Smt M.Satyakumari

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KAIKALURU

Present:Smt.M.Satya Kumari, Judicial First Class Magistrate

Thursday, the 19th day of March, 2020

D.V.C.No.14 of 2016

Between:

1. Lankapalli Ahamadunnisa, W/o Lankapalli Sunil, aged about 24 years, House wife, Kaikaluru Town and Mandal.

2. Lankapalli Samiunnisa, D/o Lankapalli Sunil, Mother’s protection, age 3 years, Kaikaluru Town and Mandal. (Petitioner No.2 being minor rep.

by her guardian mother ie., 1st petitioner) .... Petitioners

And

1. Lankapalli Sunil, S/o Lankapalli Thomas, Christian Mala, Aged 27 years, Private Job, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District.

2. Lankapalli Marthamma, W/o Lankapalli Thomas, Christian Mala, Aged 46 years, House wife, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District.

3. Lankapalli Thomas, S/o Jogappa @ Joseph, Christian Mala, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District.

4. Lankapalli Joseph Thambi, S/o Lankapalli Thomas, Christian Mala, Aged 30 years, Business, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District. 5.Lankapalli Santhi, S/o Joseph Thambi, Christian Mala, Aged 26 years, Cultivation, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District.

…..Respondents 1 to 5

This petition has come up on 19.03.2019 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioners and of

Smt.B.Indira, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and DVC against R.4 and R.5 was dismissed as not pressed on 24/11/2016; and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, made the following:

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 12 of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against respondents seeking to grant protection orders, residence orders, and monetary orders, for return of amount presented 1st respondent and for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of 1st respondent. Respondent

Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of 1st respondent. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized as per Christian religious rights and caste customs on 1st day of October, 2010 at Gunadala Church, in

Vijayawada City of Krishna District. The 1st petitioner joined her husband and lived with him in Vijayawada, and for period of six months at Machilipatnam and finally resided at Perikigudem village of Mandavalli Mandal. Prior to the marriage, both 1st petitioner and the respondent fell in love from the year 2008 onwards.

During their wedlock, they blessed with 2nd petitioner by name Samiunnisa aged about 03 years. On the conditional demand made by the 1st respondent and his family members, the parents of the 1st petitioner gave Rs.2,00,000/- towards

Pasupukunkuma, two sovereigns of Gold chain to the 1st petitioner, half sovereign of Gold ring to the 1st respondent and Rs.50,000/- towards Sarisamans to the respondents and his family members at the time of marriage. The 1st respondent and his family members spent away the above mentioned amounts and gold articles for their luxurious life.

The 1st respondents looked after the 1st petitioner with love and affection till one year back and subsequently he developed aversion towards the 1st petitioner and addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling and having illegal connections with several ladies and used to come to the house late in the nights in drunken state and used to beat the 1st petitioner and harassed the 1st petitioner

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru to bring more money from her parents for his lavishness and used to threaten that she will not be allowed to stay in his family house if she does not bring any money from her parents. The 1st petitioner could not bring any money from her parents as they were living on coolie works. Then the 1st respondent and his family members used to beat the 1st petitioner indiscriminately without any reason or cause. The 1st respondent continued his cruel behaviour in respect of the advice of his family members. The 1st petitioner bore all their harassments with a fond hope that the 1st respondent would change his ways and treat her decently, but contrary to her expectations he is acting in highhanded way and he did not even provide food and water to the petitioners.

While the matter stood thus, on 10/04/2015 at about 10.00 AM, the 1st respondent and his family members beat the 1st petitioner indiscriminately and necked out from their family house at Perikigudem village along with 2nd petitioner also. The 1st petitioner is having sustained injuries all over her body from hands of the 1st respondent and his family members. Since, then the 1st petitioner is living her mother’s house at Kaikaluru. Though mediations were made by the parents of the 1st petitioner through elders viz., Sappa Chinna,

Sattemma, Venu Gopala Rao, Venkanna Babu and K.Rajasekhar for conciliation the 1st respondent and his family members are very high handed people in the village did not hear words of the elders to take back the petitioners and to maintain them.

