Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS AT RAMPACHODAVARM
Present: Praveer Bhanj Deo
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Wednesday, this the 17 th day of January, 2024
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
Between: Siddabathula Kalpana Devi, W/o.Rebba Nagaraju, Age 28 yrs, D/o.Siddabathula Mohana Rao, C/o.Kanaparthi Nayomi(mother), D.No.3-15, Panchayat Street, Maredumilli, Maredumilli Post.
….Aggrieved Party AND
Rebba Nagaraju, W/o.Krupal, Nadumpalli Village, Cherukupalli Mandal, Gunturu District. Presently residing in H.No.419-109/1, Kommareddi Vari Nilayam, Sanjayyapuri Colony, Jagatgirigutta, Hyderabad. ….Respondent
This case came on 12-01-2024 before this court in the presence of learned Advocate Sri M.V.R.Prakash for Aggrieved Party and learned
Advocate Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao for the Respondent and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following:
Page 1 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
ORDER
This Petition is filed by the Aggrieved Person/Petitioner as per
Section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short here after referred as “the Act”) praying to pass Monetary relief’s of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month towards maintenance & Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards litigation expenses under Section 20 and Compensation order for
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) under Section 22 and such other orders as this Court may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the Aggrieved Person/Petitioner in brief: It is submitted that the marriage of Aggrieved Person with Respondent was performed on 15-05-2013 at residence of Respondent situated at
Nadimpally Village of Guntur District as per Christian customs. At the time of marriage the mother & brother of the Aggrieved Person gave
Respondent Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as dowry along with other items. After marriage both lived happily till the delivery of female child on 26-09-2014. Since the birth of the said child the Respondent started neglecting the Aggrieved person & child and Respondent also married another woman i.e. Midde Bindu of Jangareddygudem of West
Godavari District. When Aggrieved person used to approach the
Respondent to provide minimum necessities, then the Respondent not only denied but also used to use filthy language & also used to manhandle
Page 2 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 the Aggrieved Person. The Aggrieved Person is residing at the house of her mother and unable to maintain herself. It is further submitted that the Respondent working as Teacher in Pragati Vidya Niketan School at
Pragati Nagar of Kukatpally in Hyderabad with a salary of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) per month and also has house at his village. As the Aggrieved Person is unable to maintain herself, this petition is filed for monetary relief i.e. maintenance, and also compensation from the Respondent.
3. The case of the Respondent in brief: The Respondent denied all the allegations leveled against him. It is submitted that it was the Aggrieved Person who deserted the Respondent, this petition is filed only to cover up her lacunas and harass the Respondent. Hence prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. Arguments advanced by the Petitioner side in brief: It is submitted that Respondent subjected the Aggrieved Person with domestic violence by neglecting her & child and also getting married to another person. It is also submitted that as per Ex.P9 the marriage of Respondent with Midde Bindu was performed even before the marriage of Aggrieved
Person with Respondent which mean the Respondent married the
Aggrieved person by hiding the fact that he is already married, whether the Aggrieved person’s marriage with Respondent was performed prior or later to marriage of Respondent with the said Midde Bindu, in both
Page 3 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 circumstances it amounts to cruelty which mean the Aggrieved Person was subjected to domestic violence. Hence prayed for grant of reliefs under the Act. The learned Advocate for the Aggrieved Person relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pradah Nagardas Dubal-
Shaha Vs. Sou.Meena Pradash Dubal Shah & others [AIR 2016 SC 2914] and A.Subhash Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another [AIR 2011 SC 3031] and the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
A.Subyhash Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another [2010 CRI.L.J.
2535].
6. Arguments advanced by the Respondent side in brief: It is submitted that no case made out for the Aggrieved Person. This case is filed with false allegations only to extract money from the Respondent. No details of the residence at Hyderabad were provided. No report given at
Hyderabad or Nadimpally which clearly shows that there was no cruelty in the hands of the Respondent. No documentary evidence produced with regard to job of the Respondent. As no case made out by the Aggrieved
Person that she was subjected to any kind of Domestic Violence, the
Aggrieved Person is not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the petition. To support his contention learned Advocate for the
Respondent relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sunder
Lal Saini Vs. Meena Saini [Criminal Revision Petition No.129/2021
dated:09-11-2021] and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at
Page 4 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
Jaipur in Satyendra Kumar Sharma & others Vs. Smt. Uma Satyendra
Kumar Sharma [2018 CRI.L.J. 4223].
