Bangalore District Court
Isabel Paulachan vs Ajun O Joseph on 16 April, 2026
KABC080015672021
Presented on : 06-07-2021
Registered on : 06-07-2021
Decided on : 16-04-2026
Duration : 4 years, 9 months, 10 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2026.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.66/2021
Petitioner : Smt.Isabel Paulachan,
W/o Ajun O Joseph
R/at No.3, Green Villa,
Samruddhi Layout,
Bellahalli Cross,
Kogilu, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Rep. By Sri/Smt.R.G. Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent : Mr.Ajun O Joseph
S/o. Joseph Thomas O,
R/at No.10/292 A,
Thomsons House,
2
Crl.Misc.66/2021
Mavoor P.O.
Kozhikode,
Kerala - 673 661.
Rep. By Sri/Smt.L.V.L. Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under; The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 28.12.2019. Further she submitted that, all the expenses of the engagement were borne by petitioner's family and marriage expenses by respondent's family. After the marriage both the petitioner and respondent were living together in a rented apartment at Vedha Nilaya, New Thiappasandra, Bangalore and within a month after marriage the respondent started demanding Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner. When petitioner hesitated to give that amount the respondent became very violent and started to abuse her both physically and mentally. Further she submitted that, she is an Engineer and working with Accenture as an application development 3 Crl.Misc.66/2021 analyst in Bangalore and respondent is an Engineer and he is working with Oracle as senior QA in Bangalore.
3. Further she submitted that, respondent started demanding to change the nominee of petitioner's fixed deposit money from the petitioner's mother's name to the respondent's name and harassing the petitioner by finding fault with everything she does. A sum of Rs.1 lakh has been transferred in multiple instances in March, May June to his account for PPF investment. In February 2nd week her parents have invited the newly wedded couple for a church function for that respondent suddenly became violent unexpectedly without any provocation and he started abusing petitioner's father in vulgar language for no reason and did not allow the petitioner also to go for the feast.
4. Petitioner further submitted that, respondent often used to pick fights with her saying that the locker in the bank in which her jewelry and other valuables were kept was not issued in his name and would even try to abuse and threaten the petitioner. Further she submitted that, the respondent did not allow the petitioner to visit her parents even on festivals and other customary events, even though they were staying in the 4 Crl.Misc.66/2021 same city in Bangalore. On December 24 th 2020 when petitioner wanted to visit her parents on the Christmas the respondent bluntly refused her to visit her parents and on the next day on December 25th took her to the respondent's home town in Kerala. The respondent is a very short tempered person, he would often bang on the table and wall and habitually burst out of extreme anger and used to abuse the petitioner and her whole family.
5. Petitioner has submitted that, the respondent on 13.06.2020, was adamant on traveling alone to Kerala during the height of Covid 19 pandemic lock downs amid interstate travel restrictions. The petitioner and her father tried to reason with the respondent and the petitioner and petitioner's father was abused and manhandled and this led to a constant sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of the petitioner.
6. Further she submitted that, on 16.12.2020 there was an argument regarding a picnic trip and suddenly the respondent became very violent and caught the petitioner by the neck and choked her so severely that the petitioner could not even breath for some time. The respondent was telling the petitioner multiple times that the respondent could have married another woman with 5 Crl.Misc.66/2021 a lot of dowry and that woman is still waiting for him to divorce. That in the month of February 2021 the respondent punched on the petitioner's face in another bout of anger and the petitioner was lucky to have a narrow escape by managing to dodge the blows. Petitioner never told all these physical and emotional abuses to her parents until March 2021. After petitioner's parents came to know about the ill treatment by the respondent, her father called the respondent to enquire about the truth, he just laughed at it and ridiculed the petitioner about it and also called the petitioner a liar. From that day on March 2021 till today the respondent showed no interest to communicating with the petitioner and has hardly communicated with the petitioner only once or twice and that too he was asking the petitioner for divorce. The petitioner had requested the respondent to allow her to take her personal belongings from their apartment and finally she was allowed to take the belongings in the presence of the guard. On 02.04.2021 the respondent vacated the apartment they were staying together and abandoned the petitioner without even informing the petitioner. Further she submitted that, she was forced to spend almost all her salaries on rent and other household expenses even though the respondent was earning more 6 Crl.Misc.66/2021 than the petitioner. The respondent has completely ruined the petitioner's hopes of leading a marital life by constant harassing, abusing and threats of assault. Hence, this petition.