1st petitioner is unable to main herself and she required medical expenses for her illness along with 2nd petitioner. The petitioners want maintenance like food, shelter etc., There are no sources of income either movable or immovable properties to the 1st petitioner to maintain herself.

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

The 1st respondent committed Domestic Violence as described in the petition and the other respondents are also not allowed her along with her child and to reside in the family house peacefully. All the respondents colluded together and tortured her every day to take more dowry from her parent’s house.

The respondent is having a building worth of Rs.25,00,000/- in

Perikigudem village and having Ac.5.00 of Paddy land jointly. The respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but willfully neglected them to their fate. The respondent is working as Asst.Manager in Navata Transport,

Vijayawada, on monthly basis and earning Salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The respondent used to visit private Junior Colleges at Vijayawada City and surrounding areas to give guidance and management skills to the staff and getting fee Rs.2,000/- for every visit. Now both the petitioners dependent upon the mercy of the parents and relatives of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner require an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner for their maintenance like food, shelter, clothes and other basic necessities from the respondent. Petitioners are not having any properties of their own and they are unable to maintain themselves and they are depending on the mercy of their relatives. Hence, the present petition.

3.1st respondent filed counter and respondents 2 and 3 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of 1st respondent, denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition and contended that in the petition except their relation and contended that the marriage of himself and 1st petitioner is a love marriage and as such, no dowry and other presentations were given to him. Presently, the respondent is not doing any job and attending coolie works in his village.

Marriage of 1st petitioner and respondent is against the will of her mother and her elder sister and they used to admonished the 1st petitioner to leave the

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru respondent. They also warned him to allow into their house only after change of his religion. Accordingly, they changed his name as Islam and again performed his marriage as per Islamic religious customs. Mother and sister of 1st petitioner used to humiliate him as he belongs to lower caste. 1st petitioner used to insist him to come and stay at her house. When the 1st petitioner did not treat the 2nd petitioner properly, the respondent questioned her. Then she picked up a dispute with him and necked him out of their house. As on today also the respondent is ready and willing to live along with the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is working in

Sri Venkateswara Traders, Kaikaluru getting Rs.8,000/- per month. Her sister is doing Kirana business and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. Her sister and mother have four portion house in 12 cents worth Rs.50,00,000/-. Since the sister of 1st petitioner is not married said property will devolve upon the 1st petitioner. Hence, the 1st petitioner can maintain herself and 2nd petitioner. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the petition.

4.In order to establish their claim, on behalf of petitioners, petitioner No.1 is examined as P.W.1. Father of petitioner is examined as P.W.2 on behalf of petitioners. Per contra, on behalf of respondents, 1st respondent himself is examined as R.W.1. 2nd respondent is examined as R.W.2 on behalf of respondents. No documents are marked on both sides.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

6.After considering the material available on record, now the points for consideration before this court are,

1.Whether the 1 st petitioner has domestic relationship with respondents and whether petitioner was subjected to 'domestic violence' by respondents during domestic relationship in their shared household?

2.Whether petitioners are entitled for protection order u/s 18 of the Act as prayed for?

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for alternative accommodation?

4.Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as prayed for?

7.Point No.1:

(Whether the 1 st petitioner has domestic relationship with respondents and whether 1 st petitioner was subjected to 'domestic violence' by respondents during domestic relationship in their shared household?)

During the course of trial, 1st petitioner herself is examined as PW1 and she reiterated the averments of her petition.

There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties.

Hence, there is no dispute regarding domestic relationship of the parties and the same stands answered accordingly. R.2 is mother of R.1. R.3 is father of R.1.

No where the respondents denied about the shared house hold. Hence, it can be said that both parties resided under a shared house.

