Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: RAZOLE.

Present: Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar, J.F.C. MAGISTRATE Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

D.V.C. No.8/2016

Between:

Nadakudithi Radha Rani, W/o Nadakudithi Srimannarayana, D/o Koppadi Kameswara Rao, 30years, Gandhi Nagar, Weavers Colony, V.V Meraka, Sakhinetipalli mandal, … Petitioner

And

1. Nadakudith Srimannarayana, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 34 years.

2. Nadakudthi Venkateswara Rao, S/o not known, 57 years, Employee.

3. Nadakudithi Ramulamma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 50 years.

4. Saikam Praveena W/o Venkateswara Rao, 30 years, Employee.

5. Saikam venkateswara Rao, S/o not know .

(All are residents of Nizampatnam village and Mandal) … Respondents

This case coming on 04.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Mamdisetti Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for petitioner, and of Sri K. Sudhakar, advocate for the respondents, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petition filed U/s.12 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act 2005 seeking to prevent commission of domestic violence, return the gold, silver, other valuable house hold articles and furniture and cash of Rs3 Lakhs taken by the respondents, and to pay an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and damages suffered by the petitioner due to domestic violence caused by the respondent and to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner.

2.The brief averments of the petition:

a)The petitioner is legally wedded wife of 1st respondent having been married on 24-06-2010 at V.V Meraka. The parents of the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to wards dowry as demanded by the respondent and five sovereigns of gold was presented to the petitioner by her parents. Immediately, after the marriage the petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life at his house in Nazampatnam village. The 1st respondent looked after the petitioner properly for one month only. They lead marital life about one year along with other respondents in their house.

b)The 3rd respondent who is sister of 1st respondent has been staying in the house of her parents along with her husband / 5th respondent and her children. The respondent used to do a private job by then. The 1st respondent started ill-treat the petitioner after one month saying that the ornaments purchased for the marriage are not good comparing with their status and used to taunt the petitioner to bring amount and gold from her parents. When the 2 petitioner informed him that her parents are not in position to full fill her demands, he used to beat and abuse not only her, but her parents also. When she informed to her parents who in- turn complained the same to the respondents No.2 and 3. The 2nd respondent assured to look after the matter, but all the respondents abused the petitioner for complaining to her parents.

The 1st respondent beat the petitioner finding fault for informing to her parents. The 4th respondent used to taunt the petitioner for not brining sufficient dowry and other valuables and she is not deserved to stay in her parents house. She also abet the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent used to spend his earning as he likes, for which the respondents No.2 and 3 abused the petitioner. The 5th respondent also abet the other respondents and used to instigate them to send the petitioner to her parents house. In these circumstances the respondents No.2 to 5 asked the petitioner and 1st respondent to put up separate family.

c)The petitioner and 1st respondent started to reside in a rented house just away from the marital house. In the mean time, she also become a pregnant and delivered a male child on 03-06-2011, who named as Kumar Narasimham. The 1st respondent did not stop to harass the petitioner even after birth of child and use to ill-treat the petitioner for money and other valuables. The 1st respondent increased harassment and used to abuse and beat the petitioner before neighborhood. When she asked him he used to reply that if does so she felt shy and go to her parents. The neighbors informed to her parents who came to

Nizampatnam and disputed with the 1st respondent in presence of other respondents and elders. The 1st respondent informed that he will not harass the petitioner further and treat her properly.

d)The respondents No.2 and 3 also promised that they would take care of her, but after the said meeting the other respondents stopped to take the petitioner for many days out of angry. The 1st respondent used to beat and abuse the petitioner keeping in mind of the mediation placed by her parents and proclaiming that would see any elder comes to rescue her. The parents of the petitioner several times informed him that they are in a position to pay any amount and asked him to take back the petitioner, but the 1st respondent did not agree when the matter is carried before the other respondent, who also asked to send the petitioner along with the amount as demanded by the 1st respondent.

e)Three months there after, the uncle of the petitioner namely Lanke Prasada Rao dropped her at the house of 1st respondent and requested him to look after properly and her parents will arrange some amount later. The 1st respondent pretended before him that he would look after her properly, but he started harassing as earlier. On one occasion their son fell sick severally and he was taken to Government Hospital, Nizampatnam later shifted to

Repalle Hospital, but the child was not recovered. The doctors advised to take the child to

Guntur Hospital, but the 1st respondent did not agree for it under guise that he had no money.