7. After the service of notice, respondent appeared before this court through his counsel and filed statement of objection and in the statement of objection he has admitted marriage relationship with the petitioner. Further he denied all the other allegations against him. He has stated that, he never demanded dowry from the petitioner. Further he submitted that, he never caused domestic violence against the petitioner. On all these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
8. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 15. The respondent has examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 6.
9. Heard arguments on both sides.
10. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
7Crl.Misc.66/2021
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
11. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. POINT No.1 : In a domestic violence case the petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship between herself and respondent, she was residing with the respondent in a shared household, the domestic violence was caused by the respondent upon her and she is entitle for the relief sought by her.
13. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that the petitioner and the respondent are in domestic 8 Crl.Misc.66/2021 relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent resided together till the date of separation. Hence they have resided together in a shared household. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
14. In order to prove that, the respondent has committed domestic violence, the petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the contents of her petition. She has produced Ex.P.1 to 15 documents in support of her contentions.
15. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, respondent was money minded from the time of marriage and he started demanding Rs.1 lakhs from within one month of the marriage and he became violent and started to abuse her both physically and mentally when she refused. Respondent has denied the said allegation and submitted that, after marriage respondent took a rented flat at New Thippasandra for monthly rent of Rs.30,500/-, Rs.1,50,000/- as security deposit and Rs.30,000/- brokerage. He has contended that, though he made the entire payment towards security deposit petitioner voluntarily wanted to contribute towards the 9 Crl.Misc.66/2021 expenses related to setting up the new house and she deposited Rs.1 lakh to respondent in multiple installments completely voluntarily to the bank account of respondent which now she is claiming as dowry. Petitioner in order to prove her contention has submitted her bank account statement marked as Ex.P.5 which shows various amounts transferred by the petitioner to the account of the respondent throughout their marital life including certain amount which are marked as rent. The bank account statements reveals that petitioner has sent Rs.50,000/- to respondent's account on 14.05.2020 which is marked as PPF and Rs.40,000/- on 01.06.2020 which is also marked as PPF and she has sent Rs.5,000/- to respondent's account on 28.03.2020 which is also marked as PPF. These transactions are admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination dated 29.11.2024. It is also admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination dated 29.11.2024 that, her father who is a Tax consultant was helping respondent with respect to his tax as per Ex.P.3. The relevant portion marked as Ex.R.1 reveals that the father of the petitioner has stated that, there is a gap for investing Rs.1 lakh in either PPF or NSC etc., which can save the respondent Rs.20,800/- as tax. The said conversation is dated 23.01.2020. It appears that after the said conversation 10 Crl.Misc.66/2021 petitioner has sent various amounts to respondent which are marked as PPF. This probabalizes that the contention of the respondent that the said amount was voluntarily sent by the petitioner and it was not demanded by him as dowry. Moreover, petitioner has not given any details as to when, where respondent started demanding for dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Hence, her allegations also lack details. Therefore, petitioner is unable to prove that respondent demanded Rs.1 lakh dowry soon after marriage and he was getting violent and abusive towards her when she did not meet the said demand.
16. Petitioner has further alleged that, respondent started demanding her to change the nominee of her fixed deposit from her name to respondent's name and he was harassing her because locker which held petitioner's jewellery was not issued in his name and when she refused, finding fault with everything she does. Respondent in his statement of objection has denied this allegation and he has submitted that, the bank locker was opened in the month of March 2020 by the respondent and petitioner in Vijaya Bank, Indira Nagar branch and if the respondent had any intention as alleged by the petitioner he could have either opened a 11 Crl.Misc.66/2021 joint locker with the petitioner or could have opened a locker in his own name. Further respondent kept the gold ornaments received by him as wedding gift from his loved ones in the same locker based on the trust held by him for petitioner even though she was the only one who could operate the locker. He has submitted that, even the gold chain gifted by petitioner on wedding day was also handed over to petitioner's parents when petitioner and respondent returned to Bangalore after marriage ceremony in Kerala and he was never informed about what they had done with the gold chain. It is further submitted by respondent that, he is aware of the fact that a nominee does not create any legal ownership towards funds kept in petitioner's name and if at all he had an intention to get an easy access to the FD funds of the petitioner then he would have demanded her to convert the FD into a joint account but he has never done so. Further he is not aware of which bank and the exact amount petitioner had invested in the fixed deposit and he never enquired about the same since it was petitioner's personal investment.
