Smt T. Ramanikrupavathi

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the Judge, Family Court, Ongole) Present:- Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, Chairman MACT-cum-VII- Additional District Judge, Ongole. FAC:: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 7th day of August, 2015.

MVOP No.14/2013

Between:

1. Pattan Mastan Begam W/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 45 years, Housewife.

2. Pattan Hameed Khan S/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 26 years.

3. Pattan Arif Khan S/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 25 years.

4. Pattan Shameela D/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 19 years. (All are residents of Biragimanyam, Singarayakonda Village & Mandal, Prakasam District)… …Petitioners.

And

1. Karamsetty Kiran Kumar S/o Veera Raghavaiah, Aged 37 years, Driver, Room No.2, II-Floor, KAC Plaza, R.R. Street, Nellore. Driver of the vehicle.

2. K. Sumalatha W/o Kiran Kumar, Aged 34 years, D. No. 6-1-11, Stone Housepet, Nellore. Owner of the Car.

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Trunk Road, Nellore. (Policy No.3510103116130601163 Valid from 20-01-2012 to 19-01-2013) ………Respondents

This petition came on 03-08-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Hujuthulla, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri S. Brahmaiah, Advocate for 2nd Respondent; Sri Subba Reddy Devarapalli, Advocates for 3rd Respondent; and the 1st Respondent having remained exparte, and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

// A W A R D //

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.166(1)(c) of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Pattan

Nazeer Khan S/o Jaffar Khan, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 03-02-2012 at about 2-30 PM near HP Petrol Bunk, K.

Bitragunta Village on NH-5 road, caused by the driver of car bearing

No. AP-26 AC-2949, on which a case in Cr. No.7/2012 u/sec.304-A of IPC 2 was registered in Jarugumalli P.S. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased. The said Pattan Nazeer Khan S/o Jaffar Khan, who died in the accident will hereinafter be called as the deceased.

2.It is the case of the petitioners, that the deceased was aged about 51 years, hale and healthy and owner of lorry having valid driving license and valid registration to his lorry and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family for its maintenance. On 03-02-2012 at about 2-00 PM the deceased was called by his friend to the centre and he came to the centre of petrol bunk and at about 2-30 PM on NH-5 road they stood in front of petrol bunk and then the 1st respondent being driver of car drove the same in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without observing anything, hit the deceased and caused the accident, as a result the deceased fell on the road and sustained severe multiple injuries. Immediately he was taken to the hospital, but unfortunately he lost his breath in the hospital while undergoing treatment. A case in

Cr. No.7/2012 u/sec.304-A of IPC was registered in Jarugumalli P.S against the driver of the car. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner, sustained heavy loss and suffered very much mental agony. Hence the petition.

3.After receipt of notices, R1 remained exparte, whereas R2 & R3 engaged their counsel separately and filed written statements separately denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased. It is further submitted by R2 that the driver of car is having valid driving license and the car is also having valid policy, that the driver has not driven the car rashly and negligently, that as the vehicle is having valid policy, R3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. R3 submitted that the deceased while crossing the road negligently came 3 into contact with the car and dashed against it, and so there is negligence on the part of the deceased. Both the respondents 2 & 3 stated that the claim of interest is highly excessive and contrary to law and it is to be restricted and the compensation claimed by the petitioners is also excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and they are not entitled for the same. R3 also seeks protection under section 170 of M.V. Act and both R2 & R3 prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

i)Whether the deceased Pattan Nazeer Khan S/o Jaffar Khan died in a road accident which took place on 03-02-2012 at about 2-30 PM near HP Petrol Bunk, K. Bitragunta due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP-26 AC-2949 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and against whom?

iii) To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

5.To prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1 and an eyewitness to the occurrence is examined as

PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked. On behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 no witnesses are examined, but Ex.B1 policy is marked.

6.After closure of the evidence, the arguments of the petitioners and R2 & R3 are treated as heard.

7. Issue No.1:

Whether the deceased Pattan Nazeer Khan S/o Jaffar Khan died in a road accident which took place on 03-02-2012 at about 2-30 PM near HP Petrol Bunk, K. Bitragunta due to rash and negligent driving of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP-26 AC-2949 by its driver?

The 1st petitioner is examined as P.W1. In her evidence she reiterated what was mentioned in the petition with regard to the accident and about the death of her husband. She also stated about the registration of a case in Cr. No.7/2012 u/sec.304-A of IPC against the driver of car in Jarugumalli P.S.

