1DVC No.15/ 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
SPECIAL MOBILE COURT CUM IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM IV
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE : L.B.NAGAR
PRESENT: G. NISHKA PATRUDU,
IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
DATED ON THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL 2025
DVC No. 15/ 2020
BETWEEN:
Ramya Ramaram, W/o. Kalyan Ramaram, D/o. Gundlapally Vaikuntam Goud, Age: 30 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Flat No. 505, Dooravani Enclave, Road No.1, Telephone Colony – 500 035 …. Complainant
AND
1. Kalyan Ramaram, S/o. Narsimha Goud Ramaram, Age: 38 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 1-6-249/A/2, Friends Colony, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020
2. Swarupa Rani Ramaram, W/o. Narsimha Goud Ramaram, Age: 68 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 1-6-249/A/2, Friends Colony, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020
3. Anusha Ramaram, W/o. Abhishek Goud Chukka, Age: 34 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Near 8-3230/8/7, Road No.11, Sravanthi Nagar, ICRISAT Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 045.
4. Ramaram Narsimha Goud, F/o. Ramaram Kalyan, Age: 70 years, Occ: Rtd. Scientist, R/o. H.No. 1-6-249/A/2, Friends Colony, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 500 020
5. Abhishek Goud Chukka, S/o. Gopal Goud Chukka, Age: 36 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. Near 8-3230/8/7, Road No.11, Sravanthi Nagar, ICRISAT Colony,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 045....Respondents
2DVC No.15/ 2020
This Domestic Violence Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Law Chambers, Counsel for petitioner and of M/s. C.Radha Sri, Counsel for respondents and upon hearing on both sides, this court delivered the following:
:: O R D E R ::
1.This application is filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against respondent no. 1 to 5 seeking to grant reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 and other reliefs of the Act.
2.The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:- (i) The marriage of complainant/ petitioner was performed with Respondent no. 1 (here in after referred as respondent/R1) on 17-08-2017 at Sai Ram Gardens,
Nagole X roads, Nagole, Hyderabad in the presence of elders and parents as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Petitioner submitted that at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.15,00,000/- cash and two lakhs aadapaduchu katnam, 40 tulas gold and Rs.15,00,000/- spent as marriage expenses. Petitioner submitted that R1 married her by telling that he likes her were neither showed any affection towards her actions nor supported her and further that he has deprived her of physical relationship and told her that they never have kids. She further submitted that R1 stayed at home and did not work outside and spent all the time with his sister/ Respondent no. 3 (here in after refered as R3) and her daughter by video-calling and on weekends she used to come over and roam outside leaving the petitioner/ complainant alone. It is further 3DVC No.15/ 2020 submitted that from the very beginning R3 along with her husband R5 frequently used to come to R1’s place and hurt and insult the petitioner, causing her severe mental agony and the same she told her husband, he did not support her instead used to tell her that he would divorce her. It is further submitted that three months after wedding she got an onsite opportunity to work at UK and when she left to UK, respondent never called or message her and whenever she tried to call or message, he evaded her calls by telling that his sister and brother-in-law came to visit, further when she returned she saw no change in R1’s behaviour and that
R3 did not allow R1 to spend time with the complainant, when petitioner questioned R1 and R3 why they were torturing this way, R1 fought with her abused her, her parents and siblings in filthy language and told her that he will give divorce to her. It is also submitted that petitioner’s mother-in-law/ Respondent no. 2 (here in after referred as R2) did not allow her into the kitchen to cook food and she never allowed to enjoy her life normally with her husband/ R1. It is further submitted that R2 and R3 used to abuse and insult petitioner in the absence of R1 and used to brain wash R1 by fabricating things and influenced him to fight with complainant, when petitioner requested R3 to not influence R1 she used to cause mental trauma by body shaming her. It is also further submitted that R2 along with Respondents 3 to 5 abused petitioner everyday and treated her like a servant and told her not to leave the house and appearing in public and R2 told that her son could have married another woman who was willing to pay around Rs.1,00,00,000/- as dowry but 4DVC No.15/ 2020 instead he married her. It is further submitted that respondents harassed petitioner for which her parents gave 35 tulas gold, two and half kgs silver and Rs.4,00,000/- cash but even then they did not stop abusing petitioner everyday.