7. In this case as per the petition the reliefs were prayed only under Sections 20 & 22 of the Act by praying generally to pass orders with regard to other available reliefs under the Act whereas in the chief affidavit filed before this court reliefs were prayed for Protection order under Section 18, Residence order under Section 19, monetary relief of
Rs.2,00,000/- for expenditure incurred for operation to the daughter,
Rs.20,000/- for maintenance of the Petitioner, Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance of daughter, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses of her daughter & Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses under Section 20, and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under Section 22 of the Act. Now the points for consideration are Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner was
subjected to act of domestic violence in the hands of the
Respondents? If so,
Point No.2: (a) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the
Protection orders against the Respondents as provided under
Section 18 of the Act?
(b) Whether the Petitioner is to get the Residence order against the Respondents as provided under Section 19 of the Act?
(c) Whether the Petitioner is to get the Monetary relief’s against the Respondents as provided under Section 20 of the Act?
Page 5 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
(d) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the Compensation
orders against the Respondents as provided under Section 22 of
the Act?
8. Point No.1: Whether the Petitioner was subjected to act of domestic violence in the hands of the Respondent?
To support her case the Petitioner got examined herself as PW1,
Sub-Registrar of Jangareddygudem A.V.V.Jaganmohan Rao/PW2,
Siddabathula Ravi/PW3, Konda Jacob/PW4 & Boddeti Veerababu/PW5.
The documentary proof brought on record were Marriage Extract, marriage photos, legal notices and certified copies of report & other documents related to Crime no.02/2018 on the file of Maredumilli Police
Station. In her examination-in-chief filed before this Court, the
Petitioner/PW1 deposed in the same line as stated in her petition in addition it is stated that Respondent/DW1 demanded her additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, Respondent/DW1 told her that he will take her & daughter back only on giving additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, the
Petitioner/PW1 side could not pay the said dowry, later they came to know about second marriage of Respondent/DW1 with Midde Bindu, they went to village of Respondent/DW1, there Respondent/DW1 & his parents admitted about the second marriage of Respondent/DW1, the
Respondent/DW1 got issued legal notice dated 03-08-2016 to the
Petitioner/PW1, Petitioner/PW1 got issued reply notice dated 08-08-2016,
Page 6 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
Petitioner/PW1 approached Police, through the investigation of police the
Petitioner/PW1 came to know about registration of marriage of
Respondent/DW1 at Sub-Registrar office of Jangareddygudem, her daughter suffering with retina problem and Respondent is earning
Rs.60,000/- per month. Further the Petitioner/PW1 recalled herself, deposed about her & Respondent/DW1 counseling before Mandal Legal
Services Authority at Rampachodavaram after giving report and got marked marriage photos and also got marked certified copies of counseling proceedings happened before the said Authority.