4

The Petitioners filed the following documents to prove their case:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr. No.7/2012 of Jarugumalli P.S. Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3: Attested copy of Postmortem Certificate. Ex.A4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A5: Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6: Attested copy of Lorry Association, Singarayakonda. Ex.A7: Xerox copy of vehicle C-Book of the deceased.

PW1 in her cross-examination by R3 stated that she had not seen the accident and he does not know how the accident took place, and that she had no any proof to show that her husband used to earn

Rs.15,000/- per month. She denied the suggestions that her husband was aged about 59 years and she was aged about 45 years, that the 2nd petitioner was aged about 33 years, that the petitioners 2 & 3 are married and living separately having their own businesses, that 4th petitioner is married prior to the death of her husband, that she had no ration card, that her children are not dependents on her husband, that the accident took place while her husband was crossing the road but not while he was standing on the road, that there is no monetary loss to her due to the death of her husband, that Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as P2 to P4 are not dependents, that the accident took place due to the negligence of her husband and that the compensation is very high. She also stated that P4 got married just

before filing the petition. In her cross-examination by R2 she admitted

that the crime vehicle is having license and insurance, as such the insurance company has to pay compensation.

PW.2 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. He corroborated the evidence of PW.1 on all material aspects. He further stated that he noticed the number of car as AP-26 AC-2949 and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the said car by its driver.

In his cross-examination by R3 he stated that he previously he worked as clerk in Transport business of the deceased, and that the deceased 5 called him for repairs of the vehicle near the scene of offence. He denied the suggestions that the crime vehicle had not committed accident, that the deceased and another person stood on the road and talking with each other, that the deceased was crossing the road from west to east as such met with an accident and that he is deposing false to support the deceased as he worked under him and he has not seen the accident.

From the evidence of P.Ws-1 & 2 and the documents i.e., Exs.A1 to A5, and also Ex.B1, it is clear that the accident was occurred on the date, time and place as mentioned in the petition and that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., R1. It can also be said that the concerned police filed charge sheet against R1 only after investigation, as evidenced from Exs.A1 to A5. Nothing was elicited from the cross- examination of P.Ws-1 & 2 to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the driver of crime vehicle i.e., R1 is held responsible for the accident, as a result the deceased died. From Ex.B1, it can be said that crime vehicle is having a valid policy and it is in force as on the date of accident. As the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of car i.e., R1, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly this issue is answered.

8.Issue No.2: -

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, for what amount and against whom?

Liability of R1 to R3: Since it was decided in issue No.1 above that the driver of crime vehicle is responsible for the accident, the driver, the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable for the same. On the other hand, Ex.B1 policy of the crime vehicle is also in 6 force as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

It is an admitted fact that the deceased was aged about 51 years, as stated by the petitioners in the petition. In the FIR, inquest report, P.M. certificate and the charge sheet. the age of the deceased are mentioned as 51 years. So, the age of the deceased can be taken into consideration as 51 years. There is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. From the cross- examination of PW.1 the marriage of 4th petitioner is also performed after the death of the deceased and before filing the petition. So, all the petitioners are dependents of the deceased. Ex.A6 is the copy of resolution of the Lorry owners Association in which the deceased was shown as Secretary. Ex.A7 is the copy of registration certificate of the lorry of the deceased. So, from Exs.A6 & A7 it is clear that the deceased was having a lorry. But, the petitioners failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Even in the absence of any proof of income of the deceased, the status of the family has to be taken into account while assessing the income. So, the income of the deceased can be assessed at

Rs.10,000/- per month basing on the status of the family i.e., owning of a lorry by the family of the deceased/

9.Quantum of Compensation: Because, the age of the deceased was 51 years, for the persons whose age is in between 51 and 55 years, the multiplier is “11” and for the income group of

Rs.1,20,000/- per annum, the compensation payable is (Rs.1,20,000/- x 11 = Rs.,13,20,000/-) Rs.13,20,000/-. Out of the same,1/3rd of it i.e.,

Rs.4,40,000/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive (Rs.13,20,000/- - Rs.4,40,000/- = Rs.8,80,000/-) the compensation 7 payable is Rs.8,80,000/-. Apart from it, the petitioners are also entitled to Rs.25,000/- each towards consortium; towards loss of estate, love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. So, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts as compensation: -

Compensation:Rs. 8,80,000/- Consortium:Rs. 25,000/- Loss of estate:Rs. 25,000/- Love and affection:Rs. 25,000/- For funeral expenses:Rs. 5,000/- Total:Rs.9,60,000/-

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.9,60.000/- with interest thereon at 9% P.A., from the date of petition i.e. 24-12-2012 till the date of realization with costs. The above said compensation amount of Rs.9,60,000/- has to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3 to the petitioners.