The evidence of petitioner as PW.1 is that, the 1st respondent is having a building worth of Rs.25,00,000/- in Perikigudem village and having Ac.5.00 of

Paddy land jointly. The 1st respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but willfully neglected them to their fate. The 1st respondent is working as Asst.Manager in Navata Transport, Vijayawada, on monthly basis and earning

Salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The 1st respondent used to visit private Junior

Colleges at Vijayawada City and surrounding the areas to give guidance and management skills to the staff and getting fee Rs.2,000/- for every visit. Now both the petitioners dependent upon the mercy of the parents and relatives of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner require an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month and

Rs.6,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner for their maintenance like food, shelter, clothes and other basic necessities from the 1st respondent. Petitioners are not

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru having any properties of their own and they are unable to maintain themselves and they are depending on the mercy of their relatives.

cross-examination, she stated that her marriage is a love marriage. She is stated that there is no documentary proof to show that they gave dowry and other presentations to the respondents. She further stated that she did not file any report to police. She further stated that there is no proof to show that respondent addicted to bad vices and harassed her along with his family members.

8.P.W.2, who is mother of P.W.1, supported the version of P.W.1 in all aspects.

During her cross-examination, she admitted that marriage of P.W.1 and respondent is a love marriage and she was present at the time of their marriage.

9.As R.W.1, 1st respondent was examined and no document was marked.

He deposed that his marriage with 1st petitioner is a love marriage and as such there was no dowry and other presentations. He further stated that the 1st petitioner herself left him at the instigation of her mother and sister. During his cross examination it is elicited that he has an elder brother and he is also under obligation to maintain his parents. He admitted that there is no document to show that his name was changed to Islam.

10.R.W.2, who is mother of R.W.1, supported the version of R.W.1 in all aspects.

Cross examination R.W.2 reveals that R.W.1 never issued any notice to the petitioner calling her to join him and did not file any OP for restitution of conjugal rights.

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

Admittedly, petitioner and R-1 are residing separately. In view of cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is elicited that the petitioner has domestic relationship with respondents and she was subjected to domestic violence by respondents during domestic relationship in their shared household. The point is answered accordingly.

11.Point No.2:

(Whether petitioners is entitled for protection order u/s 18 of the Act as prayed for?)

In view of the findings in point No.1, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for protection orders u/s 18 of Act.

12.Point No.3:

(Whether the petitioner is entitled for alternative accommodation?)

Admittedly, petitioner is residing at her parents house. In view of the finding in the above point, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for an order of alternative accommodation. When it comes to the quantum of amount to be awarded for alternative accommodation, this Court after going through the material on record and admittedly she has been granted maintenance in

M.C.No.20 of 2016 and since it is not the case of respondent that P.W.1 and her

daughter are having another house, she is entitled for some amount towards alternative accommodation. Now-a-days, the cost of rent is increasing day by day and since maintenance was already granted by this Court, if huge amount is awarded for alternative accommodation, it would become burden for respondent

No.1. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards alternative

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru accommodation payable by respondent No.1 is reasonable in addition to the maintenance already granted in M.C.No.20/2016 and would meet the ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly.

13.Point No.4:

(Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as prayed for?)

Since there is a domestic violence, petitioner is entitled for compensation.

But, there is no specific damage shown by the petitioner. On the other hand, respondent was already directed to pay maintenance in the above M.C. In these circumstances, this Court feels that no amount to be awarded towards compensation. The point is answered accordingly.

14.Point No.5:

(To what relief)

In view of the findings on point Nos.1 to 4, this petition is allowed in part.

15.In the result, this petition is allowed in part as under:

1) DVC against R.4 and R.5 was dismissed as not pressed on 24/11/2016.

1) Protection order is granted in favour of petitioner and against respondents 1 to 3 restraining them and their men from causing any sort of ‘Domestic Violence’ under Section 18 of the Act.

