Ms Thiruchinapalli S P Bhargavi

Page No. l of 14

CC No. 194 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT: BICHKUNDA

Present: Ms. TSP. BHARGAVI, Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 CALENDAR CASE No.l94 of 2017

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Pedda

Kodapgal (Crime No.23 of 2017).

...Complainant

AND

Badavath Charan @ Badavath Charan Sing. S/o: Kishan Sing, Age: 30

Years, R/o: Mansing thanda of Wadlam Village of Peddakodapgal Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 22.11.2024 for final hearing in the

presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. A.

Vittal Rao, learned counsel for the accused having been heard both sides

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered

the following:

JUDGMEN T::

1. The Sub-lnspector of Police, Police Station, Pedda Kodapgal has filed

charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.23 of 2017 for the offence

punishable under sections 290 and 353 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.08.2017 at 12:30 hours.

the de-facto complainant went to police station and lodged a petition

mabad

NiLen Di, UNDA

Page No. 2 of 14

CC No. 194 of 2017

stating that from academic year starting i.e., June, 15 the de-facto

complainant is working as Vidhya Volunteer at MPPS Government School

of Mansingh thanda Hamlet of Wadlam Gram Panchayat of Peddakodapgal

Mandal. That on 03.08.2017, while the de-facto complainant was teaching the class to the students, accused came to the school and by keeping the previous issues in mind, abused her in filthy language and obstructed her

from discharging her duties. Hence, she requested to take necessary

action against the accused as per law.

3. Basing on the above report, Sub-lnspector of Police, Pedda Kodapgal police station/LW5 has registered case in crime no.23/2017 under sections 290 and 353 of IPC and took up investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, LW5 has examined and recorded the statement of the de-facto complainant/LW1. Later, LW5 has visited the Mansingh thanda of Wadlam Gram Panchayat of Peddakodapgal Mandal and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 4. Later the accused came to police station and he

voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and he was issued

notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the same is served on the accused with instructions to appear either before the police or before this Court as and when he is summoned. After completion of the investigation, LW5 has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 290 and 353 of IPC.

4. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections

Page No. 3 of 14 CC No. 194 of 2017 290 and 353 of IPC against the accused and numbered as CC No.194 of 2017.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offences under sections 290 and 353 of

IPC was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prOsecution has examined PWs.l to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 7. and P2. PW1 is the de-facto complainant. Pws.2 and 3 are the witnesses.

PW4 is the Investigation officer. The learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of LW3 who is the witness.

After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined 8. under section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P and the learned counsel for 9. the accused. Perused the record.

habat Now the point for consideration is:

10. Whether the prosecution has proved the gullt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences

CC No. 194 of 2017

Page No. 4 of 14 punishable under sections 290 and 353 of IPC?

11. POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that the de-facto complainant is working as Vidhya Volunteer at MPPS Government School of Mansingh thanda Hamlet of Wadlam Gram Panchayat of Peddakodapgal Mandal. That on 03.08.2017, while the de-facto complainant was teaching the class to the students, accused came to the school and by keeping the previous issues in mind, abused her in filthy language and obstructed her from

discharging her duties. Thereby, the accused has committed the offences

under sections 290 and 353 of IPC.

12. As stated supra, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.Pl and P2.

PWl who is the de-facto complainant deposed that on 3.08.2017 in

13.

between 11.00 AM to 12.00 noon while she was teaching in the school, the accused came and disturbed her class by saying that since she joined the

school, the children have became dull and also the strength of the children

is reduced and also abused in filthy language and also bet with chappal on

my back side and also abused in filthy language and also bet with chappal on her back side and also pulled her hair and bet her, due to which her

daughter aged 15 months whom she was carrying fell down, due to which

her daughter felt unconscious. That LW2/B. Anitha after listening to her

s hues, and cries came rushing from her house, which is situated at 250

CC No. 194 of 2017

Page No. S of 14 meters from the school and when she tried intervened, the accused pulled her Mangalasutra from her neck and she lost her Mangalasutra. That thereafter, she went to Police Station and lodged the complaint before the

Police.