17. In this regard petitioner has been cross examined and in her cross examination dated 29.11.2024 she has admitted that, the said locker was 12 Crl.Misc.66/2021 opened after marriage and respondent was present with her when she opened the locker. To the suggestion that, respondent and herself could have opened a joint locker since respondent was present with her at the time of opening the locker she has stated that, respondent tried to open a joint locker but he could not because he did not have an account in Vijaya Bank. She has stated that, she has kept the jewellery that her parents gave her in the locker. She has further stated that, she does not remember if she kept the wedding gifts of the respondent in the locker. Thus from her statements in the cross examination it can be inferred that respondent had an opportunity to open a joint locker if he wished by to opening a new bank account but he did not do so out of choice. Further it is also proved that, petitioner is the only one who can operate the locker. Therefore, the question of respondent torturing her for not opening the bank locker in his name does not arise. Further she has alleged that, respondent wanted her to change the FD nomination to his name and he has tortured her in this regard. In her cross examination she has admitted that, nominee cannot operate FD account or locker during her lifetime. When this position of law is clear it is not probable that respondent would insist the petitioner to change the nomination of petitioner's FD account to his 13 Crl.Misc.66/2021 name from petitioner's mother's name. Here it is also pertinent to note that, petitioner has submitted certain phone conversations marked as Ex.P.11 and WhatsApp conversation marked as Ex.P.10 which are contemporaneous documents and in the said WhatsApp conversation and phone conversation petitioner has not mentioned even once about respondent asking her to change the FD nomination and get joint locker. If at all the respondent was torturing her for the same she would have definitely mentioned about it in the WhatsApp conversation marked as Ex.P.10 or phone conversation marked as Ex.P.11. Respondent in his cross examination was also questioned about the FD amount and the locker but he has denied the suggestions put forth made by petitioner counsel. He has clearly stated that, he did not have an intention for asking for joint locker when petitioner and himself approached the bank for opening a locker and this statement of respondent in his cross examination is not denied by petitioner counsel. Although, in respondent's cross examination it is elicited that, he was aware that the petitioner's father had made a fixed deposit of Rs.30 lakhs in her name and he got to know that the nominee for the FD account was her mother when they were went to open a locker in the same bank these statements would not adversely affect 14 Crl.Misc.66/2021 the contention of the respondent as change of nominee would not make a difference to the petitioner's exclusive right to hold and operate FD and locker.
18. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, respondent did not allow her to visit her parents even on festivals and other customary events even though they were staying in the same city in Bangalore. She has alleged that , on 24.12.2020 when petitioner wanted to visit her parents on Christmas the respondent bluntly refused to allow her visit to her parents and on the next day i.e., 25.12.2020 he took her to his home town in Kerala. She has further alleged that, respondent always found some sadistic pleasure in ensuring that petitioner will not find any happiness even by talking to her parents through phone calls. She has alleged that, respondent never liked petitioner contacting her family and bluntly stated that he does not like the petitioner's parents. She has alleged that, respondent was a very short tempered person and he would bang on the table and wall and habitually burst out of extreme anger and used to abuse petitioner and her family with choicest expletives and even she did not respond he used to abuse and threaten with severe beatings. This abusive acts has created fear in the mind of the petitioner. She has also 15 Crl.Misc.66/2021 alleged that, respondent abused her father when he cautioned the respondent against travelling during height of Covid on 13.06.2020
19. In support of her contentions petitioner has submitted Ex.P.11 and 12 phone conversation between herself and respondent's sister wherein petitioner has told the respondent's sister that respondent was not allowing her to talk to her parents and he was using abusive words towards her parents. In response respondent's sister has stated that she is aware that respondent talks like that. Further petitioner has also submitted phone conversation dated 14.04.2021 between herself and respondent (page No.20) of Ex.P.12 wherein respondent has used highly abusive words towards petitioner's parents which is marked in Ex.P.12 series. She has also submitted Ex.P.4 photographs of petitioner's parents celebrating respondent's birth day, celebrating Onam at petitioner's house.