The other respondents also did not give any help and asked her to send a word to her parents.

3

f)The parents and sister of petitioner shifted the child to Guntur Hospital and spent an amount of Rs.70,000/- to save the life of child. None of the respondent pay even a single pie. The 1st respondent is to break the chairs and cellphone even before his parents when ever she questioned his attitude. The gold presented by her parents to her was taken by the 1st respondent and it was pledged but not released in due time. When came to auction, the respondents No.2 and 3 informed her and on her request her sister arranged amount and send the same to the account of 1st respondent, who took the amount and converted the same for his own use with out releasing the gold. When she questioned him, he beat her severely and also broke her cell phone and sim card. On that she informed to her parents through her owners phone. Her parents came to her and took her and child her to their house. After some days again they dropped he petitioner.

g)Even at Charlapalli where the 1st respondent doing job he continued to harass her. After one month the mother of petitioner died and on completion of death ceremonies, the petitioner went back to their residence, the 1st respondent started to harass her to bring the gold and other things of her mother and beat her and child also. The 1st respondent necked out her in midnight. The house owner informed the same to her father and asked him to take back the petitioner. Either the 1st respondent or the other respondents never made any attempts to bring back the petitioner. When the family members of he petitioner tried to reconciliation none of the respondents responded properly. On one the 1st respondent came to their residence at Bandar and abused the petitioner standing on the road.

b)The 1st respondent also made a galata at the house of relatives of petitioner.

When they asked him he replied irresponsible manner. After two days again he came and took away the child with out information to the petitioner. When she phoned to the respondent with a lot worry he rejected the call, then she phoned to t he 5th respondent who informed that the 1st respondent brought the child to Nizampatnam and took him to Charlapalli. She contacted the office authorities who informed that they admonished him and to give the child to his mother under came along with child to V.V Meraka and also informed to her father that he would treat the petitioner properly herein after. Later the couple went to temple at

Madapeta to offer some prayers. While returning to the house the 1st respondent started to beat the petitioner from Malkipuram center to the house at V.V Meraka. He also beat her father and broke the chairs. On seeing the high handed acts of the 1st respondent, the neighbors informed the same to the police. Before the police he pleaded innocences and he would take back the petitioner and child but went away to his house leaving he petitioner and child. Later she joined him.

h)The 1st respondent treated her one month and again started ill treating. He cut the sarees of petitioner and also burn. He also burnt the photo of the deceased mother of the petitioner. On 27-08-2015, the 1st respondent put the knife and the neck of the petitioner and threatened her to kill and took away the gold chain from her neck. On the advise of neighbors she approached the ECIL police and informed the same. At the intervention of police, the 1st 4 respondent returned the gold chain. Suspecting the life risk in the hands of 1st respondent, the police informed the same to her junior paternal uncle Kopaddi Saibabu and asked him to take away her from Charlapalli. Then he took the petitioner to her in-laws house and dropped her there. But on the next day the respondents 2 to 5 enraged against the petitioner and necked out her. Having no other go she came to her parents.

i)Later, her father requested the other respondents, so also mediate with the elders to correct the first respondent save the marital life, but no use. When they asked the 1st respondent, he demanded to bring Rs.1 Lakh if she wants to lead marital life else, he will not allow her in to the house.

j)The 1st respondent is doing job and getting Rs.20.000/-.The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and their son. She needs Rs.10,000/- per month for their maintenance.

3.The 1st respondent appeared and the matter was referred for mediation. The petitioner and 1st respondent appeared before mediator, but mediation failed as he petitioner is not willing to join the respondent.

4.Later the petitioner and 1st respondent filed their respective affidavits.

5.The affidavit of the petitioner is nothing but repetition of the averments of the petition. On the other 1st respondent in his affidavit denied the allegations of the petitioner as not true and correct except the relationship with the petitioner and her child and submit that frequently the petitioner visiting her parents without his permission, when he asked her she used to quarrel with him and his family. Unbearable situation he went to Police Station to council her. Due to mis behavior and arrogant character of the petitioner, her parents and other family members requested him to leave separate, due to which he lost the moral support from his family members. After death of the mother of petitioner she used to stay there for one month when he request to come and join him, she informed that her father is in lonely condition and no one to take care of him and she has to look after her father while attending all domestic needs.