(ii)It is further submitted that R1 used to come home in drunken condition and bet petitioner and all other respondents supported him and scolded her verbally and physically tortured the complainant/ petitioner everyday and told to leave her husband voluntarily or else they would make her life a hell. Petitioner submitted that R1 said petitioner costs him his reputation and after everything he would not let her live in his house and was causing her intense suffering to make her leave the house on her own and she tried her best to reconcile with her husband/ R1 during the 2.5 years of her marriage, but R1 avoided the complainant and when she asked the reason, R1 evaded her and left her telling that he has to go to his sister/ R3 and avoided any kind of physical relationship with the complainant. It is also submitted that complainant’s family members went to the respondents family many times and tried to resolve the matter between the complainant and R1, they conducted many talks and meetings but they could not come to any conclusion and usually left the respondents house without a solution and on 18th September when complainant's family went to the respondents house, R4 abused her family members in a filthy manner and asked them to leave the respondents house and R1 asked complainant’s family members to touch
R3 feet.
5DVC No.15/ 2020
(iii)Petitioner submitted that complainant’s brother found out that
R1 has a job in CTRLS and drawing salary of near about Rs.1,30,000/- per month but he did not pay single rupee to the complainant/petitioner and said that petitioner’s everyday cost at home is near about 250/- per day and in return she needs to pay him like a hotel, due to his harassment complainant paid almost Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant at the time of purchasing the household goods like TV and others. It is submitted that complainant and R1 took a separate house and lead a normal life for about 1 month, then R2 and R3 started visiting the complainant’s house when she was out of the house for the purpose of her job, again R1 started harassing her due to the influence of R2, R3 and R5 and that one day, R1 left the house without informing the complainant, after 2 days complainant came to know that he went to his mother’s house and when she asked him about this, he gave messages through face book instructing hr to vacate the rented house and join with him along with his family, but she was afraid that she has to face the same kind of harassment that she has gone through, so she refrained from going to the
R1’s house and complainant came back to her father’s house in
September 2019. It is submitted that complainant was waiting for R1 for about 4 months time but he did not turn up and used to harass until she bursts even the other respondents also never made any attempts to reconcile their marital life. It is submitted that she approached the
Mahila Police Station at Saroornagar (Rachakonda) Commissionerate with a lot of hope that R1 can change his behaviour and police conducted 6DVC No.15/ 2020 counseling for R1 and the complainant but that attempt was made in vain as there was no change in R1 behaviour and that complainant approached a Woman Protection Officer located in Vanasthalipuram but they did not listen to her, there is no other option left to the complainant except to approach this Hon’ble Court and prayed to allow the petition.
3.On the other hand, counters filed by respondent no.1 and respondents 2 to 5 respectively. The brief contents of counter are as follows:- (i) R1 in his counter admitted the marriage with petitioner on 17-08-2017 at Sai Ram Gardens, Nagole X Road, Hyderabad as per Hindu
Rites and Customs and denied all other contents in para nos.1 to 12 and admitted that petitioner and R1 took separate house and led normal life and again denied the remaining contents of para no. 13 and 14 of the petition and submitted that as per the wishes of petitioner to lead happy marital life, respondent forgotten the earlier altercations and disputes with petitioner, taken a rented house at Jubilee Hills, Madhapur and set up a separate family with petitioner but petitioner left the company of respondent without any valid reason on her own violation and that the ingredients of Domestic Violence are absent in this case and further submitted that and that the family members of respondent are roped in the alleged allegations and that they are too bold gold and general in nature and that petitioner’s intention is to not maintain any relationship with respondent’s sister and developed ego against said respondent and made false and baseless allegations against her. It is also submitted that whenever R3 came to parents house petitioner did not give any respect to 7DVC No.15/ 2020 her and her husband, shouted at R3 and asked her to leave the house stating that R1 is showing much affection towards R3 rather than petitioner. It is also further submitted that respondents never argued directly with petitioner at any point of time and never had any open vocal or physical fight with each other and that petitioner created a picture that
R2 and R3 that treating her badly but infact that petitioner was suffering with inferiority complex with R3 and that she has anxiety disorder where she gets out of control, shouting against the family members without any reason and that she tortured the respondent and humiliated him making allegations that he is roaming with his own sister/ R3 and that respondents never harassed the petitioner at any point of time, never demanded dowry and that petitioner herself exploiting them so that R1 to
R5 bow their heads in front of her feet and prayed to dismiss the petition.