20. Respondent has denied these allegations and he has stated that, petitioner's parents were guiding her for each and every silly things in her day to day life and she was a puppet in the hands of her parents and not ready to listen to anything other than her parents 16 Crl.Misc.66/2021 opinion. He has alleged that, petitioner was leading her life even in the bedroom as per her parents opinion. He has alleged that, he had to take permission from her parents for each and everything related to her. He has alleged that, her parents did not shower any love or respect on him as a son in law and he was treated very badly by her family. He has alleged that, petitioner would inform her parents about things that he would have discussed with her in private and her parents would come to the flat where petitioner and respondent were staying and make big issue asking for divorce. The usual patterns were followed by petitioner's parents and the result was quarrels and dislikes. He has alleged that, petitioner and her father always insisted that respondent should transfer his parental home from his mother's name to his name and since respondent was not ready to discuss this matter with his parents, petitioner and her family were quarrel some with him about it.
21. Petitioner has been cross examined by counsel for the respondent in light of the allegations made by the petitioner wherein petitioner has stated that she has visited her parents house only 2 to 3 times between January to March 2020 and her parents have visited her house one or two times during her entire stay 17 Crl.Misc.66/2021 in the matrimonial house. Respondent counsel has contended that, photographs submitted by the respondent marked as Ex.R.5 series would show that her parents have visited her house and she has visited her parents house multiple times. Further to prove the contention that petitioner would refuse to accompany the respondent to his home town it is elicited from the petitioner in the cross examination dated 09.08.2024 that respondent would call her to his hometown in such a way that she should refuse to go along with him. Petitioner in her cross examination has denied that, respondent called her to join him in Kerala since both of them were having work from home option but she refused to go along with him. She has stated that, she and respondent have celebrated Easter in 2020 at their rented house and celebrated her birthday and respondent's birth day in March 2020 at their rented house and her parents came to her rented house to wish the respondent on his birthday. She has admitted that, they celebrated Onam in her parents house in 2020 and Christmas in respondent's house in 2020. Even Ex.P.4 photographs reveal that respondent's birthday was celebrated in the rented house and petitioner's parents had visited her rented house and Onam was celebrated in petitioner's parents house. Petitioner has submitted 18 Crl.Misc.66/2021 Ex.P.12 phone conversation dated 14.04.2021 wherein respondent has used highly abusive words towards her parents which clearly proves that respondent was not respectful towards her parents. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that respondent was always using highly abusive words towards her and her parents. Ex.P.12/phone conversation dated 14.04.2021 provides a glimpse of the behavior of respondent towards her parents and her. Even in the phone conversation between herself and respondent's sister dated 20.03.2021 petitioner has stated that respondent calls her very abusive words as her pet name. Further she has told the respondent's sister that respondent picks up a quarrel with her for each and everything including her tone. In response respondent's sister has stated that, respondent talks like that. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.12 / phone conversations are not disputed by the respondent. It is unreasonable to expect the petitioner to submit evidence with respect to abusive words hurled by the respondent towards her and her parents as the same would have occurred within the 4 walls of the house. However, contemporaneous document Ex.P.12/phone conversation probabalizes the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner and her parents. Further respondent has specifically contended that, petitioner's 19 Crl.Misc.66/2021 parents were interfering with every small thing in the marital life of the petitioner. In this regard in his cross examination dated 23.08.2025 he has admitted that, petitioner and himself used to take all the decision in every matter jointly. He has further stated that, he cannot recall any major decision taken by the petitioner without consulting him. This statement of the respondent proves that petitioner was not a puppet in the hands of her parents and she was consulting and taking decision jointly with the respondent. Further he is unable to prove that petitioner and her father always insisted that he should get his parental home transferred to his name and petitioner and her family picked up a quarrel with him because he was not ready to discuss the said matter with his parents. He is also not able to prove that petitioner's parents were always picking up a quarrel with him for no specific reason and they were asking for divorce of their daughter. On the contrary Ex.P.12/phone conversation dated 02.06.2021 (Page No.30) between petitioner's father and respondent's father reveals that petitioner's father was not inclined for divorce and he said to wait for 3 months and then decide about divorce. U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act even verbal abuse constitutes domestic violence and it includes insults, ridicule humiliation, name calling etc.,. In this case 20 Crl.Misc.66/2021 petitioner by submitting Ex.P.12 is able to probabalize that respondent was using highly abusive words towards her and her parents during conversations and this amounts to verbal abuse which amounts to domestic violence U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act.