10.Apportionment of compensation:-

The petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased are entitled to the above said compensation. Taking into consideration of their ages and dependency, and loss of love and affection, I am apportioning the compensation amount as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of

Rs.5,10,000/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest and they are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- each with interest and the remaining amount shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

8

11.Issue No.3:-

To what relief the petitioners are entitled?

In view of the decisions arrived in Issues 1 & 2, this petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs against R1 to R3 directing as follows:-

i)The Respondents 1 to 3 do pay the compensation amount of

Rs.9,60,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e. 24-12-2012 till the date of realization; ii)The Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; iii)On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years; iv)The petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest and they are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- each with interest and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years;

and

v)The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,500/-.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of August, 2015.)

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole. FAC:: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1: P. Masthan Begam --None-- PW.2: M. Charan 9

Documents Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr. No.7/2012 of Jarugumalli P.S. Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3: Attested copy of Postmortem Certificate. Ex.A4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report. Ex.A5: Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6: Attested copy of Lorry Association, Singarayakonda. Ex.A7: Xerox copy of vehicle C-Book of the deceased.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: Attested copy of Policy of crime vehicle.

VII-A.D.J., FAC:: Judge, F.C.

10

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the Judge, Family Court, Ongole) Present:- Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, Chairman MACT-cum-VII- Additional District Judge, Ongole. FAC:: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 7th day of August, 2015.

MVOP No.14/2013

Between:

1. Pattan Mastan Begam W/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 45 years, Housewife.

2. Pattan Hameed Khan S/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 26 years.

3. Pattan Arif Khan S/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 25 years.

4. Pattan Shameela D/o Late Nazeer Khan, Aged about 19 years. (All are residents of Biragimanyam, Singarayakonda Village & Mandal, Prakasam District)… …Petitioners.

And

1. Karamsetty Kiran Kumar S/o Veera Raghavaiah, Aged 37 years, Driver, Room No.2, II-Floor, KAC Plaza, R.R. Street, Nellore. Driver of the vehicle.

2. K. Sumalatha W/o Kiran Kumar, Aged 34 years, D. No. 6-1-11, Stone Housepet, Nellore. Owner of the Car.

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Trunk Road, Nellore. (Policy No.3510103116130601163 Valid from 20-01-2012 to 19-01-2013) ………Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.166(1)(c) of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Pattan Nazeer Khan S/o Jaffar Khan, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 03-02-2012 at about 2-30 PM near HP Petrol Bunk, K. Bitragunta Village on NH-5 road, caused by the driver of car bearing No. AP-26 AC-2949, on which a case in Cr. No.7/2012 u/sec.304-A of IPC was registered in Jarugumalli P.S. The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased.

Petition presented on:24-12-2012 And filed on:03-01-2013

Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.9,360/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on the account of Prl. District Court, Ongole.

This petition came on 03-08-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Hujuthulla, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri S. Brahmaiah, Advocate for 2nd Respondent; Sri Subba Reddy Devarapalli, Advocates for 3rd Respondent; and the 1st Respondent having remained exparte, and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day,this court doth order and decree:- 11

i)That the Respondents 1 to 3 do pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,60,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e. 24-12-2012 till the date of realization; ii)That the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; iii)That on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.5,10,000/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years; iv)That the petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest and they are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- each with interest and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years;

v)That the Respondents 1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.13,648/- towards costs of the petition; and vi)That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,500/-.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 7th day of August, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole. FAC:: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

For PetitionersFor Respondents 1 to 3

Vakalat Rs.2-00 --- Court Fee Rs.8,986-00-- Process & Stamp on Petitions Rs.160-00-CM & FC not filed- Advocate Fee Rs.4,500-00

Total Rs.13,648-00

VII-ADJ, FAC:: Judge, F.C.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :

ONGOLE

(Before the VIII. Addl. District and Sessions Judge-cum-

Family Court, Ongole)

PRESENT: Smt. T.Ramani Krupavathi,

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAC. Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 4th day of November, 2015.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2/2014

From what Court of the appeal is:Spl.Mobile Magistrate Court, preferredOngole

No. of the case in Lower Court:C.C.No.187/2011

No. of the Appeal :C.A.No.2/2014

Name & Description of the:Annapureddy Jayarama Reddy AppellantS/o.Krishna Reddy, aged 55 years, Bank Employee, Plot No.H-55, Pent House, Madhura Nagar,Vengalarao Nagar (Post) O/o.The AP State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Head Office, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad

Description of the respondents1Kanchi Siva Rami Reddy S/o.Krishna Reddy, aged 53 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, R/o.Guravareddypalem, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District 2State: Rep by Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

The Sentence and law under:In the result, the accused is which it was imposed in Lowerfound guilty for the offence Court: U/s.138 of NI Act and accordingly, the accused is convicted U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C., Thereby, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,10,000/- for the offence U/s.138 of NI Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shallundergosimple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Out of total fine amount of Rs.6,10,000/- the accused is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the 2 complainant as compensation.