8.1 During cross examination Petitioner/PW1 stated that as per contents of Ex.P1 marriage certificate she was a private employee at the time of marriage, after marriage stayed at Hyderabad for 6 months, after that stayed at Maredumilli for 2 months, went back to Hyderabad, went to
Nadimpally from Hyderabad when she was 7 months pregnant, the
Petition is silent about she going to Nadimpally Village during pregnancy, when she was visiting her in-laws house there were disputes between her & Respondent/DW1, as per her chief affidavit there are no disputes till birth of their daughter, as per chief affidavit they were happy till they stayed in Hyderabad, no report given to Police at Hyderabad or
Nadimpally, after birth of her daughter she neither joined Respondent nor visited in-laws house, Respondent/DW1 did not take her with him, she received Ex.P4 legal notice, she issued Ex.P5 reply notice, this petition is
Page 7 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 filed after giving report at Police station, she has not filed any documentary proof to show that Respondent/DW1 works as Teacher, there are no immovable properties specifically in the name of
Respondent/DW1, her mother salary is Rs.10,000/- per month, her brother earns Rs.10,000/- per month, her maiden family does not have any immovable properties, they are dependent on income of her mother & brother, as per contents of report the marriage was performed on 15- 03-2013 and as per contents of her Petition & chief affidavit there are no instances of any physical assault. Petitioner/PW1 denied that after birth of her daughter when Respondent/DW1 & her mother-in-law approached to take her back then she refused to join, denied that she has not filed any documentary proof to show that Respondent/DW1 married Midde Bindu, denied that she named her daughter Rishita Mohanasri even though
Respondent/DW1 objected for the same, denied that her mother & brother had no financial capacity to give Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry, denied that she did not join the Respondent/DW1 as he belongs to different community and denied that Respondent/DW1 never refused to take her back or harassed her.
8.2 During further cross examination Petitioner/PW1 stated that she has not filed marriage certificate issued by Pastor and denied that no counseling was held before Mandal Legal Services Authority. On examining the evidence of Petitioner/PW1 this court found the testimony
Page 8 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 of Petitioner/PW1 with regard to Respondent/DW1 neglecting her reliable.
Even though this court found nothing not to believe Petitioner/PW1 with regard to another marriage of Respondent/DW1 with another woman, as the said allegations is very serious, same can be relied on corroboration of other witnesses. Further this court is finding it difficult to rely on the the allegation of Petitioner/PW1 that Respondent/DW1 demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- after birth of female child as the petition is silent about any such harassment, therefore same will be examined along with evidence of other witnesses.
8.3 On perusal of evidence of Sub-Registrar A.V.V.Jaganmohan
Rao/PW2 who was summoned on application of Petitioner/PW1, during examination-in-chief PW2 produced the original Marriage Register related to Hindu Marriage no.123/2017 dated 07-11-2017 and got marked attested copy of the said registered marriage i.e. Ex.P9. PW2 deposed that as per the contents of the Ex.P9 the Respondent/DW1 who is son of
Rebba Krupal & Rebba Yasudhayama and resident of Nadimpally got registered his marriage with Midde Bindu in the presence of witnesses.
During cross examination PW2 stated that he has not produced the application related to the said registered marriage that was made requesting to register marriage, he has not produced any documents that were enclosed along with the said application, as per the contents of
Ex.P9 the marriage of Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu was performed on
Page 9 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 10-03-2011, he has not produced invitation or photos of said marriage 10-03-2011 as same are not available in file, Ex.P9 is silent about specific address details of the witnesses signed therein, no register maintained or information obtained related to witnesses appeared before the office, it is the duty of Sub-Registrar to preserve the marriage register & documents furnished along with the application and marriage register is filled only on application of parties. PW2 denied that no application is produced before the court as parties never applied for registration of marriage, denied that the contents of marriage register were created and denied that he is deposing false.
8.4 On examining the evidence of PW2, PW2 is a government official who deposed based on the public document available with office of
Sub-Registrar Office at Jangareddygudem. In the said circumstances the
Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act dealing with presumption of existence of certain facts and clause (e) of illustrations of Section 114 that is court may presume that judicial and officials acts have been regularly performed is applicable to case in hand. Therefore this court draws the said presumption and presumes that the contents of Ex.P9 were result of regular performance of official acts of Sub-Registrar that is
Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu registered their marriage before Sub-
Registrar office vide Hindu Marriage No.123/2017 on 07-11-2017. Further as per contents of Ex.P9 the marriage of Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu
Page 10 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 was registered on 07-11-2017 whereas the actual marriage was performed on 10-03-2011, even though this court believes that the
Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu registered their marriage which mean they are married, as the contents of Ex.P9 are entered based on information provided by registering parties, this court has no enough material to say that the actual marriage of Respondent/DW1 & Midde
Bindu was performed on 10-03-2011, therefore this court relying on
Ex.P9 only to the extent that Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu registering their marriage. Therefore the evidence of PW2 corroborates the evidence of Petitioner/PW1 that the Respondent/DW1 married to another woman.