22. Petitioner has alleged that, on 16.12.2020 there was an argument between her and respondent regarding a picnic trip and suddenly respondent became very violent and caught the petitioner by the neck and choked her so severely that the petitioner could not even breath for some time. She has alleged that, she never told this incident to her family as she thought that respondent will understand and mend his ways later. But later the respondent on another occasion was justifying himself about choking her by stating that as a husband he has all the right to do anything and petitioner has to agree to that. She has alleged that, when she tried to talk with respondent's parents to resolve the issue they reacted indifferently and they bluntly stated that petitioner was lying and this completely depressed the petitioner. She has further alleged that, in the month of February 2021 respondent punched petitioner's face and she was lucky to escape the blow by dodging. She has stated that, she has tried to conceal all the cruelties from 21 Crl.Misc.66/2021 the parents until March 2021. she has stated that, she tried to solve the problem amicably. She has stated that, when she accompanied her parents to her grand parents house in Kerala one day she narrated her abusive life to her grand mother who informed her parents about the same. In support of her contentions petitioner has submitted Ex.P.12/phone conversations between herself and respondent, herself and respondent's sister, between her father and respondent's parents and herself, respondent's father and her father. In these phone conversations there are repeated references to the alleged incident regarding choking of neck of the petitioner by respondent and respondent's attempt to punch petitioner's face.
23. Respondent in his statement of objection has not specifically denied any of the incidents alleged by the petitioner. In the cross examination of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the respondent not even a suggestion has been made denying the alleged incidents. Only one suggestion is made that, Ex.P.12 phone conversations are recorded after petitioner left the matrimonial home and they are cooked up for the purpose of the case. As already stated Ex.P.12 / phone conversation was not objected by the respondent at the 22 Crl.Misc.66/2021 time of marking of the document. Further without any foundational basis there can be no evidentiary value to a sweeping suggestion that Ex.P.12 conversation is cooked up. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to show how the conversation is cooked up. Hence, this contention of the respondent is meritless. As already stated there is no specific denial of the alleged incidents of respondent choking the neck of the petitioner, respondent attempting to punch petitioner's face. Although, Ex.P.12 phone conversations have taken place after separation they are still contemporaneous evidence which throw light on the matrimonial life of the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, they are relevant evidence U/Sec.8 of Evidence Act as they show conduct of the parties. In Ex.P.12 phone conversations dated 31.05.2021 petitioner has told the mother of the respondent that she had informed respondent's mother about respondent choking her neck on 28.12.2020 by calling her which is denied by respondent's mother. Further in the same conversation respondent has stated that he remembers very well that push and pull happened during the incident. This proves that there was some physical altercation between the petitioner and respondent on the said date. Of course, petitioner cannot submit any evidence other than her own 23 Crl.Misc.66/2021 testimony regarding such incidents which occur in the privacy of the house. But Ex.P.12 phone conversation dated 31.05.2021 proves that there was physical altercation between the petitioner and the respondent and this compounded by the fact that respondent has not denied the said incident in his statement of objection and cross examination proves the case of the petitioner. Sec.3 of PWDV Act also defines physical abuse and states that it includes any Act of such nature as to cause bodily pain, harm or danger to life, limb or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent in choking the neck of the petitioner and attempting to punch her face would amount to domestic violence U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act. Further even if respondent's version of only push and pull happening on the date of the incident is accepted firstly he has not stated the same in his objection or his evidence. Regardless of the same even the fact that there was a push and pull between the petitioner and respondent just because petitioner's mother had called her would also amount to domestic violence.
24Crl.Misc.66/2021
24. Petitioner has alleged that, respondent one day informed her that he would be vacating the apartment in which they were residing together and when she pleaded and begged with the respondent to allow her to take some of her important clothes, documents, personal belongings from the apartment she was allowed to take them only in the presence of the guard. She has alleged that, on 02.04.2021 respondent vacated the apartment in which they were residing together and abandoned and deserted her without informing anyone. She has alleged in her examination in chief that, respondent did not return washing machine, refrigerator and kitchen utensils gifted by her parents and he claimed to have stashed the said articles in some storage facility on rent and insisted her to pay the rent for the last 2 and half years to get those things back. Petitioner in support of her contentions has submitted Ex.P.2 Instagram messages between herself and respondent wherein she has asked the respondent to let her to take her things from the rented house which was denied by the respondent at the beginning and later he allowed her to take her belongings in presence of the security guard.