Whether confirmed, reversed or:REVERSED : modified and if modified the modification. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence of learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Spl.Mobile Court,

Ongole in CC. 187/2011 dated 7.1.2014 and the appellant/ Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The appellant/ accused is entitled to receive the fine amount, if any, paid by him in trial Court.

DATES OF

Presentation : 09.01.2014 Filing : 09.01.2014 Notice issued by Court to the appellant : 16.04.2014 Bail bond if appellant has been let : ------ Out on bail Appellant ordered to be appeared : ------- Hearing : 03.11.2015 Order : 04.11.2015

This appeal coming on 03.11.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Siva Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Accused, Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the 1st respondent and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd Respondent/State and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The present appeal arose as against the Judgment and conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile

Court, Ongole, in C.C.No.187 of 2011. The appellant was found guilty for the offence under section 138 of NI Act and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/- together with fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of the said amount the accused is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months.

3

2.The brief facts of the complainant is as follows :

On 10.4.2010 accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the complainant for his family necessities and executed promissory note on the same day and on demand of the complainant, on 2.9.2011 accused issued a cheque for

Rs.6,00,000/- bearing No.275148 to be drawn on DCB Bank, SR

Nagar Branch,Hyderabad and when th complainant presented the said cheque in a bank it was returned with an endorsement “Account Closed” thereafter the complainant issued legal notice for which accused did not give any reply nor paid any amount.

3.The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under section 138 of NI Act as CC No.187/2011 and after the appearance of the accused

before him, furnished copies of all relevant documents to him as

contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and later on, the accused was examined u/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. and charges for the offence u/Sec. 138 of NI Act and the contents of the said charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the accusations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8.

5.The learned Magistrate heard the arguments of both sides and through his judgment dated 7.1.2014 analyzed the material

before him and found the accused guilty for the offence under

U/s.138 of NI Act and accordingly, the accused is convicted

U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C., Thereby, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,10,000/- for the offence 4

U/s.138 of NI Act, in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Out of total fine amount of Rs.6,10,000/- the accused is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as fine. But he did not pay it in the trial Court.

6.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the accused preferred the present appeal. The points that have been urged in this appeal, are as follows:- (1) The judgment of the lower Court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; (2) The lower court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 but convicted him (3)

The lower Court failed to appreciate the admission made by P.W.1 that there is difference in writing of Exs.P1 and P2 (4) The lower court failed to appreciate that PW1 himself stated in cross examination that he is not aware whether the purpose of borrowing amount was mentioned in Ex.P1 etc., and prayed to allow the appeal.

7.Arguments of both sides heard

8.The point for consideration is:

Whether the appeal filed by the

appellants can be allowed or not?

9. POINT:-

(a)The case of the 1st respondent is that the appellant borrowed an amount of RS.6,00,000/- on 10.4.2010 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and the appellant executed a promissory note on the same day and the appellant gave a cheque for Rs.6,00,000/- as part payment which was returned as the account closed and the 5 respondent got issued a legal notice to the appellant and the same was received by the appellant and got issued a reply notice stating that the complainant is stranger to him.

(b)To prove the case of the respondent, the 1st respondent was himself examined as P.W.1 and attestor of the suit promissory note as P.W.2. The 1st respondent filed Exs.P1 to P8 to prove his case. Ex.P1 is the promissory note and Receipt (while marking the said documents both the promissory note and receipt were marked as Ex.P1). On perusal of Ex.P1 it is clear that it is an incomplete document and basing on the said document no suit can be filed before any Court of law. Ex.P1 promissory note did not show the presence of the attestors or the scribe. The said promissory note also consists of a column as “security”.