8.5 On perusal of evidence of PW3/Siddabathula Ravi who is brother of Petitioner/PW1, in the chief affidavit filed before this court PW3 deposed in the same line as Petitioner/PW1 deposed in her chief affidavit filed before this Court. During cross examination PW3 stated that he earns Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- per month, his mother is Anganwadi teacher who earns about Rs.17,000/- per month, they have no immovable properties except house, before the marriage of
Petitioner/PW1 there was never a balance of Rs.5,00,000/- in his bank account or mother’s bank account, after marriage Petitioner/PW1 &
Respondent/DW1 were brought to Maredumilli for 3 days, after that
Petitioner/PW1 stayed at Nadimpally for one month, after that
Petitioner/PW1 was taken to Hyderabad where they stayed for one year,
Page 11 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 after that Petitioner/PW1 came to Maredumilli as she got pregnant,
Petitioner/PW1 received legal notice while in Maredumilli and his chief affidavit is silent about specifically where the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to harassment. PW3 denied that after staying one month in
Nadimpally the Petitioner/PW1 came back to Maredumilli, denied that
Petitioner/PW1 informed to Respondent/DW1 that she is no longer interested to continue matrimonial life with Respondent/DW1, denied that
Respondent/DW1 never harassed Petitioner/PW1 for additional dowry, denied that Respondent/DW1 never married Midde Bindu and denied that a false case is filed even though Petitioner/PW1 is no longer interested to join Respondent/DW1. On examining the evidence of PW3 the only contradiction found in evidence of PW3 with the evidence of
Petitioner/PW1 is with regard to the duration of period stayed by
Petitioner/PW1 at Nadimpally & Hyderabad after marriage, which is minor contradiction and not adverse to the case of Petitioner/PW1. This court found the evidence of PW3 reliable.
8.6 On perusal of evidence of PW4/Konda Jacob, in the chief affidavit filed before this court, PW4 deposed in the same line as deposed by Petitioner/PW1 deposed in her chief affidavit. During cross examination
PW4 stated that beside him B.Veerababu/PW5 acted as elder from the
Petitioner/PW1 side during marriage, he & PW5 does not belong to the same community to which Petitioner/PW1 belongs, the Petitioner/PW1
Page 12 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 stayed with her in-laws till she got pregnant that is for four days at
Nadimpally followed by at Hyderabad, after delivery the Petitioner/PW1 joined the Respondent, he came to know through Petitioner/PW1 & PW3 that Respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, he did not witness Respondent/DW1 living with the said Midde Bindu, after issue of legal notice the matter kept before elders at Maredumilli, no one attended from Respondent/DW1 side except Respondent/DW1, he came to know about the alleged incidents between the parties through Petitioner/PW1 and he knows Respondent/DW1 works as Teacher in Hyderabad. PW4 denied that he never attended the marriage of Petitioner/PW1, denied that no dowry was given in his presence and denied that as
Petitioner/PW1 family happens to be his friends he is deposing false. On examining the evidence of PW4, PW4 is hearsay witness with regard to allegations of demand of additional dowry and what exactly happened between Petitioner/PW1 & Respondent/DW1. However PW4 corroborated the evidence of Petitioner/PW1 & PW3 that till Petitioner/PW1 getting pregnant she was with Respondent/DW1 and from the evidence of PW4 it is clear that there were differences between Petitioner/PW1 &
Respondent/DW1 which was kept before the elders at Maredumilli.