(ii)The contents of counter filed by R2 to R5 are similar as above submitting that as per the admissions of complainant she was resided at rented house at Jubilee Hills along with R1 and set up a separate family and that the complainant left the company of R1 and used to residing at her parent’s house and that the domestic relation comes to end when she setup a separate family from R2 to R4 and that R3 and R5 are residing at
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, as such the complaint against R2 to R5 cannot be maintainable under the protection of women from domestic violence
Act, pre condition under said Act is that the applicant must be an aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that the Domestic relation must be there between aggrieved 8DVC No.15/ 2020 person and respondents to invoke DVC only violence committed by a person while living in the same shared household can constitute domestic violence and that a person may be threatening another person on telephones or by messages, similarly emotional blackmail, economic abuse and physical abuse cannot take place even when person living away, those abuses are not covered under DVC, mere vague allegations is not sufficient to bring the case within said Act and also submitted that the ingredients of domestic violence are wholly absent in this case and there is no categorical averments in the complaint from which it can be inferred that R2 to R5 are residing with the husband of complainant or they are in any part of the share household and in this case only Omnibus allegations has been made against these respondents and that there is no averment of fact that it is a joint family and also the perusal of complainant itself shows that R2 to R5 are residents of different places and were not living in joint household and contended the similar submissions made by respondent no.1 in conclusion of his counter and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner she got examined herself as PW1 by filing chief evidence affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination, got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for respondents, later brother of PW1 got himself examined as PW2 by filing chief evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief- examination and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for respondent. No further evidence was reported by the petitioner and the 9DVC No.15/ 2020 petitioner evidence was closed. Later on behalf of respondents, respondent no.1 to 5 got themselves examined as RW1 to RW5 by filing chief evidence affidavits in lieu of their chief-examinations, Ex.R1 to
Ex.R3 were marked on behalf of RW1 and then respondent witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for petitioner and no further evidence was reported by the respondents and the respondents evidence is also closed.
5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondents, reply arguments to the written arguments were filed by the learned counsel for petitioner and rejoinder to the said reply arguments filed, by the learned counsel for respondents.
6.Now, the point for determination is whether the petitioner is
entitled to the relief of monthly maintenance under Section 20 of
the Act, residential accommodation under Section 19 of the act,
for Protection from harassment and torture from the hands of the
respondents under Section 18 of the act, for return of dowry,
lanchanas, stridhana and marriage expenses as well as gold and
silver and for compensation under Section 22 of the act and also
for costs of this application , as prayed for?
P O I N T:-
7.(i)From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 from their chief- examination affidavits and also from the evidence of RW1 to RW5 in their chief-examination affidavit, the factum of marriage between petitioner/
PW1 and respondent no.1/ RW1 is an undisputed facts and Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2, the marriage invitation and marriage photographs also reveals the same, hence the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was held on 17-08-2017 at Sai Ram Gardens, Nagole X Road, Hyderabad. It is to be seen that the chief evidence affidavit of PW1 is reiterating the contents of 10DVC No.15/ 2020 main petition and reflecting the same only amounts to repetition and it is submitted in her chief examination through affidavit of PW1 (Ramya
Ramaram) that her brother asked her her all the details and enquired about the respondent no.1, his brother found out that R1 has a job in
CTRL’H and drawing salary near about Rs.1,30,000/- per month and he did not pay single rupee to her and he said that her everyday cost at home is near about Rs.250/- per day and in return she needed to pay him as like a hotel and due to his harassment, he paid almost Rs.2,00,000/- to him at the time of purchasing the house hold goods like TV and others. It is submitted that herself and R1 took a separate house and lead a normal life for about one month, then R2 and R3 started visiting her house when she was out of the house for the purpose of her job, again R1 started harassing her due to the influence of R2, R3 and R5, one day all of sudden
R1 left the house without informing her, after two days she came to know that he went to his mother’s house and when she asked him about this, he gave messages through face book instructing her to vacate the rented house and join with him along with his family, but she was afraid that she has to face the same kind of harassment that she has gone through, so she refrained from going to R1’s house, she came back to her father’s house in September 2019. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent, she admitted that their’s is an arranged marriage and at the time of marriage she is doing job at Tech Mahindra her salary at the time of entering job was Rs.30,000/- and admitted that her father was working as warden in Government BC Hostel. During her cross- 11DVC No.15/ 2020 examination, it was elicited that her parents gave Rs.15,00,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and aadapaduchu katnam and 40 tulas of gold and also Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is also elicited that soon after marriage she went to her in laws house at Ram Nagar and she along with R1 used to live upstairs and R2 to R4 resided downstairs in the same house and the said house is a duplex house at Ramnagar.