6.The elder sister of the petitioner is staying in gulf country and on her evil advise the petitioner neglecting him and their marital life. He used to do job in a private firm. Due to harassment of petitioner he was unable to works properly, hence the company warned him and asked to give the resignation. On that on 10-12-2015 he gave resignation to his company, since then he has no job and depending upon his parents for his lively hood. There is no negligence , will full latches on his part. The petitioner purposefully to avoid their marital life filed his petition he is requesting the petitioner to show his son and brought to the court to see him, but the petitioner rejected his request and hide his son. He is ready to take back the petitioner and her son and lead marital life.

5

7.Heard the counsel for petitioner and respondent.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

9.POINT No.1:

The petitioner in her affidavit reiterated the contents of petition and the 1st respondent (herein after referred as respondent) in his affidavit denied the allegations of the petitioner except the relationship with her and their son (the petitioner filed wedding card and also photograph of the marriage), but did not explain how they led marital life till the date of filing of this petition since their marriage on 12-04-2014, except saying that due to the adamant behaviour of petitioner he was unable to work and on the demand of his company he resigned to the job. Even now he did not state where he did job i.e., Charlapalli,

Hyderabad, and how long he worked there and lived with the petitioner.

b)The affidavit of petitioner clearly reveals that immediately one ear after the marriage the petitioner and respondent they setup separate family in Nizampatnam itself for some time and then disputes arose between them, the petitioner again and again went to her parents and joined with the respondent finally they lived together for some at Charlapalli of

Hyderabad, where the the respondent did a job in a private company. Therefore, the other respondents are no where connected to the harassment of petitioner. Even if they were not looked after the petitioner and her child when she was returned from Charlapalli, when she was dropped by her uncle and set to be necked out her, they are not at obligation to look after her welfare, it is only the respondent who is at obligation.

c)Since, the respondent did offer any explanation as to the allegations of the petitioner except bare denial, it appears he did not act as a dutiful husband and father of petitioner and his child. Therefor, ultimately she came to her father even then the respondent came here took the child (kidnapped) then on the admonition of the authorities of company in which the respondent worked he brought the child to the petitioner and expressed his pardon and requested the petitioner to join with him and when they visited a temple he beat the petitioner. When the neighbors informed to the police, he pretended before police that will look after the petitioner and her child with out any remarks. Latter he left the petitioner with out information. In this background and also the allegations of petitioner that he respondent demanded her to bring the gold and other valuables of her mother etc., the allegations of the respondent that often the petitioner used to go her parents with out informing him and whenever he questioned she used to raise quarrel with him, after death of her mother, she remained with her father to look after him and the advise of her sister, who is in gulf, not interested to join with him / lead marital life with him are not convincing except to justify his attitude. Which clearly revels the conduct of the respondent towards the petition and certainly it amounts to violence against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is justified to live away from the respondent.

6

d)Admittedly, the petitioner did not produce any proof as to her gold ornaments, other valuables and also the furniture and for the cash of Rs.3,00,000/- said to be taken by the respondent. The counsel for petitioner also fairly accepted as to be proof of the gold and amount given to the respondents and also amount said to be sent to the respondent’s account for releasing the gold jewelry pledged etc., Further there is no reference as to how she is suffered for claiming the compensation. Therefore, she is not entitled for those reliefs.

e)However, since the petitioner and he child residing away from the respondent, the father of petitioner is not yet all obligation to look after their welfare, but it is to be respondent to look after their welfare in all aspects. As already the respondent filed documents revels that he worked in TVS Tread as a junior executive (on probation for one year) for a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month and he resignation was accepted by the company on 26-12-2015, still he is capable to get job and earn money for their lively hood. Further it is a pious obligation of respondent to look after the welfare of petitioner and the child by nay means as long as there are unable to maintain themselves and the respondent is able bodied.

The petitioner clearly stated that due to the attitude of the respondent she is with her father, who is an old woman and unable to look after their welfare. Therefore, the respondent liable to provide a maintenance to the petitioner and her child.