25. Respondent in his statement of objections has stated that, only after discussing with the petitioner he 25 Crl.Misc.66/2021 gave 2 months notice to vacate the rented flat by April to house owner. He has stated that, it was a mutual decision. He has stated that, they had decided to relocate to the matrimonial house in Kozhikode since work from home option was continued for both of them to avoid huge monthly rent payment. He has alleged that, petitioner's parents created unnecessary problems in this matter. He has alleged that on 17.03.2021 petitioner's parents made an unplanned visit to the matrimonial house in Kozhikode and quarreled with respondent's parents and without their permission petitioner went along with her parents to their house in Thrissur district in Kerala. He has alleged that, petitioner's parents asked for divorce and they insulted and humiliated his parents and him. He has alleged that, even though petitioner was well aware of the illness of respondent's father and he was supposed to undergo surgery the next day she left to Bangalore with her family. He has stated that, on 28.03.2021 petitioner contacted him over phone that she had reached the rented flat with her parents to take back all her belongings and until then petitioner had not informed the respondent anything about her visit to the rented house. He has stated that, he requested the petitioner to wait until he returned to Bangalore but she was adamant. He has stated that, he lost his trust on the 26 Crl.Misc.66/2021 petitioner since she left from the matrimonial house in Kerala by demanding for divorce hence he requested the security to accompany the petitioner when she collected her belongings so as to safeguard respondent's documents relating to education and profession. He has alleged that, on 01.04.2021 he visited Bangalore contacted the petitioner and informed his intention to vacate the flat as per notice given to landlord later petitioner and her parents came and collected all her remaining items. He has stated that, petitioner never bothered to call him or his family or even enquire about respondent's father's health after she left from Kerala on 17.03.2021. Respondent has not submitted any evidence in support of his contentions.
26. Respondent counsel has cross examined the petitioner and in cross examination dated 29.11.2024 petitioner has stated hat, her parents came to respondent's house at Kerala on March 17 th or 18th 2021 for a casual visit. She has stated that, her parents stayed at respondent's house for few hours. She has stated that, she accompanied her parents to her grand parents house at Kerala with the permission of the respondent. She has admitted that, that was the last date on which respondent and herself stayed together.
27Crl.Misc.66/2021 She has stated that, she came to Bangalore along with her parents from her grand parents house. She has stated that, she did not take her belongings from respondent's house when she left to her grand parents house. She has denied the suggestion that, it was she who left the company of the respondent and went to Bangalore along with her parents.
27. Respondent in his cross examination has denied the suggestion that, petitioner did not leave his company on 17.03.2021 and she left only to visit her grand parents house in Kerala. From the evidence on record especially Ex.P.2, 10 to 13 it can be gathered that there was an altercation between the family of petitioner and respondent on 17th or 18th March 2021 and petitioner left from the matrimonial house in Kozhikode after the quarrel and thereafter she has not rejoined the respondent. It is also evident from Ex.P.2, 10 to 13 that there were discussions regarding divorce between the parties. From Ex.P.15 it is seen that petitioner has filed for divorce petition on 23.06.2021 before the Hon'ble Family Court in Bengaluru and respondent has also filed for divorce against the petitioner on 30.06.2021 before Hon'ble Family Court in Kozhikode and from Ex.R.6 it is seen that respondent has been granted divorce in the 28 Crl.Misc.66/2021 divorce petition filed by him and as per Ex.P.15 even petitioner has been granted divorce in the divorce petition filed by her. Therefore, it is evident that both the parties did not want to continue with the matrimonial relationship. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent showed no interested in communicating with her and even though she begged the respondent to reconsider his decision to take divorce he insisted for divorce citing no reasons, showing no mercy on the petitioner even without a trace of regret is a hollow statement as she also wanted to divorce the respondent. Of course the petitioner has submitted Ex.P.2 conversations between herself and respondent wherein petitioner has asked the respondent to reconsider his decision of divorce. But later it appears from Ex.P.15 that it is the petitioner who has first approached the Hon'ble Family Court in Bangalore for divorce. It is an admitted fact that right to divorce is a legal right available to either spouse and just because petitioner has approached for divorce first does not negate her case.
