.1. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not establish the domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also the petitioner did not depose any overt acts of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 committed on her.
19.It is further contended by the petitioner counsel that the respondent
No.1 harassed her by insulting her when she used to perform the pooja on every Friday by wearing traditional saree and he used to utter words by insulting her character and the respondent No.1 demanded the property of the petitioner parents and also demanded additional dowry.
20.On the other hand, the respondents argued that the petitioner is doing job and is having sufficient income and the petitioner is also having inheritance in the property of her father and as the petitioner is having sufficient property, the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary relief in this case. He further argued that the several mediations were held in between both the parties and in the mediation held before permanent Lok Adalat and also DLSA, Kadapa, the petitioner agreed that the respondent No.1 has to pay an amount of
Rs.22,00,000/- in the name of their son only but not in her name which shows
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:48 +0530
14
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
that the petitioner is not in need of any monitory benefit from the respondent
No.1.
21.The arguments of the respondents that the petitioner need not be granted any monetary relief as she has the inheritance of the property of her father is not at all tenable as this Act is a special enactment which relates of domestic violence and if the domestic violence is established, the petitioner can be granted monetary relief depending on the facts of the case. This Court observed that the petitioner categorically deposed in her chief examination affidavit and also in Ex.P.1 complaint that the respondent No.1 looked after her well for some period and thereafter started harassing her by insulting her even if she get ready by wearing traditional saree and perform Pooja on every Friday which is also a part of domestic violence. Moreover this Court observed that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner resided in her parents house for a period of more than one and half year after she gave birth to her son and during that period the respondent No.1 also resided along with her in her parents house for some period. This Court observed that if really the respondent No.1 is interested in leading marital life with the petitioner, he might have definitely taken the petitioner to his house after the birth of their son, but he did not do so. The respondent No1. filed one Guardian O.P. case and is pending before the
Hon'ble Family Court, Kadapa and it is not the case of the respondent No.1 that
he filed one case for restitution of conjugal rights. This shows that the respondent No.1 did not take any step to take the petitioner to his house to lead married life. This show that the respondent No.1 is not willing to lead marital life with the petitioner. Moreover it is a settled law that the incidents and conversations which were taken place in a mediation before a permanent
Lok Adalath or D.L.S.A. should not be taken into consideration in this case. The petitioner agreeing to receive an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- for her son only in
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:28:58 +0530
15
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
mediation held before permanent Lok Adalath cannot be given much weight.
The respondent No.1 failed to establish the reason why the petitioner resided in her parents house after she gave birth to her son for a period of more than one and half year and also respondent No.1 failed to show that he has taken steps for taking the petitioner to his house. It is further observed that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is a love marriage against the wish of the parents of petitioner and she joined the company of respondent No.1 and resided with him in Bangalore till she went to her parents house during her pregnancy, but the respondents contention is that the petitioner demanded the respondent No.1 to get partition of his family properties and sell the same is not believable as the evidence of respondents proves that the petitioner is the only daughter to her parents who have huge properties and further it discloses that the petitioner joined the company of respondent No.1 by leaving her parents and assets. PW.1 must have undergone emotional stress during the critical period when she came out of the matrimonial house. Hence, this incident alone is sufficient to believe the attitude of the respondent No.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by P.W.2. The R.W.2 did not completely support the evidence of R.W.1 as R.W.2 in her cross-examination speaks that she do not know the incidents took place in between the petitioner and respondent No.1.
Hence, the domestic violence against the aggrieved person/petitioner by the respondent No.1 is proved. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
POINT No.2:-
22.In Form No.2, the Protection Officer put up a tick for Sec.18 of the Act.
Sec.18 of D.V. Act deals with regard to protection orders. The specific version of the PW.1 is that the respondent No.1 intentionally avoided her for want of
additional dowry. It is the contention of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 that after P.W.1
came back to her parents’ house and residing with her parents, the
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:29:09 +0530
16
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
respondents came to the house of her parents and harassed and abused her by beating with stones. But immediately after the occurrence, the P.W.1 did not file any case to prove the said contention. Further admittedly the petitioner and respondent No.1 are residing separately and the P.W.1 deposed in her cross-examination that she is not interested to lead marital life with the respondent No.1. Hence in these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no clarity in the relief sought u/Sec.18 of the Act and hence the aggrieved person is not entitled for protection order as she is residing away from the respondent No.1 and as the petitioner is not at all interested in leading marital life with the respondent No.1 due to harassment meted out against her. Hence, this Court did not grant the Protection Order u/Sec.18 of the Act.