During her further cross-examination, she stated that she did not file any proof to show regarding marriage expenses and gold during their marriage. She also admitted that she visited UK after three months of marriage and returned back as her marital life is being disturbed by R3 and R4.
(ii)Coming to evidence of PW2 (Arun Goud), the brother of
PW1 in his cross-examination stated that they have given Rs.15,00,000/- towards dowry and 40 tulas of gold and in the chief-examination of PW2, it was also stated that at the time of marriage, his parents has given
Rs.15,00,000/- lakhs of cash, Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs aadpaduchu lanchanalu, 40 tulas of gold and Rs.15,00,000/- lakhs for marriage expenses. It was submitted that R2 and R3 were continuously torturing PW1 and that R1 did not support his sister and supported his family and torturing her sister by taking their side and as brother and parents they visited respondents house to sort things but father of RW1/ RW4 shouted on them to leave their house and so they returned home without solving the issue.
12DVC No.15/ 2020
(iii)It is observed from the evidence of petitioner/ PW1 that respondents harassed her for the reason that RW1 could have married another woman willing to pay around a crore as dowry, petitioner’s parents again gave 35 tulas gold and Rs.4,00,000/- but even then respondents did not stop abusing her and in the cross-examination of
PW1, no question was raised regarding the same or no suggestion was made for denying the same.
(iv)In contrary RW1 to RW5 in their chief-examinations stated that the allegations of dowry and adapaduchu katnam including gold and marriage expenses are false and baseless and also denied the allegation of additional demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- cash, half kg silver and 35 tulas of gold. RW1 to RW5 themselves stated in their chief-examination that immediately after marriage, petitioner started living married life with R1 at his parents house, hence the domestic relationship is established and as per the definition under Section 2(s) of Shared household which means “a household where person aggrieved lives or at any stage 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 in the shared household.
(v)At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that domestic violence includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and 13DVC No.15/ 2020 economic abuse as defined under Section 3 of the Act and more particularly in case on hand, there appears to be majorly verbal and emotional abuse which as per the Explanation - I (iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested and as per Explanation - II
For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. In his chief-examination, RW1 submitted that in order to keep up with his relationship he moved with petitioner separately to a apartment flat at Hitech city, Hyderabad in the month of July 2019 where they stayed there for three months and the rent was paid by him to the house owner Sudha and the proofs relating this were filed in the Hon’ble
Court and there also petitioner has shown her true nature by frequently quarreling and making suicidal threats and on one instance she jumped from moving bike, where he somehow managed to stop immediately so that she won’t be injured. He stated that in another instance she tried to cut her hand where he stopped her, in another instance she tried jumping from 6th floor of apartment and in another going inside the toilet to drink phenol to self harm as a suicidal threat and on account of such kind of behaviour he had to vacate the house and move away to his parents home, but in the counter of Respondent No.1 it was submitted that they 14DVC No.15/ 2020 have taken a rented house at Jubilee Hills, Madhapur and set up a separate family with the petitioner but there is no whisper regarding and apartment flat at Hi Tech City in the counter of Respondent no.1 which makes the evidence of RW1 unreliable due to the contradictory statements.