10.POINT No.2:

Considering the financial status of respondent and living standards of petitioner it is appropriate to grant maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month (for the petitioner and her child together) from the date of petition.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed partly granting maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of petition i.e., March, 2016 from the respondent i.e., directing the respondent to pay maintenance.

I. The amount shall be paid on or before 10th day of every succeeding month and ii. The arrears shall be paid with in six months from the date of suit of this order either in lumpsum or in installments.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2017.

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

RAZOLE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: RAZOLE.

Present: Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar, J.F.C. MAGISTRATE Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

D.V.C. No.9/2016

Between:

Karri Laxmi W/o Rama Chandra Rao, D/o Bommidi Sesha Rao, House wife, Hindu, 20 years, Bommidi Palem, Pasarlapudi (V), Mamidikudru Mandal. … Petitioner

And

1. Karri Rama Chandra Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, 27 years, Mason, D.No.24-234, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Karri Satyanarayana, S/o not known, Mason, 55 years, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Karri Kameswari, W/o Satyanarayana, House wife, 50 years, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Karri Nagaraju, S/o Satyanarayana, 23 years, Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District. … Respondents

This case coming on 28.04.17 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Sudhakar, Advocate for petitioner, and the respondents remained set exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petition filed U/s.12 of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act 2005 seeking to prevent commission of domestic violence and to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to meet the expenses incurred and loss as suffered by the petitioner, in result of domestic violence and grant a monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and costs of the petition from the respondents.

2.The brief averments of the petition:

a)The petitioner is a house wife. Her father is a fisherman and her mother is a house wife.

The 2nd and 3rd respondents are parents of 1st respondent and the 4th respondent is brother of 1st respondent.

b)The marriage of petitioner and 1st respondent was performed on 12-4-2014 as per

Hindu rites and caste custom at the house of respondents in Velpur Tanuku Mandal. At the time of marriage, the petitioner’s parents gave cash of of Rs3 Lakhs to the parents of the 1st respondent towards dowry and also gave Sari Samans worth of Rs.1 Lakh, one gold ring and one chin of five sovereigns were presented to the 1st respondent. After marriage the petitioner joined the respondents family at Velpuru to lead marital life.

2

c)Initially, the 1st respondent looked after the petitioner properly, but the other respondents are not happy towards her for each and every point they are un-happy with dowry paid by the petitioner. When she was stayed at matrimonial home, all the respondents demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1 Lakh as their family status is very high, if the 1st respondent married another woman he could get more dowry than given by the petitioner and they used the foul words towards the petitioner. When she informed the same to her parents, they asked to keep quite and the things will settle timely, as that the petitioner bear all the harassment, as her parents already paid huge dowry and they are not in a position to pay the demanded dowry.

d)All the respondents harassed her physically and mentally for not brining the additional dowry and they used her as a maid in their house. She bared all the neglect expecting to change the attitude of 1st respondent, but not fertile.

e)On 06-01-2015, the petitioner came to her parents for the purpose of delivery. She gave birth to a male child, but the respondent did not visit her at any point of time. Later, when she went to her matrimonial home, the respondents did not allowed her in to home for not brining addition dowry. The mind of 1st respondent used to spoil by the other respondents, as she not suitable with their family as they are not satisfying the additional dowry of Rs.1 Lakh as they have poor family background and the first respondent necked the petitioner and the other respondents used to beat her with hands and legs. She bear the entire harassment. She informed the said incident to her parents. Her father brought her to their house at Pasarlapudi village.

f)To settle the issue the parents of petitioner and elders arranged a panchayat at her house, wherein all the respondents and their side elders were present. The respondents demanded additional dowry or property as additional dowry otherwise they refused to take the petitioner with the matrimonial home. On the same at the advice of elders the petitioner gave report in Mamidikuduru Police Station against all the respondents.

g)The respondent and family members again and again demanded additional dowry. The respondents beat the petitioner indiscriminately and threatened to marriage the 1st respondent if the

additional dowry not given. The respondents necked out the petitioner without having any just reason.

Since then the petitioner made several efforts personally, so also through elders, but all the efforts turned futile. Since, the respondents necked out the petitioner, she came to her native village and living separately. The petitioner has no means for her lively hood.

h)The 1st respondent is doing a Mason work and other finance business, earning more than

Rs.50,000/- per month and also having Ac.2-00 acres of property and terraced building. Having sufficient means, the respondent neglects or refuses to maintain the petitioner without any just or reasonable cause.