23. It is admitted by both the parties that respondent No.1 is a Software
Engineer at Bangalore at the time of marriage and at present also he is working as Software Engineer and ans as per respondent No.1 evidence, he is earning Rs.76,000/- per month. Whereas the respondent No.1 contended that he resigned his job and residing at his village. But the respondent No.1 did not file any record to show that at present he is residing along with the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in their village. R.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination that he working as Software Engineer and earning Rs.76,000/- only. The petitioner relied on Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 which shows that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 possessing landed properties in the name of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and R.W.1 in his cross-examination also admitted that he is having Ac.0.10 cents of land in Jammalamadugu Town. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Such son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, if they
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:29:20 +0530
17
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
have any right in the property so because of coparcenary or because of inheritance, such right can be claimed by an independent civil suit and an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed by a person who has established his separate household and ceased to have domestic relationship.
24.In the present case also admittedly it is brought on record that P.W.1 lived with R.W.1 for a period of 1½ years at Bangalore, but not with respondent
Nos.2 and 3 at Jammalamadugu, where the properties under Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.9 are located. Though P.W.1 did not file any documentary evidence to show that the present employment of R.W.1, but previously R.W.1 worked as Software
Engineer, Bangalore, this Court did not believe that the respondent No.1 is not doing any job at present and he is depended on his father as the respondent
No.1 in his evidence as R.W.1 clearly admitted that he is working as a Software
Engineer. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 is working and he is not depended on his father. When the petitioner is seeking the right of residence u/Sec.19 of the act, it is the minimum duty of the aggrieved person to give the details of the house and vague relief sought cannot be granted. As seen from the evidence of Respondent No.1, he is a
Software Engineer and his place of employment is not specified by the petitioner, but R.W.1 speaks that he is working in Tricon Infotech Company.
25.Further more, it is the specific evidence of PW.1 that the R.W.1 threatened her to kill if she did not bring additional dowry and that PW.1 has preferred criminal case against the respondents and she reached her parents’ house. In such an event, when there is threat to the safety of PW.1 in the hands of respondent No.1, in the light of the previous conduct, I feel it is not safe and justifiable to provide any residential orders restraining the respondents from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared house
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:29:30 +0530
18
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
hold. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 goes to show that PW.1 is living at her parents’ house on the mercy of her parents. However, it can be directed that some level of alternate accommodation can be provided to the aggrieved person. Hence, the Respondent No.1 alone is directed to provide alternate accommodation or else to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the aggrieved person/petitioner u/Sec.19 of the Act.
26.It is contended by the petitioner counsel that after marriage the respondent No.1 took her gold ornaments and did not return to her when she came to her parents house. There is no mention in the complaint that the respondent No.1 took the gold ornaments and they are in the possession of respondent No.1 itself. Admittedly the petitioner married the respondent No.1 against the wish of her parents and her parents were also not presented any gold ornaments at the time of her marriage and after one and half years of their marriage, the petitioner went to her parents house. It is not the case of the petitioner that at the time of her marriage, she has given some gold ornaments to the respondent No.1. Further the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the P.W.2 has sent amounts to the respondent No.1 as additional dowry. Hence, the above contentions raised by the petitioner counsel are untenable and the petitioner is not entitled for the return of gold ornaments.
27.Coming to the monetary reliefs u/Sec.20 of the Act, this relief is in addition to the orders u/Sec.125, Cr.P.C. or any other law for time being in force. Admittedly the respondent No.1 is a Software Engineer working since by the time of marriage. Further more, the version of the aggrieved person is that she is unable to maintain herself and her son and living at her parents house with their mercy. Though it is contended that the petitioner studied
B.Tech, the respondent did not file any documentary evidence to prove that
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:29:40 +0530
19
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
she is doing job and getting salary. Hence, the petitioner is an unemployee and living in her parents house. Further she require minimum amount for food, clothing, etc. There is no material produced by the respondents that the PW.1 and her son are having sufficient means to maintain themselves. Admittedly the father of petitioner is having valuable properties and the petitioner is only legal heir to them, but the respondents failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the said properties are ancestral property of P.W.2. On perusal of Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, this Court observed that they are the self acquired property of the P.W.2 and hence the inheritance of the said properties by the petitioner as contended by the respondents is not believable. Assuming for a moment, even though the petitioner will get share in her father's property if it is ancestral, the respondent No.1 being the husband of P.W.1 is bounded to look after the welfare of petitioner and her son. Being the husband, the RW.1’s bounden duty to maintain his wife. In the present day of cost of living and seeing the welfare of her son, the PW.1 is entitled for Rs.12,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Hence the RW.1/respondent No.1 is alone directed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month towards the maintenance of aggrieved person/petitioner under Sec.20 of the Act.