(vi)In the chief of RW2/ mother of RW1 it is submitted at para no.8 petitioner’s main target was to break the joint family, though the respondent no.1 took a separate house, petitioner continued the harassment and respondent no.1 vacated the house which shows that
RW2 herself stating that theirs is a joint family. RW3 submitted that petitioner used to make suicidal threats and baseless allegations about
R1 and that her main target was to break the joint family and the same was also stated by RW4 and RW5 and it is categorically stated by RW1 to
RW5 that at the time of marriage, an amount of 6.5 lakhs were given by the petitioner which shows that there is admission of amount given by the petitioner to respondent including jewelry during marriage. During their cross-examination by the learned counsel for petitioner, RW1 stated that the rental house was situated at Rainbow Vistas Apartments, Hi Tech City and stated that from September 2019, himself and petitioner were living separately and the marriage took place in 2017 between the petitioner and respondent so it is clear that from the day of marriage till 2019 petitioner and RW1 were living in the respondent house i.e., house of parents of RW1. He admitted that he was utilizing petitioner’s money and that he used her credit card for purchase of certain articles and admitted 15DVC No.15/ 2020 that she is not having conjugal life with petitioner. During cross- examination of RW2, she stated that her daughter-in-law lead her marital life in their house for two years happily and she was never pregnant during the said two years and herself stated that after check up doctors did not state that there is some problem in her daughter-in-law and that she do not know whether her son has checked in the hospital. She further stated in her cross left the matrimonial house at the month of June 2019 and that they have shifted to Rainbow apartments near her office at
Moosapet which is contradicting the statement of RW1 that they have shifted to Rainbow Vistas Apartments at Hitech city in 2019. she stated that her daughter was married, divorced and did not married and at the time of marriage of petitioner with R1, her daughter was residing at
Jubileehills, she herself stated that she never had any disputes with her daughter-in-law and that she was living a happy life in her house but in the chief-examination of RW2, she herself stated that petitioner started complaining her and her daughter and used to raise issues for each and everything.
(vii)Coming to RW3 she admitted that her prior marriage was divorced and that she has given dowry at her first marriage and also during the present marriage and admitted that during her brother’s marriage, he has taken dowry she stated that she did not make any allegations against his brother’s wife in her chief affidavit. She stated that there is no maid for cooking at her parents house, whereas RW2 mother of RW1 stated that there are two maids at her house for doing household 16DVC No.15/ 2020 chores. She herself stated that he do not know the date on which petitioner made allegations and comments against her husband and stated that she is working till 2020 and later she is a housewife. she stated that she is not directly aware that PW1 threaten to commit suicide fo several times and came to know through her brother whereas in her chief-examination, RW3 stated that within few months of marriage, petitioner started showing her true colours, she started complainant about her and her mother and used to raise issues for each and everything, she never stayed with them at any point of time as she was already married by the time of their marriage and petitioner never wanted R1 to talk to her and her mother, petitioner used to get jealous if her brother pampered his niece (her daughter) who is a 3 year old girl petitioner. It is submitted that the real fact is that as petitioner was already working, she never had time to cook, she used to eat breakfast and packed lunch and went to office, she used to go to office at 10.00 AM and return at 07.00 PM, most of the time is spent by her in office and she never stayed with her brother and there is time she spent with her except on family occasions, there is no question of harassment from my side, moreover petitioner used to always argue with her brother and raise quarrels which depressed her. It is submitted that petitioner made worst comments on her husband, though he is nowhere related only to implicate him and harass her and that when there are disputes between spouses particular touching their conduct, no conjugal life will be happy and it will be difficult to lead marital life affectionately or intimately as 17DVC No.15/ 2020 petitioner was going on quarreling hours together or complaining, giving frequent suicidal threads and forcing R1 to give divorce, which clearly shows that RW3 on one hand stating that she never resided or visited her parent and on the other hand in her chief-examination stated as if she has seen the petitioner and RW1 having disputes right in front of her eyes.
Hence the evidence of RW3 cannot be relied upon.
(viii) Now, RW4 husband of RW2 and RW5 husband of RW3 was cross-examined by learned counsel for petitioner, in his cross- examination, RW4 stated that the marriage expenses for his daughter’s wedding is nearly 10 lakhs and the expenses for his daughters second marriage is nearly 5 lakhs and that petitioner and his son shifted to a separate house in the year 2019 he stated that petitioner never threatened he and his family except R1 that she will commit suicide. He stated that due to disputes between petitioner and R1, petitioner brought her parents at 11.00 pm on the day of incident and till 4 am in the morning discussion took place. He stated that petitioner left her matrimonial life in the month of June 2019 from Hitech city there only petitioner and R1 was residing. It is again pertinent to mention that the chief-examination of RW4 and the statements elicited in the cross- examination of RW4 are contradictory. Hence the evidence of RW4 does not appear to be reliable. Coming to RW5 he also stated the similar lines as RW3 and RW4 but during his cross examination, he stated that he do not know the marriage expense and dowry involved in petitioner and R1 marriage and that he did not see the jewellery directly being taken by the 18DVC No.15/ 2020 petitioner and that the has seen her taking bags along with her while going away from in-law’s house. He simply denied the other suggestions put by the counsel for petitioner and denied the suggestion that he is deposing false only to help R1. He denied that as he was residing in
Jubilee hills, there is no possibility for him to know whether the respondent no.1 harassed the petitioner and subjected her to domestic violence and demanded additional dowry. Hence, the evidence of RW5 must be scrutinized carefully.
