DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 1
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
AT THORRUR.
Present : Smt. Sridevi Shanker, Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Thorrur.
Wednesday, the 3rd day of May, 2017.
DVC.No.2 of 2014
Between : Mallarapu Srilatha, W/o. Nagesh, aged 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Kommulavancha village, Narsimhulapet mandal, Warangal district.
... Petitioner.
A N D
1. Mallarapu Nagesh, S/o. Bixam, aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture;
2. Mallarapu Bixam, S/o. Choudaraya, aged 72 years;
3. Mallarapu Ilamma, W/o. Bixam, aged 62 years;
4. Cheekati Dhanamma, W/o. Mallaiah, aged: 57 years;
5. Cheekati Mallaiah, S/o. Venkatappaiah, aged 62 years, Occ: Agriculture;
All are R/o. Patharlapadu village, Thirumalayapalem mandal, Khammam district;
6. Donikana Ravinder, S/o. Dharmaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture;
7. Donikana Sujatha, W/o. Ravinder, aged: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture;
Both are R/o. Karepally village and mandal,
Khammam district. ...Respondents 1 to 7.
This petition is coming up before me on 06-04-2017 for final
hearing in the presence of Sri N. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the
Petitioner and of Sri B. Lalu, Advocate for Respondents and having
been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the
Court delivered the following:
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 2
:: O R D E R ::
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act-2005 (hereinafter referred as
“Act” for short). The respondent No.1 is the husband of petitioner,
respondents No.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.1,
respondent No.4 is the sister of respondent No.3, respondent No.5 is
the husband of respondent No.4, respondent No.7 is the sister of
respondent No.1, respondent No.6 is the husband of respondent No.7
who is the brother-in-law of respondent No.1.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of
Respondent No.1 and their marriage is performed 11-05-1996 at
Kistaram village, Sathupally mandal, Khammam district as per their
caste customs and at the time of her marriage, her parents presented
Rs.2,50,000/-, 4 guntas of house plot at Kistaram village of Sathupally
mandal towards pasupu kunkuma, 2 tulas of gold pustelathadu, 1/2
tula gold chain, 1 tula ear studs, household articles including cot and
almirah worth of Rs.20,000/- to Respondent No.1. Thereafter, the
petitioner joined the conjugal society of Respondent No.1 and lead
happy marital life at Patharlapadu village, for a period of 14 years and
she is blessed with one son namely Mallarapu Vinay Kumar who is
studying 9th class. Since last one year the respondent along with
other respondents changed their attitude and started harassing the
petitioner physically and mentally demanding to bring additional
dowry of Rs.50,000/- and she informed the same to her parents who
convened panchayat before the elders and inspite of admonition, the
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 3
respondent No.1 did not change his attitude and continued the same
harassment and further he also used to beat the petitioner
indiscriminately and that hte petitioner tolerated the said harassment
with a fond of hope that the respondent No.1 will change his attitude
one or the other day. The petitioner further contended that on 10-08-
2013 the respondent No.1 came to home in drunken condition and
beat the complainant and the other respondents supported the acts
of respondent No.1 and then they necked her out from their house and
having no other alternative she went to her parents house at
Kommulavancha village, Narsimhulapet mandal and then she lodged
complaint before the Police vide Crime No.316/2013 for the offence
U/s.498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and it is
numbered as C.C.No.938/2013 and that she is leading miserably life
on the mercy of her parents and having sufficient means the
respondent No.1 wilfully neglected her and hence the present petition.
The Petitioner further contended that the Respondent No.1 is
agriculturist, Toddy Tapper and in possession 10 acres of agricultural
land in his village and earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum and also
Rs.5,000/- from toddy tapping and he is also having residential house
bearing No.4-59 in Patharlapadu village, Thirumalayapalem mandal,
Khammam district and inspite of such means, he neglected the
petitioner and having no other alternative she approached this Court.
3. The Respondent No.1 filed counter and the same is adopted by the
other respondents. The respondent No.1 denied the allegations made
by the petitioner except admitting the relationship of the petitioner as
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 4
legally wedded wife and they are blessed with a son and daughter.