28. Moreover, under PWDV Act unlike proceedings under 125 of Cr.PC there is no requirement that the petitioner should not have left the matrimonial house voluntarily to be entitled to relief U/Sec.125 of 29 Crl.Misc.66/2021 Cr.PC. From Ex.P.2 and from admissions of the respondent in his statement of objections itself it is proved that respondent did not allow the petitioner to take her belongings from the matrimonial house except in presence of a guard. Further respondent in his cross examination dated 15.11.2025 has admitted that, he is still in possession of petitioner's washing machine, fridge and oven. He has stated that, he did not send said items to her as he was apprehending that he would be blamed if something would happen to her belongings. From the records it is borne out that petitioner has filed IA No.2 U/Sec.23(1) (2) of PWDV Act for return of articles and respondent in his objection to the said IA categorically admitted that he is willing to return the belongings of the petitioner subject to petitioner refunding the storage charges incurred by the respondent for keeping her belongings in safe custody. From the evidence on record especially Ex.P.2 it is not clear when the incident occurred. It is the contention of the respondent that, the said incident occurred after filing of divorce petition. Be that as it may, the very fact that respondent has not returned the belongings of the petitioner would amount to economic abuse as defined U/Sec.3 explanation I(iv) of PWDV Act. As per the said Act, deprivation of household necessity for the aggrieved person, disposal of household 30 Crl.Misc.66/2021 effects, alienation of assets in which aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of domestic relationship which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person also amounts to economic abuse. In the said provision it is also stated that, restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of domestic relationship is also economic abuse. Therefore, respondent who has been in possession of the fridge, washing machine and oven of the petitioner from 2021 by not returning the same to her in spite of the petitioner seeking for its return through the Court has committed domestic violence.
29. Petitioner has alleged that, respondent has unilaterally vacated the rented house in April 2021 without intimating her. In this regard she has submitted Ex.P.2. From Ex.P.2 the date of the conversation it not clear. However, respondent in his statement of objection has stated that, he has vacated the house in April 2021 and he has informed petitioner's parents and they have even collected their belongings from the said house. However, respondent has not submitted any evidence in this regard apart from his oral testimony. Petitioner in her cross examination has denied the suggestion that, 31 Crl.Misc.66/2021 she has given notice for vacating the rented house in February 2021 as there was work from home option for both petitioner and respondent and they had decided to relocate to Kerala in March 2021. Therefore, from Ex.P.2 which is not denied by respondent it is clear that petitioner is surprised that respondent has vacated the house without informing her. Therefore, Ex.P.2 probabalizes the contention of the petitioner that respondent has vacated the house without informing her.
30. Petitioner has alleged that, petitioner was forced to spend almost all her salary on rent and other household expenses even though respondent was earning more than the petitioner. To substantiate this allegation petitioner has not got marked any document. However, the counsel for the petitioner during arguments has relied upon petitioner's bank statement produced along with her assets and liability affidavit and argued that from the bank statement of the petitioner it is evident that she was paying house rent and she was paying for other household expenses during the marital life even though respondent was earning more than her.