(ix)From the discussion made above, it is clear that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 combinely states that they have given dowry of
Rs.15,00,000/-, 40 tulas of gold, Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, Rs.2,00,000/- towards aadpaduchu katnam, and Rs.4,00,000/- towards additional dowry and also given gold of about 35 tulas of
additional dowry. In the evidence of petitioner and respondents, there is
no whisper about any other cases filed by the petitioner or the numbers of any other related cases. Hence it is needless to stress upon any maintenance ordered by any other court while deciding about the prayer for maintenance by the petitioner.
(x)At this stage it is important to see that the case of this nature is based on social justice. When an aggrieved person approaches court of law seeking maintenance and residence orders, the Court cannot investigate which spouse is at fault. This Court is of the opinion that it is the duty of Court to see whether the aggrieved person is able to maintain herself or not and to see that whether aggrieved person has proper 19DVC No.15/ 2020 residence to her stay or not and with regard to the domestic relationship between petitioner and respondents as per Section 2(f) of the act defines "domestic relationship" as a relationship between two people who live or have lived together in a shared household, and who are related by consanguinity (blood relation), marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family. This definition is intentionally broad to encompass various types of domestic arrangements, including live-in relationships and as observed in the case of Indira Sharma, that - “the definition clause mentions only five categories of relationships which exhausts itself since the expression “means”, has been used. When a definition clause is defined to “mean” such and such, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive. Section 2(f) has not used the expression “include” so as to make the definition exhaustive. It is in that context we have to examine the meaning of the expression - ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.”
Coming to the married sister-in-law in the context of shared household the sister in law visiting frequently to the household of complainant without any permanency is not sufficient to constitute residence in shared household, however the Hon’ble Apex court in Prabu tyagi as well as in the decision case of Rashmi Mehrotra held that it was not mandatory to aggrieved person to have actually resided in those persons against whom the allegation has been leveled, moreover in Prabhu tyagi Vs. Kamlesh devi case, the Hon’ble apex court considering the case of aggrieved person who was daughter-in-law of respondents at para no. 52 held that 20DVC No.15/ 2020 “52. In view of the above discussion, the three questions raised in this appeal are answered as under: (i) Whether the consideration of Domestic
Incidence Report is mandatory before initiating the proceedings under
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to invoke substantive provisions of
Sections 18 to 20 and 22 of the said Act? It is held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident
Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order under the D.V. Act. It is clarified that even in the absence of a
Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the D.V.
Act. (ii) Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have be levied at the point of commission of violence? It is held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person, when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family, to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been leveled at the time of commission of domestic violence. If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of the D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household. (iii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed? It is held that there should be 21DVC No.15/ 2020 a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-a-vis allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting. In other words, even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the DV Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under
Section 12 of the DV Act.
(xi)In the case on hand the respondents RW2 to RW5 in their chief-examinations affidavit at para no. 8 categorically stated that “the petitioners main target was to break the joint family though R1 took a separate house, there also petitioner continued to harass and as a result, respondent no.1 vacated the house” which shows that RW4 and RW5 were also part of the joint family as they themselves stated that petitioner main target was to break the joint family. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant the relief of protection order on being satisfied with the existence of Domestic Violence and grant the relief of restraining from the harassment and torture of petitioner in the hands of respondents.
(xii)Considering the cross-examination of PW1 that she denied that R1 used to beat her in a drunken stage, there is no physical abuse in the case on hand, however even from the evidence of RW1 to RW5, it 22DVC No.15/ 2020 appears that there exists emotional abuse against the petitioner and also there is economical abuse as there is demand of additional dowry from the petitioner. Since the affidavit of assets and liabilities were not filed on both sides even till the stage of final arguments, this Court considering the material on record is inclined to grant monthly maintenance to the petitioner as per the averments of the petition in her chief evidence affidavit respondent no.1 is earning Rs.1,30,000/- per month and did not pay single rupee to her and that she paid almost Rs.2,00,000/- to him at the time of purchasing the household goods and since the respondent no.1 did not state anything about the income of petitioner, she herself stated in her cross-examination that her income at beginning is
Rs.30,000/- and it is well established that if the wife is earning it cannot operate as a part of being awarded, maintenance from husband, merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be ground to reject her claim for maintenance, this Court has to determine whether the income of wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with life style of her husband in matrimonial home.