8.7 On perusal of evidence of PW5/B.Veerababu, in the chief affidavit filed before this court, PW5 deposed in the same line as deposed by Petitioner/PW1 deposed in her chief affidavit. During cross examination
Page 13 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
PW5 stated that his chief affidavit is silent about mode & location of giving the dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, the Petitioner/PW1 came to her mother after about 5 to 6 days to marriage, after about 2 to 3 days Petitioner/PW1 went to Nadimpally from there to Hyderabad, Petitioner/PW1 from
Hyderabad came to Maredumilli when she got pregnant, after that
Petitioner/PW1 was not taken back to her in-laws, he came to know about the alleged demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- through
Petitioner/PW1 and he did not see where Respondent/DW1 stayed with
Midde Bindu at Hyderabad. PW5 denied that he never attended the marriage of Petitioner/PW1 and denied that he is deposing false as he happens to be friend of PW3. On examining the evidence of PW5, PW5 is hearsay witness with regard to allegations of demand of additional dowry.
However PW5 corroborated the evidence of Petitioner/PW1 & PW3 that till
Petitioner/PW1 getting pregnant she was with Respondent/DW1.
8.8 To support his case the Respondent got examined himself as
DW1, no documentary evidence produced and also got examined Dasari
Chandra Rao as DW2, however the said Dasari Chandra Rao/DW2 did not turn up for cross examination and on memo filed by the Respondent/DW1 the evidence of DW2 was closed. On examining the evidence of
Respondent/DW1, in the chief affidavit filed before this court, the
Respondent/DW1 deposed in the same line as stated in his counter, that is denied all the allegations leveled against him and stated that they lived
Page 14 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 happily till the birth of female child and it is the Petitioner/PW1 who deserted him. During cross examination Respondent/DW1 stated that
Petitioner/PW1 is not his wife, as per Para 4 of his chief affidavit he &
Petitioner/PW1 lived happily till birth of female child, his counter & chief affidavit are silent about denial of marriage with Petitioner/PW1, the
Ex.P4 legal notice was never issued on his instructions, he did not depose anything false in chief affidavit, he does not know Midde Bindu, after engagement as difference came up between him & Petitioner/PW1 side the marriage called off, he is unmarried and never got married to anyone.
The Respondent/DW1 was confronted with Para 9 of his counter and questioned as to what the contents of Para 9 reveal to which the
Respondent/DW1 did not speak anything. Later when again Para 9 was confronted, then Respondent/DW1 stated that he meant that he denies the baseless allegations. When witness was confronted with Ex.P2 marriage photos to Respondent/DW1 to which Respondent/DW1 stated that those are engagement photos. When Respondent/DW1 was asked about lacunas he referred in his counter & chief affidavit,
Respondent/DW1 did not speak anything. Respondent/DW1 was confronted with Ex.P1 & Ex.P9 with regard to his signature and
Respondent/DW1 denied the same.
8.9 Respondent/DW1 denied that he married Midde Bindu at Sub-
Registrar office at Jangareddygudem, denied that during counseling by
Page 15 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 the then Presiding Officer of this court he stated that by the time of his marriage with Petitioner/PW1 he was already married to Midde Bindu, denied that at the time of counseling stated that on force of his parents by suppressing the fact that he is already married he has married the
Petitioner/PW1, denied that as per his statement at the time of counseling & pleading herein the Petitioner/PW1 is his wife, denied that he has cheated the Petitioner/PW1 by suppressing the fact that he is already married to Midde Bindu and denied that only avoid responsibility he is deposing false. On examining the evidence of Respondent/DW1, the cross examination of Respondent/DW1 mostly revolved around
Respondent/DW1 denying his marriage with Petitioner/PW1. For the first time Respondent/DW1 brought on record a new contention that he is not married to Petitioner/PW1, which does not hold as from the contents of counter filed, from the contents of chief affidavit and from the suggestions made to PW1 & PW3 to PW5 during cross examination it is clear that the Petitioner/PW1 is wife of the Respondent/DW1.
8.10 To ascertain whether the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to domestic violence or not same as to be ascertained in the facts & circumstances of the case and as per the Section 3 of the Act, the extract of Section 3 of the Act is as follows:
“3. Definition of domestic violence.— For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—
Page 16 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
(a) harms or injures 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.
Explanation I.— For the purposes of this section,—
(i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(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;
(iv) “economic abuse” includes—
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required
Page 17 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
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.” 8.11 On summarizing the entire evidence of both sides i.e.