31. Respondent in his statement of objection has stated that petitioner has voluntarily paid Rs.1 lakh to 32 Crl.Misc.66/2021 him in multiple installments as she wanted to contribute towards the expenses related to setting up of new house. In this regard he has submitted his HDFC bank statement from 02.12.2019 to 03.12.2019 marked as Ex.R.2 wherein it is seen that, respondent has paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the house owner and he has paid Rs.24,000/- towards brokerage. Even though the bank statement submitted by the petitioner is not marked on the examination of the same it is seen that petitioner has paid rent of the house on 08.07.2020, 08.08.2020, 06.10.2020, 03.11.2020, 08.12.2020. She has paid Rs.1 lakh and few small amounts to the respondent during their marital life. As already discussed petitioner in her cross examination has admitted that, Rs.50,000/- transferred by her on 14.05.2020, Rs.40,000/- transferred by her to respondent on 01.06.2020, Rs.5,000/- transferred by her to respondent on 16.03.2020 and Rs.5,000/- transferred by her to respondent's account on 20.03.2020 are all marked as PPF in the bank statement. She has also admitted that, her father had suggested the respondent could save tax by investing in PPF as there was a gap of Rs.1 lakh and in this regard she has admitted Ex.R.1. Therefore, even though certain amounts are credited by petitioner to respondent bank account from the evidence on record it 33 Crl.Misc.66/2021 cannot be said that it was forceful. Moreover , the bank statement of the petitioner also reveals that at the time when petitioner was paying rent she was getting salary approximately Rs.37,000/- and just because petitioner paid rent for 5 months in the entire matrimonial life of 2 years it cannot be said that her entire salary was being taken away by the respondent. Even though petitioner is unable prove some of her allegations, she is able to prove that she was subjected to verbal abuse and economic abuse by respondent as discussed above. In view of the above discussion point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
32. POINT NO.2 :- The petitioner in this case has sought for monetary relief U/Sec.20 to direct the respondent to repay marriage expenses of Rs.5 lakhs. Petitioner in her cross examination dated 09.08.2020 has admitted that, most of the marriage ceremony arrangement was done by respondents and even the marriage reception hall was arranged by the respondent. Further petitioner has not submitted any proof with respect to marriage expenses. Above all as per Sec.20 of PWDV Act only expenses which are incurred by the aggrieved person as a consequence of domestic violence 34 Crl.Misc.66/2021 can be reimbursed. Hence, marriage expenses cannot be reimbursed under Sec.20 of PWDV Act.
33. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent to pay her compensation and damages of Rs.30,00,000/- for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in point No.1 it is proved that the respondent has subjected the petitioner to domestic violence. Further, petitioner due to the acts of the respondent has been compelled to file the present case and for divorce. Hence, she has incurred litigation expenses for past 5 years. It is need less to say that the process has been a pain to the petitioner. There is no straight jacket formula for the Court cannot set a value for the mental agony endured by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner is a working professional since she has endured domestic violence at the hands of the respondent U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, she is entitled for compensation.
34. As already discussed the respondent is a Engineer by profession he is working as Quality Analyst and he is getting salary of Rs.1,10,000/- per month. The respondent in his assets and liabilities affidavit has not 35 Crl.Misc.66/2021 submitted his salary slip and bank statement. Hence, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent that he has purposefully avoided filing the relevant documents in order to escape from his liability to pay any amount to the petitioner. However, the respondent in his assets and liabilities affidavit has stated that, he has expenditure of Rs.1,17,960/- per month. Therefore, the lifestyle of the respondent itself discloses that he belongs to upper middle class family. However, petitioner has not submitted any evidence to prove the extreme mental trauma and extreme agony suffered by her. Therefore, by considering the status of the parties and the extent of domestic violence suffered by petitioner, the respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner. Since, IA No.2 is directed to be considered along with main petition and since it is admitted by respondent that he is in possession of articles of petitioner , respondent is directed to return fridge, washing machine and oven to the petitioner. Hence,point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
35. POINT No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceed to pass the following;
36Crl.Misc.66/2021 ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as against respondent is allowed in part.
The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation within 3 months from the date of this order.
Respondent is directed to return articles belonging to the petitioner i.e., refrigerator, washing machine and microwave oven within 3 months from the date of this order.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to the petitioner. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of April 2026).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
37Crl.Misc.66/2021 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 : Isabel Paulachan LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Marriage invitation card
Ex.P.2 : Instagram conversation along with certificate
U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.3 : Whatsapp conversation along with certificate
U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.4 : 3 Birthday photos along with certificate
U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of HDFC bank account
statement
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.158/2021
Ex.P.7 : Cop of Email
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Divorce petition
Ex.P.9 : Whatsapp family group conversation
Ex.P.10 : Whatsapp conversation of petitioner and
respondent along with certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.11 : Phone conversations along with certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.12 : Ex.P.11 English Translation Ex.P.13 : Message copy Ex.P.14 : Whatsapp conversation copy Ex.P.15 : Copy of Judgment of MC No.2858/2021 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
R.W.1 : Ajun O Joseph
38
Crl.Misc.66/2021
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 : Whatsapp chats
Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of bank statement
Ex.R.3 : Certified copy of Whatsapp chat dated
17.07.2021
Ex.R.4 : Certified copy of petition in OP No.659/2021
Ex.R.5 : Certified copy of photographs produced in
MC No.2858/2021
Ex.R.6 : Certified copy of judgment & decree OP
No.659/2021
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.