PWl during her cross-examination deposed on the date of the 14. alleged incident she along with LW3/Urmilla were present there. That except both of them, nobody else were present. That PW3/Nirmala is related to her as daughter. That PW2 is her co-sister. That after the incident commenced, about 10 persons gathered including PW3. That proceedings will be issued for appointment as Vidya Volunteer. That she furnished to the Police her attendance certificate for the month of August 2017. That she has not furnished to the Police copy of proceedings appointing her as Vidya Volunteer. That she stated to the Police that

LW3/Urmila was also present at the time of the incident. That she stated to the Police that the accused beat her with slipper and also about beating her by holding her hair. That she stated to the Police that PW2 intervened and during that time her Mangalsutra is lost. She denied the suggestion that there are no disputes between herself and the accused since beginning and she adds that there are disputes between her husband and the accused. Further, she denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

PW2 who is the witness deposed that PW1 is her c0-sister. That

CC No.194 of 2017

Page No. 6of14 about one year ten months ago at about 11:00 AM, on hearing the hues and cries of daughter of PW1, she rushed to school, which is situated near

to her house and she observed that daughter of PWl was crying and also

observed that the accused has bet PWl with a chappal on her head and

also pulled her hair and bet her. That when she tried to intervene to rescue

PWi the accused pulled her Mangalsutra, which got broken and it was lost.

That thereafter, she along with PW1 went to police station and lodged the

complaint before the police. That she can identify the accused if seen as

he belongs to her village.

16. PW2 during her cross-examination deposed that PW1 is her co-sister.

That PW3 is the daughter of her junior aunt. That at the time of incident number of persons gathered. She admitted that police never examined her in this case. She further admitted that there are disputes between the accused and PW1 since beginning. Further, she denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

PW3 who is another witness deposed that about two years ago, 17.

during morning hours, she was at her house, which is situated at near to

Government School, on hearing cries of daughter of PW1, she rushed to the school and observed that PW1 and her daughter were crying and the

accused have bet PW1 with a chappal on her head and also pulled her hair

and bet her. That when she tried to intervene to rescue PWi the accused continued to beat PW1, further PW2 intervened and tried to rescue PW1

Page No. 7 of 14 CC No. 194 of 2017

the accused pulled her Mangalasutra, which got broken and it was lost.

That thereafter, she along with Pws.1 and 2 went to police station and

lodged the complaint before the police. That she can identify the accused

if seen as he is belongs to her village.

PW3 during his cross-examination deposed that Pws.l and 2 are her

18.

aunts. That at the time of incident about (10) persons gathered at the

scene of offence. That at the time of incident, she was not present at the

Scene of offence and was infront of her house. That the distance between

her house and scene of offence would be around 500 to 600 feet. That

Police examined her. That she stated to police the date, time and place of

incident. That incident occurred on 03.08.2017 at about 10:30 AM. That

she stated to police that accused beat PW1 with chappal. She admitted

that there are disputes between accused and PW1. Further, she denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

19. PW4 who is the investigation officer deposed that on 03.08.2017 at

12:30 hours, the de-facto complainant/PWl came to police station and

lodged a report before him, basing on which he has registered a case in

crime no.23/2017 and issued FIR for the offences under sections 290 and

353 of IPC against the accused. That during the course of investigation, he

examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Later, he visited Mansingh thanda of Wadlam GP of Peddakodapgal mandal, examined and recorded 176ES the statements of Pws.2 and 3 and LW3. Later, accused came to police

CC No. 194 of 201 7

Page No. 8 of 14 station and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and he issued notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C to accused. Basing on the evidence collected, after completion of his investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 290 and 353 of IPC.

20. PW4 during his cross-examination admitted that Pws.1 to 3 are relatives. That though there were eye-witnesses, but due to fear eye witnesses has not come forward to give evidence. That he collected

certificate from PW1 showing that she is working as Vidya Volunteer but he

has not filed the same before this Court. That he has not submitted

attendance certificate or register of PW1 before this court, showing that

she is working as Vidya Volunteer. That he has not mentioned about the previous grudges of accused in the charge sheet. Further, he denied all the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the accused.

21. PW1 during her cross-examination deposed that there are disputes

between her husband and the accused. Further, PW2 during her cross

examination admitted that there are disputes between the accused and

PWi since beginning. PW3 during her cross-examination admitted that there are disputes between accused and PW1. Thus, it is evident that

there are previous disputes between PW1 and the accused. PWs.l and 2

admitted that they are co-sisters. PWl deposed that PW3 is related to her

as daughter. PW2 deposed that PW3 is the daughter of her junior aunt.