3.The respondents remained exparte.

4.The petitioner filed an affidavit.

3

5. Heard the counsel for petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

7.POINT:

Since, the petitioner is residing in Pasarlapudi village of Mamidikuduru Mandal, East

Godavari District and the respondent are residents of Velpuru village, Tanuku Mandal, West

Godavari District and there is no allegation by the petitioner that the respondents are threatening her by phone or by visiting their house etc., the question of violence against the petitioner by the respondent doesn’t arise.

a)Admittedly, there is no proof as to what the petitioner sustained loss due to acts of respondents, while she was in matrimonial home. The counsel for petitioner fairly accepted that there is no any proof as to what are the expenses incurred by the petitioner and loss sustained by her due to the violence of respondents while she was in the matrimonial home, but since the respondents necked out the petitioner with an demand of an additional dowry certainly, the petitioner is entitled to seek a maintenance from the 1st respondent.

b)Upon considering the above and from the affidavit of the petitioner it is clear that she was necked out from the matrimonial home by the respondents with an demand of additional dowry. Since, she is unable to to meet the demand of respondents, she remained at her parents.

The respondent turnup to take back the petitioner in to matrimonial home, even the first respondent being husband did not shown any interest to take back the petitioner into matrimonial home. Though there is no any obligation on the respondents No.2 to 4 to look after the maintenance of the petitioner it is a duty or an obligation of 1st respondent being husband look after the maintenance of the petitioner. Since, the petitioner was necked out by the respondents is nothing but a violence towards petitioner by the respondents in the matrimonial home and the petitioner is justified to live with her parents at Pasarlapudi village i.e., away from the 1st respondent.

Therefore, she is entitled for the reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.

c)Since, there is no any proof for the expenses incurred by the petitioner and also loss sustained by her due to the acts of respondent while she was in the matrimonial home, she can not claim those things, but certainly she is entitled for maintenance from her husband / 1st respondent.

d)The 1st respondent being a mason earning more than Rs.400/- per day, apart that he is having own house and landed properties. Therefore, considering the living standards of petitioner and 1st respondent and financial status of 1st respondent it is just reasonable to grant maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month during pendency of petition and Rs.4,000/- per month during post pendency of the petition.

4

8. In the result, the petition is allowed partly granting maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month during pendency of the petitioner i.e., from April, 2016 to April, 2017 and Rs.4,000/- per month from May, 2017 onwards payable by the 1st respondent.

i) The awarded amount shall be paid on or before 10th day of every succeeding month and ii) The arrears shall be paid with in six months from the date of receipt of this order either in lump-sum or installments.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE

Present: Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole

CC No 280/ 2016 CC No 280/ 2016

Between:

SI of Police Sakinetipalli PS ...Complainant

And

Farikina Padma Prasad

...Accused

DOCKET ORDER DATED 03.05.2017

NBWs against A2, A4, A8, A9, A14 to A17. since the main case in C.C.17/10 was ended in acquittal there is chances to convict these accused and keep ending of this case in no purpose In view of circular memo dt.3.1.2000 chief judicial

magistrate, E.G.Dt, RJY and circular dt.30.4.2002 dist. Judge, E.G.Dt., and

judgment of High court in 1992 ­1 APLJ 343 HC the accused nos.A2, A4, A8, A9, A14 to A17 are discharged U/s.245 Crpc for the offence U/s.411,285,286 r/w.34 IPC sec.5 of spirit and HSD oil prevention of mal practice in supply and distribution or.1999 sec.5­3 acquisition sale storage of prevention of use in automobile use or.2000 and sec.3 and 28 of A.P. petroleum products ­L and R or.1980

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole. 

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE

Present: Sri Swarna Ravi Kumar

Junior Civil Judge – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole

CC No 216/ 2002 CC No 216/ 2002

Between:

SI of Police, Razole Circle...Complainant

And

Sultan Narayanar Mohamed

...Accused

DOCKET ORDER DATED 03.05.2017

Suomotto NBW against A3 recalled. Crl MP /17 filed and allowed. In the result the accused/A3 is acquitted U/s.419,420,468,471 r/w.109 IPC

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.