Petitioner/PW1 to PW5 and Respondent/DW1, the main allegations from the Petitioner side on the Respondent/DW1 are that Respondent/DW1 harassed by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- additional dowry, Respondent/DW1 neglected the Petitioner/PW1 and Respondent/DW1 got married another woman (or) Respondent/DW1 married the Petitioner/PW1 by suppressing the fact that he is already married. The defense taken by the
Respondent/DW1 as per contents of the counter & chief affidavit is that it was Petitioner/PW1 who deserted the Respondent/DW1, the defense what this court could make out from the cross examination of PW1 & PW3 to
PW5 is that the Petitioner/PW1 refused to join the Respondent/DW1 as
Respondent/DW1 belongs to another community and the defense as per the contention of the Respondent/DW1 during his cross examination is that the Respondent/DW1 never married the Petitioner/PW1.
8.12 Now examining the each allegations leveled on the
Respondent/DW1. The first one is that the harassment of Petitioner/PW1 in the hands of Respondent/DW1 by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- additional
Page 18 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 dowry, the petition filed by the Petitioner/PW1 is silent about any alleged demand of additional dowry, as the petition is silent about the same, as
Ex.P5 reply legal notice got issued by Petitioner/PW1 is also silent about the same, as PW4 independent witness who participated in the settlement talks in Maredumilli did not speak anything about such demand but stated that he came to know about the alleged demand through Petitioner/PW1, as PW5 also stated that he came to know about the alleged demand from
Petitioner/PW1, this court is not relying on the oral evidence of
Petitioner/PW1 & PW2 that Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to harassment by Respondent/DW1 by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-.
The second allegation is that the Respondent/DW1 neglected the
Petitioner/PW1, this court found the evidence of Petitioner/PW1 & PW3 to
PW5 believable that the Petitioner/PW1 was neglected by
Respondent/DW1 and by cross examining the said witnesses the
Respondent/DW1 could not extract anything. As the Petitioner/PW1 was neglected by the Respondent/DW1, which mean the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to economic abuse.
8.13 Now coming to third allegation that Respondent/DW1 got married another woman (or) Respondent/DW1 married the
Petitioner/PW1 by suppressing the fact that he is already married. From the evidence of PW2/Sub-Registrar & Ex.P9 i.e. certified copy of registered marriage No.123/2017 dated 07-11-2017 and from the
Page 19 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 discussion in above Para 8.4 it is clear that the marriage of
Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu is registered which mean Midde Bindu is another wife of the Respondent/DW1. Even though it is clear that the
Midde Bindu is another wife of the Respondent/DW1, it is important to ascertain whether the Petitioner/PW1 is first wife or second wife of the
Respondent/DW1. As per the contents of Ex.P9 the marriage of
Respondent/DW1 & Midde Bindu was performed on 10-03-2011 and as per the contents of Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 certified copies of counseling proceedings of Petitioner/PW1 & Respondent/DW1 the marriage of
Respondent/DW1 was performed with the said Midde Bindu prior to the marriage of Petitioner/PW1 with Respondent/DW1, if same is true then the Petitioner/PW1 is second wife of the Respondent/DW1, however the information of the said prior marriage of Respondent/DW1 with Midde
Bindu in Ex.P9 & Ex.P11 to Ex.P13 were provided by the Respondent/DW1 that were not supported by any documentary proof and also not subjected to any scrutiny at any level, therefore it can be said that there is no material on record to say that Resopndent/DW1 married the
Petitioner/PW1 by suppressing the fact that the Respondent/DW1 is already married. Further in the said circumstances this court goes with the available material i.e. Ex.P9 marriage register entries with regard to another marriage of the Respondent/DW1 with Midde Bindu which got registered later to the marriage of Petitioner/PW1 with Respondent/DW1.