2) Further, R1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs2,000/- per month to the petitioners towards alternative accommodation from the date of order on or

before 10th of every succeeding month to the petitioner herein.

3) The Petition in respect of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dismissed without costs.

DVC.No.14 of 2016 JFCM Court, Kaikaluru

4) The reliefs which are not specifically granted shall be deemed to be rejected and petition in respect of those reliefs which are not granted specifically shall be deemed to be dismissed.

Directly typed to my dictation by personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of March, 2020.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

KAIKALURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:

P.W.1 : Lankapalli Ahamadunnisa

P.W.2 : Shaik Shafiunnisa

Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners : Nil

Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :

R.W.1 : Lankapalli Sunil

R.W.2 : Lankapalli Marthamma

Documents marked on behalf of the respondents : Nil

JFCM, KAIKALUR.

1

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KAIKALURU

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Thursday, the 19th day of March, 2020

M.C.No.20 of 2016

Between:

1. Lankapalli Ahamadunnisa, W/o Lankapalli Sunil, aged about 24 years, House wife, Kaikaluru Town and Mandal.

2. Lankapalli Samiunnisa, D/o Lankapalli Sunil, Mother’s protection, age 3 years, Kaikaluru Town and Mandal. (Petitioner No.2 being minor rep.

by her guardian mother ie., 1st petitioner) .... Petitioners

And

Lankapalli Sunil, S/o Lankapalli Thomas, X’ian Mala, Age 27 years, Private Job, Perikegudem, Mandavalli Mandal Krishna District.

.. Respondent

This petition has come up on 19.03.2020 and today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioners and of Smt.B.Indira, Advocate for respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day and this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners for awarding an amount of

Rs.6,000/- to 1st petitioner and Rs.3,000/- to 2nd petitioner per month towards their maintenance.

2. The brief averments of the petition filed by the petitioners are as follows:

Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per Christian religious rights and caste customs on 1st day of October, 2010 at Gunadala

Church, in Vijayawada City of Krishna District. The 1st petitioner joined her husband and lived with him at Vijayawada for a period of six months at

Machilipatnam and finally resided at Perikigudem village of Mandavalli Mandal.

2

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

Prior to the marriage, both 1st petitioner and the respondent fell in love from the year 2008 onwards. During their wedlock, they blessed with 2nd petitioner by name Samiunnisa aged about 03 years. On the conditional demand made by the respondent and his family members, the parents of the 1st petitioner gave

Rs.2,00,000/- towards Pasupukunkuma, two sovereigns of Gold chain to the 1st petitioner, half sovereign of Gold ring to the respondent and Rs.50,000/- towards

Sarisamans to the respondent and his family members at the time of marriage.

The respondent and his family members spent away the above mentioned amounts and gold articles for their luxurious life.

The respondent looked after the 1st petitioner with love and affection till one year back and subsequently he developed aversion towards the 1st petitioner and addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling and having illegal connections with several ladies and used to come to the house late in the nights in drunken state and used to beat the 1st petitioner and harassed the 1st petitioner to bring more money from her parents for his lavishness and used to threaten that she will not be allowed to stay in his family house if she does not bring any money from her parents. The 1st petitioner could not bring any money from her parents as they were living on coolie works. Then the respondent and his family members used to beat the 1st petitioner indiscriminately without any reason or cause. The respondent continued his cruel behaviour in respect of the advice of his family members. The 1st petitioner bore all their harassment with a fond hope that the respondent would change his ways and treat her decently, but contrary to her expectations he is acting in highhanded way and he did not even provide food and water to the petitioners.

While the matter stood thus, on 10/04/2015 at about 10.00 AM, the respondent and his family members beat the 1st petitioner indiscriminately and 3

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru necked out from their family house at Perikigudem village, along with 2nd petitioner. The 1st petitioner sustained injuries all over her body from hands of the respondent and his family members. Since, then the 1st petitioner is living at her mother’s house in Kaikaluru. Though mediations were made by the parents of the 1st petitioner through elders viz., Sappa Chinna, Sattemma, Venu Gopala

Rao, Venkanna Babu and K.Rajasekhar for conciliation, the respondent and his family members are very high handed people in the village and did not hear words of the elders to take back the petitioners and to maintain them.