Page No. 9 of 14

CC No. 194 of 2017

PW3 deposed that PWs.1 and 2 are her aunts. PW4 who is the investigation officer during his cross-examination admitted that PWs.1 to 3 are relatives. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is to be weighed with due care and caution.

22. On perusal of Ex.Pl/complaint, PW1 stated that accused abused her in filthy language by keeping previous issues in mind and obstructed her from discharging her duties. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, she deposed that accused abused her in filthy language and also bet with chappal on her back side and also pulled her hair and bet her, due to which her daughter aged 15 months whom she was carrying fell down, due to which her daughter felt unconscious. Thus, it is clear that PW1 has deposed only about the beating with chappal and about the presence of her child only before this court, which creates suspicion about the evidence of PW1.

23. PW1 deposed that PW2 came rushing from her house, after listening to the hues and cries of PW1. PW2 who is the co-sister of PW1 deposed that on hearing the hues and cries of daughter of PW1, she rushed to the

School and she observed that daughter of PVW1 was crying and also observed that accused has bet PW1 with a chappal on her head and also pulled her hair and bet her. PW2 did not depose anything about the falling down and losing consciousness of the daughter of PW1. It is surprising to note as to for how long the alleged incident took place for PW2 to reach

Page No. 10 of 14

CC No.194 of 2017

the scene of of offence and witness the alleged incident. It is the case of

PW1, that when she was teaching in the school, accused came and committed the alleged offence. But none of the school staff, teachers, headmaster or the class students are cited as witnesses in this case.

Further, PW1 has not stated about the witnessing of the alleged incident by anyone except PW2 who is her co-sister.

24. PWl during her cross-examination deposed that on the date of the

alleged incident she along with LW3 (Urmila) were present there. That

except both of them, nobody else were present. The evidence of

LW3/Urmila who is stated to be the eye-witness by PW1 is given up by the learned APP.

25. Both PWs.1 and 2 deposed that when PW2 tried to intervene, accused pulled her Mangalsutra from her neck, which got broken and was lost. This incident is not mentioned by PW1 in her complaint/Ex.Pl and is deposed by PWs.1 and 2 who are co-sisters, only before this court, which raises suspicion in the evidence of PWs.l and 2.

26. In this case, accused is alleged to have committed the offence under section 353 IPC. Section 353 of IPC provides that "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from his discharging his duty as such public servant, or in i1consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in

VWOA,

Page No. Il of 14

CC No. 194 of 201 7

the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished

with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

27. It is the evidence of PW1 that she worked as Vidya Volunteer at

MPPS, Government School of Mansingh Thanda at Peddakodapgal and that while she was teaching in the school, accused came there, disturbed her class, committed the alleged offence and obstructed her from discharging her duties. PW1 during her cross-examination deposed that proceedings will be issued for appointment as Vidya Volunteer and she has not furnished to the Police copy of proceedings appointing her as Vidya

Volunteer. That she furnished to the Police, her attendance certificate for the month of August 2017. Whereas, PW4 during his cross-examination deposed that he collected certificate from PW1 showing that she is

working as Vidya Volunteer but he has not filed the same before this Court.

He further deposed that he has not submitted attendance certificate or register of PW1 before this Court, showing that she is working as Vidya

Volunteer.

28. PW1 during her cross-examination deposed that after the incident commenced, about 10 persons gathered including PW3. PW2 during her cross-examination deposed that at the time of incident number of persons gathered. PW3 during her cross-examination deposed that at the time of

ncident, about (10) persons gathered at the scene of offence. PW4 who is

D Niza

CC No.194 of 2017

Page No. 12 of 14 the investigation officer during his cross-examination deposed that though there were eye-witnesses but due to fear, eve-witnesses did not come forward to give evidence.

29. PW2 during her cross-examination admitted that Police never

examined her in this case. PW3 during her cross-examination deposed that

at the time of incident, she was not present at the scene of offence and was in-front of her house. Neither, PWs.1 and 2 depOsed about the intervention of PW3 to rescue PWi, but PW3 deposed that she tried to intervene to rescue PW1. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.l to 3, it is

crystal clear that their evidence is not corroborating with Ex.Pl/Complaint

and there are many contradictions and improvements in their evidence,

which creates reasonable suspicion in the case of prosecution.