Page 20 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
As Respondent/DW1 married another woman the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to mental harm. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pradah Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs. Sou.Meena Pradash Dubal Shah & others [AIR 2016 SC 2914] is applicable to case in hand where the
Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the decision of learned Magistrate who
held the second marriage of husband amounts to Domestic violence, the relevant extract of para 4 is as follows:
“4. After considering the case of both the parties and the materials produced by them, the learned Magistrate held that the application filed by the wife was maintainable and she was eligible to claim remedy under the Act because after the rejection of divorce petition, she remained a lawfully wedded wife of appellant. He also held that appellant committed act of domestic violence. The defence of the appellant that he has rented out shop for a meager amount of L 3,000/- to one Rajashri Patil was rejected. The learned Magistrate considered the birth certificate of son of the appellant from the alleged second wife as well as the related circumstances and came to a finding that appellant had performed second marriage, was living with the other woman and was therefore guilty of domestic violence. Ultimately, by way of maintenance the learned Magistrate fixed L 5,000/- per month for the wife, same amount for the daughter and L 4,000/- for the minor son. Some education cost was also allowed in favour of two children from the date of final disposal of the case but maintenance was allowed from the date of filing of the application.“
Therefore form the discussion above and from the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision it is clear that
the another marriage of the Respondent/DW1 amounts to domestic violence.
8.14 From the above discussion the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in A.Subhash Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another
Page 21 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 [AIR 2011 SC 3031] that was decided confirming the decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh between the same parties i.e. A.Subyhash
Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & another [2010 CRI.L.J. 2535] relied by learned Advocate for the Petitioner/PW1 to support his contention is not applicable to case in hand as same dealt with regard to offence related to Sections 494 & 495 of Indian Penal Code on report by second wife. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sunder Lal Saini Vs.
Meena Saini [Criminal Revision Petition No.129/2021 dt:09-11-2021] relied by learned Advocate for the Respondent/DW1 is not applicable to case in hand as the said case is related to Section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure between parties who were already married to their respective spouses. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in
Satyendra Kumar Sharma & others Vs. Smt. Uma Satyendra Kumar
Sharma [2018 CRI.L.J. 4223] relied by learned Advocate for the
Respondent/DW1 is also not applicable to case in hand as in the said decision the marriage between the wife & husband was declared null & void from its very inception by competent court which is not same in this case, further it is not the plea of the Respondent/DW1 that the
Petitioner/PW1 is his second wife.
8.15 From the discussion this Court found that the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to economic abuse and also suffered psychologically which is nothing but mental harassment. Therefore from the above discussion
Page 22 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 this Court comes to the conclusion that the Petitioner/PW1 was subjected to Domestic violence. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of
Petitioner.
9. Point No.2: (a) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get
the Protection orders against the Respondents as provided under
Section 18 of the Act?
In the petition filed before this court no specific relief was prayed available under Section 18 of the Act but prayed in the chief affidavit filed
before this court. From the evidence of the Petitioner it is clear that the
parties are not living together and there is nothing on record to show that
Respondent have prior to filing this case or after that have did anything to show that there was any kind of act from the side of the Respondent that
Petitioner requires protection from him. In the said circumstances granting of protection order as per Section 18 of the Act is of no use, hence the plea of the Petitioner for grant of order of protection is not granted.
10. Point No.2: (b) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get
the Residence orders against the Respondent as provided under
Section 19 of the Act?
In the petition filed before this court no specific relief was prayed available under Section 19 of the Act but prayed in the chief affidavit filed
before this court. The Petitioner is not staying with Respondent, it is not
Page 23 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 the case of the Petitioner that she has no shelter to stay and the
Petitioner did not provide any details of the shared household. In the said circumstances no residence orders can be passed, therefore the plea of the Petitioner for grant of order of residence is not granted.
11. Point No.2: (c) Whether the Petitioner is to get the
Monetary relief’s against the Respondents as provided under
Section 20 of the Act?