1st petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she required medical expenses for her illness along with 2nd petitioner. The petitioners want maintenance like food, shelter etc., There are no sources of income either movable or immovable properties to the 1st petitioner to maintain herself.

The respondent is having a building worth of Rs.25,00,000/- in

Perikigudem village and having Ac.5.00 of Paddy land jointly. The respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but willfully neglected them to their fate. The respondent is working as Asst.Manager in Navata Transport,

Vijayawada, on monthly basis and earning Salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. The respondent used to visit private Junior Colleges at Vijayawada City and surrounding areas to give guidance and management skills to the staff and getting fee Rs.2,000/- for every visit. Now both the petitioners dependent upon the mercy of the parents and relatives of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner require an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner for their maintenance like food, shelter, clothes and other basic necessities from the respondent. Petitioners are not having any properties of their own and they are unable to maintain themselves and they are depending on the mercy of their relatives. Hence, the present petition.

4

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

3.Respondent filed counter denying all the material averments mentioned in the petition except their relation and contended that the marriage of himself and 1st petitioner is a love marriage and as such, no dowry and other presentations were given to him. Presently, the respondent is not doing any job and attending coolie works in his village. Marriage of 1st petitioner and respondent is against the will of her mother and her elder sister and they used to admonished the 1st petitioner to leave the respondent. They also warned him to allow into their house only after change of his religion. Accordingly, they changed his name as

Islam and again performed his marriage as per Islamic religious customs.

Mother and sister of 1st petitioner used to humiliate him as he belongs to lower caste. 1st petitioner used to insist him to come and stay at her house. When the 1st petitioner did not treat the 2nd petitioner properly, the respondent questioned her. Then she picked up a dispute with him and necked him out of their house.

As on today also the respondent is ready and willing to live along with the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is working in Sri Venkateswara Traders, Kaikaluru getting Rs.8,000/- per month. Her sister is doing Kirana business and earning

Rs.1,000/- per day. Her sister and mother have four portion house in 12 cents worth Rs.50,00,000/-. Since the sister of 1st petitioner is not married said property will devolve upon the 1st petitioner. Hence, the 1st petitioner can maintain herself and 2nd petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

4.In order to establish their claim, on behalf of petitioners, petitioner No.1 is examined as P.W.1. Mother of petitioner is examined as P.W.2 on behalf of petitioners. Per contra, on behalf of respondent, he himself is examined as

R.W.1. Mother of respondent examined as R.W.2 on behalf of respondent. No documents are marked on both sides.

5

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

5.On considering the averments of the petitioners and respondent and on perusal of the entire material on record, the points for consideration before this court are,

1) Whether respondent has made any efforts to join the respondent to lead marital life and whether the respondent neglected the petitioners.

2) Whether the petitioners got means to maintain themselves and whether the respondent has got means to maintain the petitioners and evaded the same?

3) To what relief?

6.P O I N T No.1:

It is the case of petitioners that respondent by addicting to bad vices neglected her, beat her and necked her out along with 2nd petitioner demanding more money. It is the case of respondent that petitioner herself left him and filed this petition falsely. However, admittedly petitioner No.1 and respondent are wife and husband and petitioner No.2 is their daughter.