30. On perusal of the evidence on record, PWs.1 to 3 who are the family members altogether created a different version from the Ex.Pl/complaint lodged by PW1. Moreover, there are no independent eye-witnesses in this case. Further, PWs.1 to 3 admitted that there are previous disputes between PW1 and accused.

31. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 290 and 353 of IPC and thereby, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in

IMOtavour of the accused and against the prosecution.

Page No. 13 of 14 CC No. 194 of 2017

32. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 290 and 353 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences under sections 290 and 353 of

IPC. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of November, 2024.

Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

FAC: JH0pnivie

Judicial Mag enaNGst Class,

BIchkunda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1- P. Vijaya None PW2 - B. Anitha PW3- B. Nirmala PW4 -M. Naveen Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.Pl - is the complaint. Ex.P2 - is the FIR.

FOR THE DEFENCE: Nil - J

Dt. Niza

Page No. 14 of 14

CC No. 194 of 2017

MATERIAL OBIECTS MARKED: - Nil -

Junior Ciyif <udge-cum

Judiciuagroteclass,

DRGMIUDA.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum D

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM SPL. JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE) KAMAREDDY

Present:- Kum. G. Harika, Junior Civil Judge-cum-JFCM Yellareddy FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Mobile), Kamareddy.

this the 22 nd day of June, 2023

DVC.No. 08 of 2021

Between:-

1. Adulabad Venkata Laxmi W/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 27 years, Occ; Housewife,

2. Adulabad Vihan Chary S/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 03 years,

3. Adulabad Krithik Chary S/o Adulabad Machandra Chary, aged: 1 ½ years, (The aggrieved persons No.2 & 3 are minors under the guardianship of their natural mother and next friend i.e., aggrieved person No.1) All are R/o H.No. 8-3-234/87/29, L.N. Nagar, Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad, presently residing at H.No. 9-83/3, old Bibipet Road, Domakonda village and Mandal, Kamareddy District.

... Aggrieved persons

And

1. Adulabad Machandra Chary, S/o A. Shankara Chary, aged: 35 years, Occ; Asst. Manager in Green Honda Car Showroom, Nagole,

2. Adulabad Shankara Chary, S/o Late A. Balachary, aged: 65 years, Occ; Goldsmith,

3. Adulabad Lalitha W/o A. Shankara Chary, aged: 58 years, Occ; Housewife,

4. Adulabad Manasa W/o Late Balraju Chary, aged: 37 years, Occ;Household. All R/o H.No. 8-3-234/87/29, L.N. Nagar, Yousuf Guda, Hyderabad.

..Respondent No.1 to 4

This case coming on 22-06-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.R.B. Ramesh Chand, advocate for petitioner/aggrieved person and of respondent remained absent set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed under section 12 of Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 to grant several reliefs under this act.

2. Notice given to the other side. Notice sufficiently served on the respondent number 1 to 4. Respondent number 1 to 4 were called present on 31.3.2021 and Learned Advocate Sri M Venkat RamReddy filed Vakalath for respondent number 1 to 4. But no counter was filed on behalf of respondent number 1 to 4 in spite of several adjournments. As such, the respondents were set ex parte on 22.9.22.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that: petitioner No 1 is the wife of the respondent number 1 . Respondent number 2 & 3 are the parents of respondent number 1 . The respondent number 4 is the wife of brother of respondent number 1 .

4. The marriage of the petitioner with the 1st respondent took place at JS Function Hall, Domakonda on 17.5.2017 as per their religion and customs prevailed in their community and the same was consummated and still subsisting legally. At the time of marriage, on demand of Respondents, the parents of petitioner number 1 presented dowry of Rs.5 lakhs net cash, 13 thulas of gold, 20 thulas of silver ornaments and other household articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

5. The marriage is consummated between 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent and during the wedlock 2nd petitioner and 3rd petitioner were born to them.

6. After One year from the date of marriage , the respondents started harassing the petitioner number for demand of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and used to abuse her very frequently. The respondent number 1 habituated for bad habits and used to consume liquor entire day and night and after consuming liquor, he harassed the aggrieved person for demand of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs at the instigation of other respondents and abused her, beat her several times and the petitioner number 1 reported the matter to her parents and they visited the house of respondents and requested them not to harass her for demand of

additional dowry and to lead happy life but the

respondents continued their harassment.