In the petition filed before this court the Petitioner prayed for monetary relief of Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses under Section 20 of the Act whereas in the chief affidavit the Petitioner prayed for monetary relief of Rs.2,00,000/- for expenditure incurred for operation to the daughter, Rs.20,000/- for maintenance of the Petitioner, Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance of daughter, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses of her daughter &
Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses under Section 20. From the discussion in the Point No.1 this Court came to conclusion that Petitioner was subjected to domestic violence as the Respondent neglected the
Petitioner. Therefore this court is of opinion that Petitioner is entitled for maintenance, however the amount has to be decided depending on the earnings of the Respondent and also keeping in mind the capacity of the
Petitioner to earn. From the cross examination of Petitioner it is clear that as per the contents of Ex.P1 the Petitioner/PW1 was private employee at
Page 24 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 the time of marriage, which mean the Petitioner has capacity to earn. As per the petition filed by her that the Respondent earns Rs.35,000/- per month and as per the contents of chief affidavit of the Petitioner the
Respondent earns Rs.60,000/-, neither are supported by any documentary proof. On the other hand Respondent stated that at present he is preparing for competitive examinations and previously used to work in chemist, even the Respondent did not produce any documentary proof with regard to his earnings. In the said circumstances considering the status of parties, financial capacity of the Respondent and fact that
Petitioner used to do job at the time of marriage, the Respondent is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month to
Petitioner for maintenance from date of filing this petition by excluding the amount already paid that was granted as interim maintenance.
Further the Respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) towards litigation expenditure. As no medical record of the daughter is filed the rest of the relief prayed under Section 20 not granted.
12. Point No.2: (d) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get
the Compensation orders against the Respondents as provided
under Section 22 of the Act?
In the petition filed before this court the Petitioner prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- whereas in the chief affidavit filed before
Page 25 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019 this court the Petitioner prayed for Rs.10,00,000/-. From the discussion in the Point no.1 it is clear that Petitioner was neglected and also suffered psychologically. In the said circumstances of mental harassment this
Court is of the opinion that Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
Accordingly considering the financial capacity of the Respondent, the
Respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to
Petitioner.
13. In the result, this Petition is allowed in part directing the
Respondent to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) per month towards monthly maintenance from the date of filing this petition before this court under Section 20 of the Act excluding the interim maintenance amount already paid and the monthly maintenance shall be paid to the
Petitioner on or before 10th of every succeeding month and pay
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards litigation expenses under Section 20 of the Act and pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) towards compensation under Section 22 of the Act. The rest of the reliefs were not granted by this Court.
( Typed by me on Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 17 th day of January, 2024.)
SD/- PRAVEER BHANJ DEO
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAMPACHODAVARAM
Page 26 of 27
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rampachodavaram
Domestic Violence Case No.: 04 of 2019
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION : P.W.1 /01.03.2023 : S.Kalpana Devi P.W.2 /05.06.2023 : A.V.V.Jaganmohan Rao, Sub-Registrar P.W.3/14.06.2023 : S.Ravi P.W.4/21.06.2023 : Konda Jocab P.W.5/21.06.2023 : B.Veerababu WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : D.W.1/04.09.2023 : Rebba Naga Raju DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Marriage Extract of the Aggrieved person and the Respondent/PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Marriage Positive Photos (2 no’s) along with C.D./PW.1 Ex.P.3 : Birth Certificate of Daughter of the Aggrieved person/PW.1 Ex.P.4 : Legal Notice issued by the Respondent/PW.1 Ex.P.5 : Reply notice issued by the Aggrieved person/PW.1 Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.02/2018 of Maredumilli ] P.S. along with report/PW.1 Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.186/2019 of this court/PW.1 Ex.P.8 : Acknowledgement for the reply notice/PW.1 Ex.P.9 : Attested copy of extract of marriage register at Page No.82 of marriage register volume No.8 for the year 2017 registered vide H.M.No.123/2017,
dt:07.11.2017/PW.2
Ex.P.10 : Marriage photos of Petitioner & Respondent (8 in number) along with C.D./PW.1 Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of counseling proceedings
dt:27.01.2018/PW.1
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of counseling proceedings
dt:17.02.2018/PW.1
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of counseling proceedings
dt:24.02.2018/PW.1
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of letter addressed to SHO of Maredumilli P.S. by Chairman of MLSA at Rampachodavaram/PW.1 DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NONE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL
SD/- PBD
//TRUE COPY// JMFC, RCVM
Page 27 of 27