All the columns mentioned in the security are blank. The

signature column is also blank. But the security proforma is attested by two persons as witnesses. So, Ex.P1 is an incomplete document. Ex.P1 also consists a form of receipt. The column of the said receipt shows that the said receipt will be issued by a person to whom he has given the amount i.e., from whom he borrowed the amount. If really the 1st respondent gave an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant and if the appellant had executed a promissory note, it must be in the possession of the appellant but not in the possession of he respondent. So, a doubt arose in the mind of the Court as to how the respondent got the receipt. If really the appellant really executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent No.1, the receipt would have been in the possession of the appellant but not in the possession of the 1st respondent. The respondent did not give any explanation for this discrepancy. As seen from the law, the enforcement of legal debt or liability has to be in the nature of civil suit because the 6 debt or liability can not be recovered by filing a criminal case. So,

Ex.P1 is an incomplete document and no suit can be filed basing on Ex.P1.

(c)The native place of the respondent is Maddipadu Mandal while the native place of the appellant is Hyderabad. But the respondent stated that Ex.P1 promissory note was scribed in a small shop at Nellore Bus-stand. The owner of the said shop is not a witness to Ex.P1. Further the respondent stated in his evidence that he withdrew the said amount from the bank and gave to the appellant. But he did not state as to how much of amount he has withdrawn from his bank account nor did he file his bank account to show that the source of income etc.,

Further, the 1st respondent in his evidence admitted that there is a difference between the handwriting mentioned in the body of the promissory note and the name written under the signature of the appellant. Further he stated that he did not aware of the reason for borrowing of the amount by the appellant. The respondent went to the extent by saying that he did not know whether the reason of borrowing is mentioned in Ex.P1 or not.

Further, in the deposition the respondent stated that he as no documentary evidence to show that he gave money to the appellant. Further he admitted that the writing in Ex.P2 cheque is different form the hand writing of the appellant. So, it is clear that the columns of Ex.P2 cheque were filled by the respondent himself but not by the appellant. The respondent further examined P.W.2, attestor to Ex.P1 promissory note. He did not speak as to where Ex.P1 got prepared, but he simply stated that he stood as attestor to Ex.P1 promissory note and other receipt of Ex.P1. Further he stated that Ex.P1 promissory note and receipt were prepared in Telugu language. But on perusal of 7

Ex.P1 it shows that it was drafted in English language. So, the evidence of P.W.2 is also not believable.

(d)So, the respondent did not place the material facts before the Court and did not approach the Court with clean hands. The respondent failed to show the source of income and also failed to produce any document to show that he is an agriculturist. P.W.1 intentionally suppressed all the material facts and got filed complaint against the appellant only to harass him. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborating with each other and also not corroborating to the documents filed by the respondent No.1.

Not only that, the appellant issued a reply notice that the respondent is a stranger to him. But the respondent failed to prove that the appellant knew him. When the respondent failed to prove that the appellant knows him the question of executing promissory note and also issuing cheque does not arise. Viewing from any angle, the respondent failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the Judgment passed by the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Ongole, needs

correction and as such the point is answered.

10.In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence of learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Ongole in C.C. 187/2011 dated 7.1.2014 and the appellant/ Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The appellant/ accused is entitled to receive the fine amount, if any, paid by him in trial Court.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4th day of November, 2015.

VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE.

8 // No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on both sides //

VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :

ONGOLE

(Before the VIII.Addl. District and Sessions Judge's Court,

Ongole-cum-Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

PRESENT: Smt. T.Ramani Krupavathi,

VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Ongole.

FAC, Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

C.R.P. No.4/2015

Between:

Ganipineni Krishna Mohan @ Krishna Mohan Naidu, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,Hindu, aged 30 Yrs, R/o.Vasundara Enclave, Puneetha Apartment, Plot No.203, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi … REVISION PETITIONER

And

1.Ganipineni Sudha Rani W/o.Krishnamohan Naidu, Hindu, aged about 29 years.

2.Ganipineni Rupesh S/o.Krishnamohan Naidu, aged about 6 years,Hindu, being minor represented by natural guardian 1st petitioner (Both are R/o.Ponugupati Colony, Ongole Town & Mandal, Prakasam District) 3.The State: R/b.Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … RESPONDENTS

This Revision petition coming on 29.10.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Subba Rao, Advocate for the Revision petitioner, Sri L.Koteswara Rao, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.3, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

// O R D E R //

1.The Revision Petition is filed Under Section 397 of Cr.P.C to set aside the Order dated 7.11.2014 passed by the II-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, in Crl.M.P.No.4521/2014 in

DVC.25/2014 filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the lower Court, by allowing this appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the trial

Court.