The respondent No.1 contended that he has not taken an dowry from
the parents of petitioner and at the time of marriage, his
parents/Respondents No.2 and 3 presented 3 tulas of gold pusthela
thadu, ear studs to the petitioner but she having addicted to bad
vices, sold the said articles and spent the amount and that prior to her
marriage also, the petitioner is habituated to lead such life and the
said fact was concealed from him by her parents though they are
relatives to him. The respondent No.1 stated that the petitioner since
the date of her marriage was adamant, non co-operative and used to
create problems on petty issues and out of their wedlock, she was
blessed with one daughter and one son but his daughter is no more
today. The respondent No.1 further alleged that prior to marriage, the
petitioner developed illegal intimacy with other persons and used to
cohabitate with them and subsequently after the marriage also when
the panchayat convened before the elders, the petitioner and her
father Somaiah admitted about the fact of the petitioner habituated to
badvices and they also gave an undertaking on 10-07-1997 about the
petitioner giving up her said vices and cooperate with respondent
No.1 in leading marital life but thereafter the petitioner herself
voluntarily left the company of respondent No.1 and and went to her
parents along with their daughter Sowmya aged about 7 years house
but unfortunately she got drowned in the water and such casualty
occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner herein and the son of
respondent No.1 is with the respondent only and he is taking care of
him well. The respondent No.1 further contended that the petitioner
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 5
also tried to kill his parents by giving them poison in the fruit juice but
they survived due to the intervention of respondent No.1 and the
petitioner also frequently used to leave the respondent No.1 and left to
her parents house and used to live as she per her whims and fancy
and that in the month of February 2013 she developed illegal intimacy
with one Mallarapu Ravi who is also residing adjacent to the house of
respondent No.1 and his son Vinay Kumar witnessed the petitioner in
the company of said Mallarapu Ravi under compromising position for
which he raised hue and cry and hearing the same his neighbours
came over there and caught hold of said Mallarapu Ravi. Therefter in
the panchayat convened before the elders namely Mallarapu Mallaiah,
T. Venkata Reddy, Maddela Yakaiah, the petitioner and the said Ravi
admitted their extra marital relationship and after the above incident
the petitioner further hatched a plan to kill the respondent No.1 and
his parents and she also developed grudge against her son as he is
the one who reported her extra marital relationship to others and after
the above said incident she left to her parents house and residing with
them and suppressing the said fact she lodged criminal case against
the respondents and only to extract money the petitioner filed one
case or the other and that he is not having any immovable properties
as stated by the petitioner and the petitioner herself deserted him as
such she is not entitled for any relief sought by her and hence prayed
the Court to dismiss the petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 6
5. In order to prove her case the petitioner examined herself as
PW1 and also examined her father as PW2 and another witness as
PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The respondent No.1 examined
himself as RW1, his son as RW2 and another witness as RW3 and no
documents are marked on behalf of the respondents.
6. P O I N T :
Now the point for consideration is :
“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ?”.
7. On careful perusal of the evidence adduced by both parties,
there is no dispute that the petitioner entered into wedlock with
respondent No.1 on 11-05-1996 and immediately after the marriage,
she joined the conjugal society of respondent No.1 and they are
blessed with one son and one daughter and thereafter, for whatever
reason there arose misunderstandings between the parties which
resulted their separation as result thereafter the petitioner filed
criminal case against the respondents for the offences U/s.498-A
I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereafter
she has filed this petition seeking the various reliefs under the Act as
referred above.
8. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner and the respondent No.1 lead happy marital life for a period
of 14 years but thereafter the respondent No.1 and other respondents
changed their attitude and started harassing the petitioner to bring
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 7
additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner tolerated the said
harassment with a fond of hope that the respondent No.1 will change
his attitude but on 10-08-2013, the respondent No.1 along with other
respondents necked out the petitioner from their house and having no
other alternative since then she is living on the mercy of her parents
and hence approached this Court by filing the present petition. On the
other hand the learned Counsel for respondents denied the above
said submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
contended that the petitioner unable to lead conjugal life with
respondent No.1 as she got addicted to bad vices and habituated to
live as such and she lead such life prior to her marriage also and
suppressing the said facts, the petitioner got married to respondent
No.1 and since the date of her marriage with respondent No.1 she
remained adamant and non cooperative with respondents and
frequently she used to left to her parents house and used to raise
quarrels with respondents on petty issues and further she also made
at attempt to kill the parents of respondent No.1 but could not
succeeded and that in the month of February,2013 the petitioner
found her under compromising position with one Mallarapu Ravi which
was witnessed by her son/RW2 and the matter when placed before the
elders, the said Mallarapu Ravi and the petitioner admitted their extra
marital relationship since long time and thereafter the petitioner
herself left to her parents house and thus deserted the respondent
No.1 and inspite of admonishing her many times to live amicably but
she continued to live as per her whims and fancies and hence the
petitioner is not entitlted for any of the reliefs and only to harass the
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 8
respondents and to extract money from them, the petitioner is filing
one case or the other and that the respondent No.1 also lost his
daughter due to the negligence of the petitioner who is 7 years old as
she died due to drowning in the water and that the respondent No.1 is
not in a position to provide maintenance to the petitioner and he is
taking care of his son at present and hence prayed the court to
dismiss the petition as the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief
under the Act.
9. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the respondents
committed domestic violence or likely to commit. In support of her
case the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and filed affidavit in chief
which is in line as the averments made in the petition. From the
testimony of PW1 it appears that the respondent No.1 ill treated her to
bring additional dowry and also by suspecting her character. Her
evidence fruther disclosed that as she failed to prove illegal demand
of additional dowry, the respondent No.1 harassed her physically and
mentally and inspite of panchayat before the elders, the respondent
No.1 did not change his attitude, beat her and necked out her from
matrimonial home on 10.08.2013 and since then she left the
matrimonial life and maintaining herself on the mercy of her parents.
The respondents denied the allegations and also learned Counsel for
respondents cross examined PW1 at length. The learned counsel for
respondents gave a bundle of suggestions on the ground that no such
harassment took place and infact PW1 herself left the matrimonial
home in the month of February 2013 for reason of she maintaining
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 9
illegal intimacy with person by name Ravi and the same was witnessed
by her son and thereafter PW1 left her matrimonial home and hence
her evidence cannot be believed, but she categorically denied all the
suggestions putforth by the counsel for respondents. The uncle of
PW1 examined as PW2 and the grandfather in relation of PW1 who is
examined as PW3 deposed on the similar lines as that of PW1.
10. To rebut the petitioner evidence, the respondent No.1 examined
as RW1 and examined his son as RW2 and another witness as RW3
and filed their evidence in the form of chief examination affidavit and
the respondent No.1 reiterated the averments of counter. The
testimony of RW1 disclosed that after marriage, the petitioner lived in
their house for few days and she could not adjust with RW1 for reason
prior to her marriage she got habituated with bad vices and
suppressing the fact her father peformed her marriage with him and
only considering the close relationship as petitioner is none other than
the daughter of his maternal uncle, he accepted the marriage
proposal of the petitioner. He further contended that the gold
ornaments given by his parents to petitioner was sold by her and it is
totally false that she lead happy marital life for a period of 14 years
and the undertaking given by the father of the petitioner and petitioner
on 10-07-1997 itself disclose about the behaviour of PW1 and that his
son/RW2 witnessed the petitioner under compromising position with
another man namely P. Ravi, at that juncture of point of time she left
his home and went to her parents house and since then she is residing
at their house but not due to fault of respondents and they did not
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 10
harass her physically and mentally at any point of time as alleged by
her and that he is not ready to take her back due to humiliation faced
by him due to act of Petitioner maintaining extra marital relationship
with another men and it is not his duty to maintain her and he has also
denied the other suggestions putforth by the learned Counsel for
Petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for Petitioner totally denied the allegations
of RW's.1 to 3 and cross examined them at length on the ground that
the respondent ill treated PW1 physcially and mentally for additional
dowry and also by suspecting her character, beat her and drove her
out of the house and they denied the same.