7.It is the case of petitioner that respondent and his parents necked her out demanding additional dowry and when her mother placed the matter before elders, respondent and his parents demanded to fulfill their demand. But, it is the case of respondent that petitioner herself left the marital home without proper cause. However, it is not the case of respondent that he issued any notice to the petitioner requesting her to come back and it is not his case that he filed any O.P.

for restitution of conjugal rights. It is the case of petitioner that respondent by addicting to bad vices neglected her and beat her. It is the case of respondent that the 1st petitioner’s mother and sister used to humiliate him as he belongs to lower caste and at their instance the 1st petitioner left him. But, the said suggestion was denied by the petitioner during her cross-examination. Both parties admitted that their marriage is a love marriage. While examining the 1st 6

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru petitioner as P.W.1 she reiterated the averments of her petitioner and P.W.2 also supported the same. The respondent while examining himself as R.W.1 reiterated the contents of his counter and R.W.2 also supported him. During their cross examination, nothing was elicited in support of their contention.

8.Since it is not a case where to go in depth into the fault on whom it lies and on the face of the record it shows the negligence on the part of respondent as he did not initiate any action to bring back the petitioners, the respondent has to maintain petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

9.POINT No.2:

It is not the case of respondent that he is paying any maintenance to the petitioners. According to petitioners, the respondent is having a building worth of

Rs.25,00,000/- in the Perikigudem village and having Ac.5.00 of Paddy land jointly. The respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but willfully neglected them to their fate. The respondent is working as Asst.Manager in Navata Transport, Vijayawada on monthly basis and earning Salary of

Rs.40,000/- per month. The respondent used to visiting private Junior Colleges at Vijayawada City and surrounding areas to gave guidance and management skills to the staff and getting fee Rs.2,000/- for every visit. Now both the 1st petitioners dependent upon the mercy of the parents and relatives of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner require of Rs.6,000/- per month and Rs.3,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner for their maintenance like food, shelter, clothes and others basic necessities from the respondent. Petitioners are not having any properties of their own and they are unable to maintain themselves and they are depending on the mercy of their relatives. According to the respondent, the 1st petitioner is working in Sri Venkateswara Traders, Kaikaluru getting Rs.8,000/- per month. Her sister is doing Kirana business and earning Rs.1,000/- per day.

7

M.C.No.20 of 2015

JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

Her sister and mother have four portion house in 12 cents worth Rs.50,00,000/-.

Since the sister of 1st petitioner is not married said property will devolve upon the 1st petitioner. Hence, the 1st petitioner can maintain herself and 2nd petitioner.

But both parties did not adduce any evidence regarding their alleged income. Be that as it may, being able bodied man and being dutiful husband, the respondent has to maintain petitioner No.1 and his daughter, i.e. petitioner No.2.

Even by taking the contention of respondent into consideration that he is doing coolie works he can get a minimum of Rs.500/- per day. As such, after deducting amount for his personal expenses, granting an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,000/- to the 2nd petitioner per month towards their maintenance is justifiable. The point is answered accordingly.

10. Point No.3:- (To what relief)

In the result, this petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the 1st petitioner and

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the 2nd petitioner per month towards their maintenance from the date of this petition, which is payable on or before 10th day of every succeeding month. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of March, 2020.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KAIKALURU

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:For Respondent:

PW-1: Lankapalli Ahamadunnisa.R.W.1-Lankapalli Sunil. PW-2: Sk.Unnissa

Documents Marked No documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

JMFC

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: KAIKALURU

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Tuesday, the 24th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.149 of 2016

Between:

State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mudinepalli Police Station.... Complainant

Vs

Rayapati Yesubabu, S/o Veera Swamy, Hindu aged about 45 years, Naibrahmine,Gundugolanu village, Bhimadolu Mandal, W.G District being a driver of milk van

bearing No.AP 27 W 1005. …..Accused.

This case has come up before me on 11/03/2020 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri K.Kotaiah, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudinepalli Police Station, registered

Cr.No.31 of 2016 against accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC.

2.The facts in brief, pleaded by the prosecution, are as follows:

The deceased is resident of Chigurukota village, Mudinepalli Mandal.