2 2.The brief averments of the petition as follows: - that the 1st petitioner filed Domestic Violence Case against her husband-respondent alleging that the respondent along with his family members harassed her mentally and physically demanding for additional dowry and threatened her to give divorce to the respondent. After delivery of the 2nd petitioner, the respondent did not take back petitioners 1 and 2 from the hospital or even not allowed them into matrimonial home. The 1st petitioner alleged that they are living in her parental house since 2009 and her parents became old and not able to maintain them. On the other hand since the respondent is doing money lending business and also having two stairs building at Thurpu

Kammapalem with three portions, vacant land which was given for construction of apartment with benefit to give half share in it after construction and also having vacant sites in 3 places and in all the respondent is getting more than Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. but did not provide any maintenance to them and prayed to allow the petition.

3.The respondent-husband filed his detailed counter wherein he denied all the allegations raised by the petitioners, but did not dispute the relationship among them but denied the domestic violence alleged to have been caused against them, and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.On perusal of record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the lower court allowed the petition granting an amount of Rs.10,000/- as interim maintenance to the petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of the order until further orders. The trial

Court further directed the respondent to pay the maintenance 3 on or before 5th of every succeeding month directly to the petitioners or to deposit it in any bank account of the 1st petitioner or by depositing the same into the Court so as to enable the same to be given to the petitioners and further directed the respondent not to commit any violence against the petitioners 1 and 2 and accordingly interim protection order passed.

5.Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed revision petition on the following grounds:

1) The orders passed by the lower Court are not sustainable (2) the lower Court did not go through the reasons shown in his counter filed in Crl.M.P.4521/2014 and not takeninto consideration the documents filed by him (3) the lower court did not consider that their marriage was performed on 5.11.2008 and lived together only for two months and as the respondent got pregnancy she went to her parental home and did not turn up to his house for the past 5 years and hence there does not arise question of harassment by him or his family members (3) the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence that he is having properties as alleged in the petition (4) that the 1st petitioner filed this petition only to harass him as he did not agree to go Illetum (5) by the cases filed by the 1st petitioner himself and his family members suffered a lot and (6) the 1st petitioner having forgotten to have mentioned in her complaint given to the ICDS P.D., ongole, that the respondent is working as a clerk and getting Rs.8,000/- p.m. only but claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. in this petition is excessive and prayed to dismiss the interim maintenance petition till the completion of enqury before the lower Court.

4

6.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

7. Heard the arguments both sides.

8.Now the point for determination:

“Whether the Criminal Revision Petition u/s .397 Cr.P.C can be allowed or not ?”

9. POINT:-

As seen from the records and order of the Hon’ble II-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole, after elaborate enquiry

and allowed the petition by granting Rs.10,000/- towards interim maintenance to the petitioner and her son to meet their food and shelter expenses from the date of this order till further order of that Court.

(a)The Hon’ble II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Ongole gave a finding that the respondent no liability to pay any maintenance to her. But in the operative portion the Hon’ble II-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioners 1 and 2 towards the interim maintenance. Whatever, it may be the Hon’ble II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Ongole granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards interim relief to the petitioners.

(b)Aggravated by the orders the respondent preferred this Criminal Revision Petition.

(c ) Now, the duty of the court is whether the petitioners are of needs of food and shelter and whether the respondent has got means to pay the interim relief as granted by the Hon’ble II-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole. As discussed by the

Hon’ble II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole in the

order it is the duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners 5 1 and 2, being his wife and son. Whatever reason may be now the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondent are residing separately.

Having marriage the petitioner it is the duty of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. Just because the petitioners are residing separately it does not mean that they are not entitled for the relief of interim maintenance. So, a duty is cast upon the respondent to maintain the petitioners 1 and 2.

(d)The petitioner filed by the petition in the Court hall under the DVC proceedings. Because the revision petitioner alleged to be harassed both physical and mentally the respondent filed a DVC proceedings against the revision petitioner, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to pay interim relief to the petitioners 1 and 2. The respondent ‘s case it that the revision petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners 1 and 2. Further, she contended that respondent intentionally did not maintain the maintenance to the petitioners.

Further, she contended that the revision petitioner is having two stare building at Thurpu Kammapalem and said building 3 portions are coming rents and another vacant land situated at

Thurpu Kammapalem was given for construction apartment on the benefit to give ½ share apartment building after its construction and also having vacant site in three places and further she contended that the revision petitioner has doing money lending business and getting more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The Hon’ble II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole passed interim maintenance as the trial of the case more time.