12. As seen from the evidence on record, there is no dispute with
regard to the marriage of petitioner with the respondent No.1. It is the
evidence of PW1 that the respondent No.1 harassed her physically
and mentally to bring additional dowry and also caused mental agony
to her by accusing her that she is leading adulterous life and by
suspecting her character. Her evidence further transpired that she
also filed criminal case U/s.498-A I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and the said case is pending. Her testimony further
transpired that respondent No.1 beat her indiscriminately and drove
her out of the house on account of additional dowry and by suspecting
her character. The respondents counsel has cross examined PW1 but
nothing is elicited to show that the evidence of PW1 is not believable
except stating that she herself left the matrimonial home due to fault
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 11
lying on her part. The objection of RW1 is that the petitioner is not
interested to lead marital life with respondent No.1 and inspite of
admonition by the elders also she continued to live as per her whims
and fancies and she herself went to her parents house and filed false
case against them. But the respondents did not choose to bring any
evidence to substantiate the allegations and during the course of
cross examination he admitted that he is not intend to take back PW1
to lead conjugal life and he added that his prestige got lowered due to
the act of PW1 as such he is not willing to take her back.
13. The respondent No.1 to establish the adulterous life of PW1
examined her son as RW2 and he specifically deposed in his chief
examination that he witnessed the petitioner under compromising
position with one Ravi and when he raised hues and cries, his
neighbours came over there for which his mother/PW1 developed
grudge against him. RW2/the son of RW1 and PW1 is at present being
taken care of RW1 and in such circumstances, there is every
possibility of undue influence over him by respondent No.1 When RW1
and RW2 specifically stated about the neighbours caught hold of the
said M. Ravi under compromising position with petitioner and further
the Respondent No.1 also stated that the matter was placed before
the elders but he failed to examine none of the elders, hence there is
no cogent evidence placed before this Court to believe the allegation
of Respondent No.1 against PW1 leading adulterous life. Further the
respondent No.1 also relied upon the document executed in writing by
the Petitioner and her father which is of dated 10-7-1997 wherein the
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 12
specific contention of the respondent No.1 is that the Petitioner and
her father admitted in writing about the Petitioner is addicted to bad
vices but the same is not exhibited on behalf of the respondents. The
respondent No.1 and the Petitioner lead conjugal life happily only for a
considerable period till their children grownup and on perusal of the
evidence on both sides, it appears that the Respondent No.1
suspecting the character of PW1 leveling accusations against her and
thereby not intending to lead conjugal life with her.
14. On careful consideration of the evidence placed on the record,
there is no dispute with regard to marriage of the petitioner with the
respondent No.1 and their relationship as wife and husband. It is the
evidence of P.W.1 that respondents harassed her physically and
mentally to bring additional dowry and also caused mental agony to
her by suspecting her character. Her testimony further transpired that
respondent No.1 beat her indiscriminately and drove her out of the
house on account of additional dowry and by suspecting her
character. This shows that the respondent No.1 suspected the
character of the Petitioner and unable to tolerate such harassment,
the petitioner might have shown disinterest to lead conjugal life with
Respondent No.1. No woman can lead marital life in the matrimonial
home with such humiliations especially when her husband humiliated
her by suspecting her character after leading conjugal life for
considerable period. Hence the evidence of Petitioner clearly
established that the respondent No.1 committed domestic violence.
Though PW1 alleged that the respondent No.2 to 7 also supported the
acts of the respondent No.1 but there is no evidence let in by her to
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 13
believe the same. Neither PW1 could place evidence that the
respondent No.2 to 7 harassed her physically and mentally and drove
her out on account of demand of additional dowry. Hence the
commission of domestic violence against Petitioner No.1 by
Respondent No.2 to 7 is not believable and no case is made out by the
Petitioner against them. The respondent’s counsel has cross-
examined P.W.1 but nothing is elicited to show that evidence of P.W.1
is tainted except stating that she herself left the matrimonial home.