7. While petitioner number 1 was carrying second pregnancy, all the respondents abused her and demanded her for want of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and beat on her womb mercilessly and necked out petitioner No 1 from their house by snatching all the gold and silver ornaments and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and helplessly with great difficulty, petitioner number 1 reached to her parents house and informed the same to them. Then her parents and caste elders visited the house of respondents and paid an amount of Rs.1,00,00/- as additional dowry and requested all the respondents not to harass the petitioner number 1 for

additional dowry in future and accordingly petitioner

number 1 joined the company of respondents . Thereafter petitioner number one and respondent number one lived happily for a period of one month and thereafter again all the respondents intensified their harassment and demanded petitioner number one for want of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents and respondant number 4 along with other family members also used to abuse petitioner number one in most filthy language on each and every petty matter and not provided any proper food to petitioner number 1 to 3 and not taken proper welfare to them and all the respondents made petitioner number one as servant in the house and not allowed her to talk with her parents and beat her mercilessly . The respondent No 1 used to chat with several girls and when petitioner number one questioned about his ill activities, he used to abuse and beat her mercilessly. In the month of June, 2020 with the instigation of all the respondents, the respondent number one abused petitioner number one in most filthy language and demanded for want of

additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from her parents and neck

her out of his house and helplessly the petitioner number one reached to her parents house at Domakonda along with petitioner number 2 and 3.

8. Due to harassment and illegal acts of respondents, the petitioner number one approached the police Domakonda and gave report against the respondents and the said police registered a case and issued a FIR in crime number 15 of 2021 under section 498 A , 323, 290 of IPC, section 4 of DP act and the same is pending before Honourable JFCM court, Kamareddy. The petitioner number one and her parents several times approached the respondent to take her back into his company but the respondents had not changed their habits and refused the same. Due to continuous harassment by the respondents, the petitioner number one fell sick and suffered and she is unable to attend any work to earn and as such she is having no source of income to maintain herself and her minor children and she’s leading a miserable life on the mercy of her parents.

9. The petitioner further contended that the Respondent number 1 is working as assistant manager in Green

Honda car showroom at Nagole and is getting a salary of

Rs.50,000/- per month and he’s also having residential houses at LN Nagar on which he is getting monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- and the respondent number two is also working as Goldsmith and is getting monthly income of Rs.40,000/- and that the respondents are having sufficient source of income to maintain herself and her children but that the respondents intentionally, wilfully neglected her and failed to provide any separate maintenance to them and that the respondents are liable to pay maintenance.

10. Hence the petitioner number 1 filed this petition to pass an order against the respondent No 1 to direct the respondent number 1 not to commit any act of domestic violence against petitioner number 1 and to direct the respondent number 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to petitioner number one and Rs.10,000/- per month each to petitioner number 2,3 and to direct the respondent number 1 to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for causing mental and physical torture and for harassing her and also to direct the respondent number 1 to pay Rs.30,000/- towards legal expenses and to restrain respondent number one from causing any violence to aggrieved persons and her relatives and to pass order for implementation of order through concerned SHO and to restrain respondent number one from alienating immovable properties.

11. On the other hand, as already seen, the respondents were set ex parte by this court.

12. The 1st petitioner has filed her chief examination affidavit and was examined as PW1. Ex A1 to A3 are marked on her behalf.

13. Now, the point for determination:

1. Whether the petitioner was subjected to

Domestic Violence in the hands of respondants?

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

3. To what relief ?

Point 1:

14. The PW1 deposed in her chief examination by reiterating the above mentioned averments.PW1 prays this Hon’ble court to grant several reliefs under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

15. Heard and Perused the entire record.

16. On cumulative perusal of material on record ,it is seen that the respondent No 1 along with his family members ie., R2 to R4 harassed the petitioner No 1 both mentally and physically and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,00/- from her parents and he did not change his attitude and continued to harass the petitioner No 1 at the instigation of his family and abused petitioner No 1 in most filthy language and beat the petitioner No 1 several times and at the time of second pregnancy of petitioner number one, the respondent beat her mercilessly on her womb and the respondent drove the petitioner number one out of their house several times and the parents and the elders of petitioner number one went to the house of respondents and requested to take back the petitioner number one into their company. The respondents drove the petitioner No 1 away from their house finally in the month of October, 2020 and since then petitioner No 1 along with her minor children ie., petitioner No 2,3 are residing at the residence of parents of petitioner no 1. The parents of petitioner No 1 also conducted panchayath at their village in the presence of elders and advised respondants not to harass the petitioner No 1 but the respondants did not heed to the advice of the elders.