Sustanance does not mean mere survival, it should be reasonable amount but not an overly extravagant amount and from the facts and circumstances on the case on hand the husband is earning Rs.1,30,000/- and the wife is earning around Rs.30,000/- and the parents of R1 themselves stated that they are not dependent on respondent no.1. Hence considering the financial capacity of husband and reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and in view of no dependent family members 23DVC No.15/ 2020 whom he is obliged to maintain, this Court arives at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid @ Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner to maintain equilibrium in the standard of life of petitioner and respondent.
With respect to the residence order, considering that the petitioner and respondent willingly residing separately, this Court is not inclined to grant the residence order in favour of petitioner by the respondents to provide accommodation to petitioner.
(xiii) Further in view of the discussion made above, as there is admittedly giving of amounts by the petitioner to the respondents including dowry, lanchanas (aadpaduchu katnam), stridhana, gold and silver and marriage expenditure, this Court arrives at the total amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- considering all the averments and contentions made in the evidence of both sides which includes the Rs.15,00,000/- dowry and
Rs.15,00,000/- towards marriage expenses as elicited in the cross- examination of PW1 including the aadapaduchu katnam, additional dowry amount and gold and specifically the 40 tulas of gold which was again elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 to have be given at the time of marriage. With regard to silver as there is no specific mention of silver in the chief-examination of PW1 and even not elicited in the cross- examination of PW1, this Court is not inclined to grant for return of any silver items. Now, coming to the compensation by the respondent the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above mainly impress upon the emotional abuse by the respondent no.1 alone which inter- connectedly appears to have led for the involvement of respondent no.2 24DVC No.15/ 2020 to 5 in the domestic violence against the petitioner especially amounting to emotional abuse, this Court only inclined to grant compensation to the petitioner from respondent no.1 alone and the same is fixed @
Rs.5,00,000/-. With respect to the costs for application, this Court is inclined to direct all the respondents to pay the costs @ Rs.10,000/- together which appears to be nominal to this Court as prayed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the point is answered.
8.In the result, the DVC petition is allowed in part by awarding the monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner/ complainant from the date of filing of DVC, the respondent no.1 is directed to pay the arrears of interim maintenance within 3 months from the date of this order and the respondent no.1 is further directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner on or
before 10th of every month. This Court passes protection order in favour
of aggrieved person/ petitioner prohibiting from respondents/ R1 to R5 from committing any act of Domestic Violence, aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of Domestic Violence against petitioner. This Court further orders for return of dowry, lanchanams and stridhana including marriage expenditure together of Rs.50,00,000/- by the respondents to the petitioner and also orders for return of 40 tulas of gold to the petitioner by respondents within 2 months from the date of this order.
This Court also further orders compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner from the respondent no.1 towards damages for mental torture and emotional distress and also directing the respondents/ R1 to R5 to 25DVC No.15/ 2020 pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs for the application to the petitioner. All other reliefs prayed in petition are hereby not granted, accordingly the petition is allowed.
Typed directly on my dictation, corrected in the soft copy, verified in hard
copy/ fair copy and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of
April 2025.
IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUM IV A.J.M. at L.B.NAGAR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Petitioner :
PW1 : Ramya Ramaram PW2 : Arun Goud
For Respondents :
RW1 : Kalyan Ramaram RW2 : Swaroopa Rani Ramaram RW3 : Anusha Chukka RW4 : Narsimha Goud Ramaram RW5 : Abhishek Goud Chukka
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Petitioner :
Ex.P1: Marriage Invitation Card of petitioner dated 17-08-2017
Ex.P2: Four Marriage photos
Ex.P3: HP Gas bill
For Respondents :
Ex.P1: Bills regarding gold weight of 20 tulas Ex.P2: Fernandez hospital prescriptions Ex.P3: Pics relating to outing of petitioner and respondent along with pen drive
IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUM IV A.J.M at L.B.NAGAR