The evidence on record clinchingly discloses that the petitioner is
staying away from the respondent No.1 since 10-08-2013. The only
defense is that P.W.1 herself left the matrimonial home due to fault on
her part. But the respondents did not put forth any positive evidence
to substantiate their defense. Simply because the petitioner is living
away from R.W.1, it does not mean that she herself left the matrimonial
home. The evidence of P.W.1 clinchingly established that the
respondent No.1 harassed P.W.1 physically and mentally, beat her and
drove her out of the house on account of additional dowry and also on
suspicion against her. On a consideration of the evidence of R.W's 1
to 3, I am of the opinion that their version that the petitioner herself
left the matrimonial home on her own accord cannot be accepted. It
appears that R.W’s 1 to 3 are not trustworthy witnesses and their
evidence is not consistent and convincing. Therefore, their evidence
cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, this Court is not believed
the futile effort made by the respondents that petitioner herself left the
matrimonial home on her own accord. On the other hand, P.W.1 clearly
stated that the respondent No.1 ill treated, harassed and humiliated
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 14
the petitioner and caused domestic violence against her and necked
her out of the house accordingly she has been staying away from the
respondent No.1. On careful consideration of the material on record,
the grievance of the Petitioner is against her husband
alone/Respondent No.1 and there is no substantive evidence placed
before this Court about the harassment meted out by her by
respondents No.2 to 7. Hence the commission of domestic violence
against Petitioner No.1 by the Respondent No.2 to 7 is not believable
and no case is made out by the petitioner No.1 against them, hence
the DVC is liable to be dismissed against the respondents No.2 to 7.
Whereas, the evidence of physical and mental torture of P.W.1 by
respondent No.1 is to be safely believed as her evidence is not shaken
by the respondents.
15. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, I am of the
opinion that her version that the respondent No.1 used to ill treat her
and beat her and drove her from the matrimonial house by committing
domestic violence can safely accepted as her evidence inspires the
confidence of the Court. The material clearly goes to show that as the
respondent No.1 ill treated the petitioner by suspecting her character
and therefore, she began to live away from the respondent No.1 and in
the Counter filed by the respondents, the respondent No.1 specifically
stated that he caught hold of the Petitioner with another man in their
house and since then their marital life got disturbed and this proves
that there are differences existing between the Petitioner and the
respondent No.1. The material also clearly disclosed that there is a
domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondents and the
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 15
respondent No.1 have committed domestic violence against P.W.1. The
petitioner evidence clearly established that the respondent No.1 has
committed Domestic Violence on account of additional dowry and
further the respondent harassed the petitioner by suspecting her
character under the guise of she maintaining extra-marital
relationship with another man. No woman can lead marital life in the
matrimonial home with humiliations especially when her husband
humiliated her and suspecting her character with others after leading
conjugal life for considerable period. The proceedings under the act is
summary in nature and the very object is to protect the victim from
Domestic Violence. Likewise, all the reliefs therein to serve the victim
positively to meet out their immediate requirements to face challenge
before them. Even otherwise, the sole testimony of PW.1 is suffice to
conclude that she has undergone several humiliations and mental
agony which is within the meaning of “Domestic Violence” . The
evidence of petitioner also discloses that there is every apprehension
of Domestic Violence which is likely to take in future. The very object
of the act is to protect the women from being victim of domestic
violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the
society. Therefore, it appears that the respondent No.1 subjected
P.W.1 with domestic violence on account of additional dowry and also
by suspecting her character hence she is entitled for relief of
protection U/s.18 of the Act.
16. The petitioner also sought monetary benefit maintenance to
her. According to P.W.1 she has no means to maintain herself and she
is leading miserable life and the respondent No.1 is having Immovable
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 16
properties and she also filed Ex.P.2 to P.4 in this regard and also
having sufficient means willfully neglected her. The respondent No.1
being the husband of petitioner is under obligation to provide
maintenance to her. Except the respondent No.1 harping upon the
attitude of petitioner nothing could be placed establishing his
bonafideness over the welfare of the petitioner which owes to the
society. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Court to pass an order for
grant of monetary relief to the aggrieved party. The object of
providing monetary relief is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by
compelling a person to support his wife unable to maintain herself.
This provision under Section 20 of the Act is not penal in nature, but it
is intended for enforcement of social duty failure of which may lead to
destitution and vagrancy and to protect women. Thus, it serves social
object and purpose. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is under the
obligation to look after the petitioner by providing monetary relief.