17. As already seen from the record, the respondants remained exparte and did not contest the case. There is no ground seen to disbelieve the testimony of the PW1 . Hence this court is inclined to accept the case of the petitioners.

18. Now the question that arises is “ whether the acts of the Respondants as stated in the petition would constitute the offence of Domestic Violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

19. To understand the same, let us analyse Section 3 of Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.

20. Section 3. Definition of domestic violence - Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it—

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

21. The petitioner in the petition clearly stated that the respondent beat her several times and that he harassed the petitioner No 1 for want of additional dowry of Rs 2,00,000/- from her parents. Further the respondent at the instigation of his family members beat the petitioner number 1 to bring the additional dowry of Rs 2,00,000/- from her parents. The respondents necked out petitioner No 1 from their house and did not allow her into the house as she did not fulfill their demand of additional dowry of Rs 2,00,00/-. Since then the petitioner along with her children ie., petitioner No 2 to petitioner No 3 are residing at the residence of her parents. It appears that the respondent have not taken any step to bring back the petitioners into his society. As per the section 3 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act ,2005 , all the above acts of the Respondents constitutes the offence of Domestic Violence. Hence it is held that the petitioner No 1 was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents. I answered the point accordingly.

22. Point 2: Whether the petitioners are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ? As petitioner number 1 sufficiently established that the respondents caused domestic violence against her, the petitioners are entitled to the relief under protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005.

23. The first relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondent number 1 not to commit any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person. As the petitioner was able to prove that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents , She is entitled to this relief. Hence the first relief is allowed. The respondents shall not commit any act of Domestic Violence against the aggrieved person herein after.

24. The second relief sought by the petitioner is to pass an order against respondent number 1 for paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.10,000/- each to petitioner number 2,3 per month from the date of this application towards their maintenance. According to section 20 of protection of women from domestic violence act, the magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and loss suffered by aggrieved person which may include loss of earnings, medical expenses, maintenance for aggrieved person. The overall evidence clearly shows that due to domestic violence and harassment of the respondents, the petitioner left the society of the respondent and residing at her parents house along with petitioner number 2,3 . There is a clear negligence on part of the respondent number 1 to maintain petitioners. It is the bounded duty of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. The petitioner No 1 contended that Respondent number 1 is working as assistant manager in Green

Honda car showroom at Nagole and is getting a salary of

Rs.50,000/- per month and that he’s also having residential houses at LN Nagar on which he is getting monthly rent of Rs.50,000/- and that the respondent number two is also working as Goldsmith and is getting monthly income of Rs.40,000/- and that the respondents are having sufficient source of income to maintain them . However ,there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent. Hence,considering all the factors, a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to petitioner number 1 and Rs 2,000/- per month each to petitioner number 2,3 is ordered to be paid by the first respondent from the date of this petition. Hence the second relief sought is partly allowed.

25. The third relief is to direct respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the first petitioner for causing mental agony and physical torture to her. The petitioner is seeking Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony and emotional distress caused by the respondent number 1 by the acts of domestic violence. But, the court cannot come to the conclusion in the compensatory orders as there is no documentary evidence placed before this court showing that the first respondent is having capacity to pay the compensation as sought by the petitioners. Hence the compensation sought by the petitioners are rejected by this court.

26. The fourth relief is to order the respondent number 1 to pay an amount of Rs.30,000 towards cost of this proceedings. but there is no documentary evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the respondent number 1 . However , an amount of Rs.5,000/- is directed to be paid by the respondent number 1 to the petitioner towards the cost of this proceeding.

27. The last relief sought by petitioner is to restrain the respondent number 1 from alienating the immovable properties. But there is no available documentary evidence with regard to the property of the respondent number 1 . There is no single clue with regard to the properties existing in the name of the respondent number

1. Hence the court cannot order for the this relief sought . Hence, this relief is rejected. Accordingly, the second point is answered.

28. Point 3: To what relief ? The respondent number 1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No 1, Rs 2,000/- each to petitioner number 2,3 from the date of filing this petition. The arrears of maintenance amount shall be paid within six months from the date of this order by respondent number 1 to the petitioner number 1. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay monthly maintenance amount to petitioners on or before 10th of every calendar month .

29. Further, respondent number 1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner number 1 towards cost of the proceedings within six months.

30. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner 1, Rs 2,000/- each to petitioner No 2,3 commencing from the date of filing of this petition. The respondent is further directed to deposit the arrears of monthly maintenance amount till this date within 6 months from the date of this order . The respondent No 1 shall also deposit the regular monthly maintenance amount on or before 10 th of every calendar month to petitioner No 1. Further, respondent number 1 shall pay Rs.5000/- to the petitioner number 1 towards the cost of the proceedings within six months. Other reliefs are dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand cancelled.

31. Any breach by the respondents under the act will be held liable for punishment under section 31 of the act.

32. Concerned SHO is directed to assist in implementing the above orders without any delay, if any request is made by the petitioner in this regard.

33. The office is directed to forward copy of the order to concerned SHO for implementation, if any, at their end.

34. Surve copy of this order to the parties free of cost under section 24 of the act.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 22 nd day of June, 2023.

FAC : Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Spl(Mobile)Court,

Kamareddy.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioner For Respondents

PW1Adulabad Venkata Laxmi -None- Exhibits marked

For Petitioner For Respondents

Ex.A1Original marriage photographs (3)-Nil - to Ex.A3

FAC: Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Spl(Mobile)Court,

Kamareddy.

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BICHKUNDA.

Present: Kum. T.S.P. Bhargavi, Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada. FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bichkunda.

DVC No. 11 of 2023

Between: Angura Bai W/o Venkat Chahwan, Age: 29 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Gogla 1) Thanda, Manur village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra Strate (Present she residing at her parents' house at Vittalwadi village, Pedda Kodapgal Mandal, Kamareddy District.

Kum. Ashwini Chawhan D/o Venkat Chahwan, Age: 09 years, Occ: Minor, R/o: Gogla 2) Thanda, Manur village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra Strate (Present she residing at her parents' house at Vittalwadi village, Pedda Kodapgal Mandal, Kamareddy District. (The petitioner No.2 herein minor of age her natural mother has representing on behalf of the petitioner No.2).

Kum. Amrutha Chawhan D/o Venkat Chahwan, Age: 07 years, Occ: Minor, R/o: Gogla

3)

Thanda, Manur village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra Strate

(Present she residing at under custody of her Mother at Vittalwadi village, Pedda

Kodapgal Mandal, Kamareddy District. Gogla Thanda, Manur village of Deloor

Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra Strate (Present she residing at under

custody of her Mother at Vittalwadi Village Pedda Kodapgal Mandal, Kamareddy

District).

4) Mr. Vikas Chawhan S/o Venkat Chahwan, Age: 03 years, Occ: Minor, R/o: Gogla Thanda, Manur village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra Strate. (Present he residing at under custody of his Mother at Vittalwadi village, Pedda Kodapgal Mandal, Kamareddy District.

.Aggrieved persons No.1 to 4.

Sri. Venkat Chahwan S/o Maruthi Chahwan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o

1. Gogla Thanda, Manur Village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra State.

2 Sri. Maruthi Chahwan S/o Gogla Chahwan, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gogla Thanda, Manur Village of Deloor Taluqa, Nanded District, Maharastra State.

Mangli Bai W/o Maruthi Chahwan, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gogla

ada, Manur Village of Deloor Taluqa, Nanded District, Maharastra State.

2emab

Sri. Kashiram Chahwan S/o Gogla Chahwan, Age: S8 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o1

4. Gogla Thanda, Manur Village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra State.

5. Smt. Meera Bai W/o Kashiram Chahwan, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/T Gogla

Thanda, Manur Village of Deloor Taluga, Nanded District, Maharastra State.

...Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER Dated: 18-10-2024.

Both parties are called present. Sri. G. Malleshwar Advocate filed vakalath for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Both learned counsels are called present. Both parties reported that they willfully and voluntarily settled the matter out of Court and prayed to refer this case to lok adalath. Hence, this case is referred to Lok Adalath for passing of Award.

Both parties are called present. Both learned counsels are called present. Both

parties reported that they willfully and voluntarily settled the matter out of Court and they filed memo of terms of compromise and the same shall be part and parcel of the Award. Compromise is recorded. In view of the terms of the compromise, the Award is

passed. Accordingly, this case is settled before Lok Adalath

Junior Civ Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Basnwada.

J iihiist Class,

1. Nizemd9

BikUhda.