On 17/02/2016 at about 19.30 hours., while the deceased left from

Chigurukota village on passion Pro motor cycle bearing No.AP16 At 9259 towards Gudivada belongs to his friends on his personal works, afrter completion of works at Gudivada, left from that place toward Chigurukota village on motor cycle when he reached near culvert, Chinapalaparru village at about 00.30 hours, the accused being driver of milk van bearing No.AP 27W 1005 proceeding towards Gudivada side, dashed his motor cycle from his opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner with a high sped, without taking any precautions. As result of which he fallen over tar top road

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

along with vehicle and sustained severe injuries. Thereafter shifted him toward Government Hospital, Gudivada by his relatives, doctor examined him and declared brought dead.

On 18.02.2016 at 08.00 AM P.W.2/H.C.1057 of Mudinepalli P.S., received hospital intimation along with statement of PW1 i.e., Ex.P1. Then he registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.31/2016, U/Sec.304(A) of IPC and issued

FIR. He submitted original FIR to the Honorable court and copies to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he along with his staff and mediators proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Chinapalaparru and observed the scene and got drafted scene observation report. He prepared rough sketch of the scene. He got photographed the scene. From there he along with inquestdars proceeded to Area Hospital, Gudivada and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and inquestdars. He got drafted inquest report. During inquest he has examined PW1 and LWs.2 to 5/Dakarapu kranthi Kumar,

Dakarapu Prabhakara Rao, Dakarapu Bhogeswara Rao and Dakarapu Raju and recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Then he forwarded the dead body for PM examination. Again he visited the scene and examined

Lws.6 to 8/Gurajala Sambasiva Rao, Dande Samuel and Dande Priya and recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. On 20.02.2016 accused came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered before him. Then he served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on accused and seized vehicle records from him. He sent a requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. On 22.02.2016 he received

PM report. On 24.02.2016 he received MVI report. LW15 SI of police verified investigation done by me and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation LW15/SI of Police, filed charge sheet against accused.

3.On 09/06/2016, this court took cognizance of the offences under section 304-A of IPC against accused.

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

4.When the accused put in appearance before the court, he is supplied with the copies of documents.

5.On 04.10.2016, Accused was examined under sec.251 Cr.P.C with regard to offence under section 304-A of IPC alleged against him, he did not plead guilty of the said offence and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 13 and 15/ Dakarapu kranthi Kumar,

Dakarapu Prabhakara Rao, Dakarapu Bhogeswara Rao, Dakarapu Raju,

Gurajala Sambasiva Rao, Dande Samuel, Dande Priya, AdiviDEvendra Rao,

Kote Suresh, Sandi Soman Raju, R.Suresh, Dr.Ch.Raj Kumar CAS, Gudivada and AVS. Rama Krishna, SI of Police, Mudinepalli P.S.

7.On j26/02/2020 accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

8.Heard learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

i.Whether the prosecution established that one Dakarapu Suvarna Sukanya Raju died in a road accident?

ii.Whether accused was driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 27W 1005 and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner?

iii. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. Point No.1:

To prove that one Dakarapu Suvarna Sukanya Raju died on road accident, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

11. P.W.1 deposed that on 17/02/2016 at about 08.00PM when he was at his housein Mandavali, he came to know that deceased met with a milk van accident near culvert,Chinnapalaparru while he was proceeding on a bike.

Immediately he along with Lws.2 to 5//Dakarapu kranthi Kumar, Dakarapu

Prabhakara Rao, Dakarapu Bhogeswara Rao and Dakarapu Raju proceeded to the scene and shifted the deceased to Area Hospital, Gudivada where the doctor declared his death. There the police obtained his signature on a written paper. He do not know the contents therein. Report of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.12. He do not know the manner of accident, number of crime vehicle and its driver. By stating so, P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

12. P.W.2 deposed that on 18.02.2016 at 08.00 AM P.W.2/HC of Police,I received hospital intimation along with statement of PW1 i.e., Ex.P1. Then he registered Ex.P1 as a case in Cr.No.31/2016, U/Sec.304(A) of IPC and issued

FIR. FIR is marked as Ex.P2. He submitted original FIR to the Honorable court and copies to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he along with my staff and mediators proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Chinapalaparru and observed the scene and got drafted scene observation report. Scene observation report is marked as Ex.P3. He prepared rough sketch of the scene. Rough sketch of scene of offence is marked as Ex.P4.