16. Now, there remains the quantum of maintenance to be granted
to the petitioner. The petitioner sought relief of Rs.5,000/- towards
maintenance. According to the petitioner, R.W.1 is earning
Rs.10,00,000/- per anum and Rs.5000/- per month from toddy tapping
and he is possessing 10 acres of land. Respondent No.1 in his cross
examination admitted possession of lands i.e., Ac.3.00 acres, Ac.1.26
guntas, and Ac.2.02 guntas as per Ex.P.2 to P.4. It is contention of the
Petitioner that Respondent No.1 is having sufficient means to earn and
also of maintaining her. From the evidence on record there is some
dispute regarding the exact income of the respondent No.1. The
Petitioner says that the respondent No.1 is earning Rs.10,00,000/- per
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 17
annum and also Rs.5,000/- from toddy tapping but the respondent
denied the same. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 failed
to provide any maintenance to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the
petitioner is taking shelter in her parents house on their mercy.
Therefore, the material on record and attitude of the R.W.1 would goes
to show that RW1 wilfully neglecting to take care of Petitioner and he
has not rendered affection towards his legally wedded wife having
sufficient means. Providing maintenance to the petitioner by R.W.1 is
said obligation which he owes to the society. Therefore, such
obligation cannot be shift to petitioner nor her parents. Therefore, it
can be concluded that R.W.1 has got sufficient source of income to
pay the monetary relief to the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent
No.1 is not providing any maintenance to petitioner since the year
2013. Therefore, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if
a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month is awarded to the petitioner from the
date of petition.
17. The petitioner No.1 also sought for the relief U/s 19 for
residence. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1 is the wife of
R.W.1. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the respondent No.1 to
provide residence to his wife i.e. P.W.1. The respondent No.1 cannot
wash away his hands simply because P.W.1 is living away from him and
her all wishes are fulfilled by her parents. In the cross examination,
RW1 specifically stated that he is not intending to take back PW1 with
him for her act of lowering his prestige by maintaining extra marital
relationship with other man and the same is disbelieved by this court
as discussed above. Hence it is just and it is for the respondent No.1 to
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 18
secure residence to his wife in order to lead dignified life in the
society. As such, the petitioner (P.W.1) is entitled for residence U/s 19
of the Act.
18. All these circumstances clearly goes to show that the first
respondent has got sufficient means to provide residence,
maintenance and other reliefs to the petitioner. Therefore, I am
inclined to grant the reliefs of protection order under Section 18,
residence order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section
20 of the Act.
19. In the result, the petition is allowed and granted the following reliefs.
(1). The respondent No.1 is directed to arrange alternate
accommodation to the petitioner with all amenities as enjoyed by her in the share household, or to pay rents to them for the same.
(2). The respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the
petitioner towards her monthly maintenance from the date of the petition i.e.,10-03-2014.
(3). The respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-
towards legal expenses of this petition.
(4). The respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount
of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental
and physical torture meted out to her by respondent No.1.
DVC.NO.2 OF 2014 19
and the Petition against the respondent No.2 to 7 is dismissed.
Lastly a Protection order is granted in favour of the petitioner
restraining the respondents for any act of domestic violence, in
future, failing which they shall be penalized U/Sec.31 of the Act.
A copy of this Order shall be served to the petitioner,
respondents, Project Director, Hanamkonda and the Station House
Officer of P.S. Narsimhulapet.
Typed by me directly on the personal laptop and pronounced by
me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May, 2017.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thorrur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Petitioner: For the Respondents :
PW1 – Mallarapu Srilatha. RW1 – Mallarapu Nagesh.
PW2 – Donikena Muthaiah. RW2 – Mallarapu Vinay.
PW3 – Yasarapu Ramchandru. RW3 – Maddela Yakaiah.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the Petitioner :
Ex.P1 : Wedding invitation card with Respondent No.1. Ex.P2 : Copy of pahani dt.02-12-2013 for the land of 3 acres in Sy.No.373/....... Ex.P3 : Copy of pahani dt.02-12-2013 for the land of Ac. 1-26 gts. in Sy.No.621/.......
Ex.P4 : Copy of p ahani dt.02-12-2013 for the land of Ac. 2-02 gts. in
Sy.No.356/.......
For the Respondents :
-NIL-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Thorrur.