28. The specific version of the PW.1 is that due to unbearable harassment meted out by the respondent No.1, the petitioner left the company of respondent No.1 and lived in her parents house. When the PW.1 left the house, it is the duty of RW.1 to bring back the petitioner to his marital fold, but the respondent No.1 failed to establish about he taking steps for bringing the petitioner to his marital fold after giving birth to their son. The petitioner living separately from the respondent No.1 due to unbearable harassment, definitely it would have made her to suffer mental agony. The petitioner along with her minor son being living separately from the respondent No.1 due to unbearable
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:29:51 +0530
20
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
harassment, definitely it would have made her to suffer mental agony. The minor son of PW.1 and RW.1 is staying with his mother and the PW.1 must have undergone emotional stress during the critical period when she had been separated from the marital home that too when the son at tender age. The
RW.1 being the husband of PW.1 did not provide any monetary help and on the other hand claims that due to her adamant behavior they are living separately.
The minor son has lost his father’s love and affection and it is a pitiable case when the son has not seen his father since long time and the mental agony undergone by the mother from the date of being deserted till today and the herculean task to bring up the minor child can be imagined and estimated.
When a lady without there being the support of her husband and when there are disputes and cases between herself and her husband, it is not a normal task to bring up the said child now-a-days. Hence, in these circumstances of the case, compensation u/Sec.22 of the Act should be fair, adequate and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. Hence, for these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.5,00,000/- compensation is liable to be paid to the aggrieved person by RW.1 u/Sec.22 of the Act.
29.In these circumstances of the case, no relief is granted against the
Respondent No.2 and 3 as no specific allegations are established against them by the petitioner. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
POINT No.3:-
30. In the result, this petition is partly allowed and the Respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month (Rupees Eight Thousand only) to the petitioner towards house rental amount i.e., alternative residence order u/Sec.19 of the Act from the date of this petition i.e., on 11.09.2018 and the respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- per
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:30:01 +0530
21
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
month (Rupees Twelve Thousands only) to the petitioner towards maintenance of the petitioner towards monetary relief u/Sec.20 of the Act from the date of this petition i.e., on 11.09.2018 and the respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the Petitioner towards compensation u/Sec.22 of the Act. The Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay the future maintenance amount and house rental amount i.e., alternative residence order amount to the petitioner on or before 5th day of every succeeding month. The Respondent No.1 is further directed to pay the compensation i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- amount granted to the petitioner and the arrears of maintenance amount and house rental amount i.e., alternative residence order within three months from the date of this Order. This petition is dismissed relating to the other claims of the petitioner. No relief is granted against the Respondent No.2 and 3.
Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 18 th day of November, 2022.
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:30:12 +0530
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Kadapa.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner: For Respondents :
P.W.1: Poola Sai Sindhu.R.W.1: Bandi Sreenivasulu.
P.W.2: Poola Balanarasaiah.R.W.2: Bandi Venkata Lakshumma.
Exhibits marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Original complaint given to the Protection Officer, Dt.11.09.2018.
Ex.P.2: Marriage Photograph of petitioner with respondent No.1.
Ex.P.3: Original School Receipts of Sharmila U.P. English Medium School, Dt.11.12.2018 and 02.04.2019.
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP KUMAR MEDUM MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:30:19 +0530
22
D.V.C.No.6 of 2019 Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Spl. Mobile Court, Kdp. Dt.18.11.2022.
Ex.P4: Certified Copy of Deed of Delivery of Possession under Doc.No.2339/2016, S.R.O., Kadapa.
Ex.P5: Certified Copy of Deed of Sale under Doc.No.4616/2015 of of S.R.O., Kadapa.
Ex.P6: Original Form-1 B issued by Meeseva, Dt.05.03.2020.
Ex.P7: Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.204/2018,
Dated 21.11.2017.
Ex.P8: Original Letter issued by Assistant Executive Engineer/Tech, Public Information Officer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Proddatur, Dt.27.02.2020.
Ex.P9: Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed bearing Doc.No.2212/1994, Dt.28.12.1994.
Exhibits marked For Respondents : - NIL -
Material Objects Marked: - NIL -
PRADEEP KUMARDigitally signed by PRADEEP
KUMAR MEDUM
MEDUM
Date: 2022.11.18 16:30:30 +0530
J.M.F.C., Spl. Mobile Court, KDP.