Except the oral evidence of the respondent she did not file any documents to prove the above said properties of respondent/revision petitioner. However, as the this is interim maintain petition there is no need for going to deep into the 6 matter to decide the maintenance. But, however as the revision petitioner/respondent approached this Court seeking some relief from the orders passed by the Hon’ble II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole. The counsel for the revision petitioner/ respondent argued that the revision petitioner/ respondent has not having sufficient money to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the interim maintenance the respondent and prayed the Hon’ble

Court to refuse the amount.

(e) Taking into consideration the oral arguments of the revision petitioner this Court is reducing the interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. Further, this Court does not went to interference the rest of the orders passed by the Hon’ble II-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Ongole. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed, and this Court reduced the interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.8,000/-.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE.

FAC. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, ONGOLE.

// No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on both sides //

VII A.D.S.J.,

FAC.Judge, Family Court Ogole.

Copy to The II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole 7

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ONGOLE.

Present: Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, M.A.,B.L.,

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

D..O.P.No.03/2015

Between:

Smt.B.Jeevitha w/o.B.Rajashekar, aged about 26 years, Occupation:Govt. Employee,

Resident of H.No.13-311, Ambedkar Nagar,

Bandlamudi village & mandal, Prakasam District. …... Petitioner

And

B. Rajashekar s/o.B.Ramaiah, aged about 27 years, Occupation: business,

Resident of H.No.10-28-315B, P.R.Colony,

Giddalur, Prakasam District. …... Respondent

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce

Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing, and in the presence of Sri K.Anjaiah, Sri K.Babu Rao, Advocates for petitioner, and the respondent remained ex parte and upon perusal of material available on record this court delivered the following :- // O R D E R //

1.This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce

Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the Petitioner submited that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 09.04.2012 at Christian Assembly, Kurnool, Kurnool District. At the time of her marriage, the marriage expenses an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was incurred by the petitioner, besides giving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cashas dowry to the respondent and other house hold articles as on the demand of the respondent and his mother.

(a) The petitioner further submitted that after consummation of the marriage the petitioner and the Respondent lived happily for 6 months only 2 at the matrimonial home and there after the respondent showing his true colors towards the petitioner by harassing physically and mentally in several ways and means with the active support of his mother and his relatives for demanding additional dowry from her parents house. The petitioner further submitted 15.05.2013 the respondent necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house stating that the petitioner should not come to the matrimonial house at any cost and she should give divorce to the respondent otherwise they would see her end finally the petitioner and her sister informed harassment of the respondent before the caste elders and caste of the petiitoner visited the house of the resppondent and conducted Panchayat there after the elders found fault with the respondent and reprimanded the respondent to harass petitioner but the respondent and his mother did not change their attitude towards the petitioner and continued their harassment.

Hence she constrained to file this petition.

3. The respondent remained ex parte.

4.To substantiate the case of petitioner, she filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination. She filed the original wedding card, original marriage photo original Burnt hand photo of the petitioner and original C.D.

Conversation between the petitioner and respondent i.e., Exs.A1 to A4. The petitioner reiterated the petition contents in her chief examination. On the other hand, the respondent remained exparte. Hence, the testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and she deserved for her claim of dissolution of marriage.

5.In the result, this petition is allowed and marriage of petitioner and respondent 09.04.2012 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

VII Addl. District Judge,

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioner: For Respondent

P.W.1 : B. Jeevathi - Ex parte - 3

Documents marked:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Wedding card.

Ex.A2 : Marriage photo.

Ex.A3: Burnt hand photo of the petitioner which was sent by the respondent.

Ex.A4: C.D.Conversation between the petitionere and respondent.

For Respondent: – Ex parte -

VII ADJ, FAC, FCJ, Ongole.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ONGOLE.

Present: Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, M.A.,B.L.,

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

D..O.P.No.03/2015

Between:

Smt.B.Jeevitha w/o.B.Rajashekar, aged about 26 years, Occupation:Govt. Employee,

Resident of H.No.13-311, Ambedkar Nagar,

Bandlamudi village & mandal, Prakasam District. …... Petitioner

And

B. Rajashekar s/o.B.Ramaiah, aged about 27 years, Occupation: business,

Resident of H.No.10-28-315B, P.R.Colony,

Giddalur, Prakasam District. …... Respondent

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

Petition presented on : 08-12-2014

Petition filed on : 24-02-2015

A fixed Court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule II, Article 1(iii) of A.P.C.F. And S.V. Act.