He got photographed the scene. From there he along with inquestdars proceeded to Area Hospital, Gudivada and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and inquestdars. He got drafted inquest report. Inquest report is marked as Ex.P5.

During inquest he has examined PW1 and Lws 2 to 5/ Dakarapu kranthi

Kumar, Dakarapu Prabhakara Rao, Dakarapu Bhogeswara Rao and

Dakarapu Raju and recorded their statements U.Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Then he forwarded the dead body for PM examination. Again he visited the scene and examined Lws.6 to 8/Gurajala Sambasiva Rao, Dande Samuel and Dande

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

Priya and recorded their statements U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. On 20.02.2016 accused came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered before him.

Then he served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice on accused and seized vehicle records from him. He sent a requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. On 22.02.2016 he received PM report. PM report is marked as Ex.P6.On 24.02.2016 he received MVI report. MVIreport is marked as Ex.P7.LW15 SI of police verified investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, LW15/SI of Police filed charge sheet against accused.

From the evidence of P.W.1 prosecution established that deceased died due to road traffic accident. The point is answered accordingly.

13.Point No.2:

1) Identity of accused: To prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle, prosecution has examined P.W.1 who is alleged eye witnesses to the accident, but he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not state any incriminating material against the accused. To prove the involvement of accused, prosecution did not place any material on record and did not examine any direct eye witness to the accident. As such, it is highly doubtful as to whether the accused is driver of crime vehicle. Hence, the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the identity of the driver of crime vehicle. When the identity of accused is not proved as driver, the rash and negligent act on the part of driver would not suffice to fix the criminal liability on the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:

Though the prosecution proved that the deceased died due to road accident, it could not prove the involvement of accused as that of the driver of crime vehicle. From the above discussion in points 1 and 2, this Court is of

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

the view that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC. The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of March, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kaikaluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: Dakarapu Venkateswara RaoNone PW2: K.V.V.Mohan Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.31/2016 U/sec.304-A of IPC. Ex.P3: Scene observation report Ex.P4: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P5: Inquest report Ex.P6: PM Report Ex.P7: MVI Report

Defence : Nil

JMFC, Kaikaluru

C.C.No.149 of 2016 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAIKALURU

C.C.No.149/2016 Date of

Offence Complaint ApprehensiReleasedCommenClose ofSentence or on ofon bailcement oftrial order accused trial 17/02/201617/02/201620.2.201620/02/201605/2/202025/02/202024.03.2020

State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mudinepalli Police Station.... Complainant

Vs

Rayapati Yesubabu, S/o Veera Swamy, Hindu aged about 45 years, Naibrahmine,Gundugolanu village, Bhimadolu Mandal, W.G District being a driver of milk van

bearing No.AP 27 W 1005. …..Accused.

Offence: U/s 304-A of IPC. Finding : “NOT GUILTY”

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sec. 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 09.06.2016. On appearance of the accused he was furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 14.10.2016 accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C and the accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. On 05.2.2019 LW.1 is examined as PW.1 and marked as Ex.P.1 On 25/02/2019 Lw.14 is examined as P.W.2 and marked as Exs.P.2 and 7. APP given up Lws 2 to 13 and 15 are given up Prosecution evidence is closed. On 26/02/2020 examined the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. On 04.03.2020 heard arguments. On 24.03.2020 Judgment is

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru. Submitted to the:

Honble I Addl.Sessions Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam. DIS.No. DT:

Copy to:

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam. The Superintendent of Police. Machilipatnam.