This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri V.Venkateswarlu, Advocates for petitioner, and the respondent remained ex parte and upon perusal of material available on record this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE ORDER:

I)that the petition be and same is hereby allowed; ii)that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent

dated 09.04.2012 is hereby dissolved; and

iii)that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

VII Addl. District Judge

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

5

Table of costs:- -Nil-

VII ADJ, FAC, FC, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ONGOLE.

Present: Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, M.A.,B.L.,

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

D..O.P.No.03/2015

Between:

Smt.B.Jeevitha w/o.B.Rajashekar, aged about 26 years, Occupation:Govt. Employee,

Resident of H.No.13-311, Ambedkar Nagar,

Bandlamudi village & mandal, Prakasam District. …... Petitioner

And

B. Rajashekar s/o.B.Ramaiah, aged about 27 years, Occupation: business,

Resident of H.No.10-28-315B, P.R.Colony,

Giddalur, Prakasam District. …... Respondent

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce

Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing, and in the presence of Sri K.Anjaiah, Sri K.Babu Rao, Advocates for petitioner, and the respondent remained ex parte and upon perusal of material available on record this court delivered the following :- // O R D E R //

1.This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce

Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the Petitioner submited that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed on 09.04.2012 at Christian Assembly, Kurnool, Kurnool District. At the time of her marriage, the marriage expenses an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was incurred by the petitioner, besides giving an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cashas dowry to the respondent and other house hold articles as on the demand of the respondent and his mother.

(a) The petitioner further submitted that after consummation of the marriage the petitioner and the Respondent lived happily for 6 months only 2 at the matrimonial home and there after the respondent showing his true colors towards the petitioner by harassing physically and mentally in several ways and means with the active support of his mother and his relatives for demanding additional dowry from her parents house. The petitioner further submitted 15.05.2013 the respondent necked out the petitioner from the matrimonial house stating that the petitioner should not come to the matrimonial house at any cost and she should give divorce to the respondent otherwise they would see her end finally the petitioner and her sister informed harassment of the respondent before the caste elders and caste of the petiitoner visited the house of the resppondent and conducted Panchayat there after the elders found fault with the respondent and reprimanded the respondent to harass petitioner but the respondent and his mother did not change their attitude towards the petitioner and continued their harassment.

Hence she constrained to file this petition.

3. The respondent remained ex parte.

4.To substantiate the case of petitioner, she filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination. She filed the original wedding card, original marriage photo original Burnt hand photo of the petitioner and original C.D.

Conversation between the petitioner and respondent i.e., Exs.A1 to A4. The petitioner reiterated the petition contents in her chief examination. On the other hand, the respondent remained exparte. Hence, the testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and she deserved for her claim of dissolution of marriage.

5.In the result, this petition is allowed and marriage of petitioner and respondent 09.04.2012 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

VII Addl. District Judge,

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For petitioner: For Respondent

P.W.1 : B. Jeevathi - Ex parte - 3

Documents marked:

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1 : Wedding card.

Ex.A2 : Marriage photo.

Ex.A3: Burnt hand photo of the petitioner which was sent by the respondent.

Ex.A4: C.D.Conversation between the petitionere and respondent.

For Respondent: – Ex parte -

VII ADJ, FAC, FCJ, Ongole.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT ONGOLE.

Present: Smt.T.Ramani Krupavathi, M.A.,B.L.,

VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

Friday, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

D..O.P.No.03/2015

Between:

Smt.B.Jeevitha w/o.B.Rajashekar, aged about 26 years, Occupation:Govt. Employee,

Resident of H.No.13-311, Ambedkar Nagar,

Bandlamudi village & mandal, Prakasam District. …... Petitioner

And

B. Rajashekar s/o.B.Ramaiah, aged about 27 years, Occupation: business,

Resident of H.No.10-28-315B, P.R.Colony,

Giddalur, Prakasam District. …... Respondent

This is a petition filed under Section 10(1) (ix) & (x) of Indian Divorce Act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and for costs.

Petition presented on : 08-12-2014

Petition filed on : 24-02-2015

A fixed Court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Schedule II, Article 1(iii) of A.P.C.F. And S.V. Act.

This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing, in the presence of Sri V.Venkateswarlu, Advocates for petitioner, and the respondent remained ex parte and upon perusal of material available on record this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE ORDER:

I)that the petition be and same is hereby allowed; ii)that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent

dated 09.04.2012 is hereby dissolved; and

iii)that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 30th day of October, 2015.

VII Addl. District Judge

FAC: Judge, Family Court, Ongole.

5

Table of costs:- -Nil-

VII ADJ, FAC, FC, Ongole.