Bangalore District Court
Smt.Rajini vs Sri.Govinda Raju on 8 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SMT.POOJA SHETTI
B.A., LL.B. (Hon's).
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF JUNE 2018
Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
PETITIONERS : 1. Smt.Rajini,
W/o.Sri.Govindaraju,
Aged about 23 years,
Residing at No.Q137,
CAR Quarters, near Sirsi Circle,
Bengaluru - 18.
2. Master.Shashidhar,
S/o.Govindaraju,
Aged about 3 years,
Residing at No.Q137,
CAR Quarters, near Sirsi Circle,
Bengaluru - 18.
Represented by mother and natural
guardian, the petitioner No.1
// VS //
RESPONDENT : Sri.Govinda Raju,
S/o.Hombaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Yeraganahalli,
Athgur Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
2 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence At., 2005 (herein after referred as P.W.D.V. Act, 2005) seeking various relief's.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is as follows;
The marriage between the 1st petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 31.05.2006 at Shri Siddaruda Kalyana Mantapa, Maddur, Mandya District in the presence of relatives and friends of both the parties. The marriage was performed by the petitioner's parents by spending huge sum of money as per the demand of the respondent and his parents. It is the submission of the petitioner that, at the time of marriage, her parents had given Rs.50,000/- to the parents of the respondent as dowry and also spent a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses and had given a Hero Honda Motor cycle and gold ornaments to the respondent. She further submits that, after the marriage, she started to reside with the respondent and his parents at matrimonial house and she was a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law, however there were some altercations between the petitioner and the respondent and his 3 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 parents, hence they started to harass her for additional dowry, however she tolerated all the harassment with a fond hope that they would mend their ways. However, the parents of the respondent prohibited her from coming out of the house and talking to the neighbors and caused lot of mental agony and trauma to her. Thereafter, she informed all this mental and physical torture to her parents and immediately her parents came and took her to their house and from then she is residing with her parents along with the 2nd petitioner. She further submits that, on 01.10.2007, the respondent had sent a legal notice to her to give divorce by making false allegations against her and she has sent a suitable reply to the said notice. Thereafter, the respondent has filed petition for divorce before Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Maddur in M.C.No.07/2008 and for that she has filed her statement of objections. She further submits that, the respondent has failed to maintain her and her minor child from last 3 years and she is unemployed and has no source of income for the livelihood of herself and her child and she is a burden on her parents. The respondent being husband duty bound to maintain the petitioner and her son. Hence the petition.
4 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
3. After the registration of the petition, the notice was sent to the respondent through RPAD and P.O. Respondent appeared through his advocate and filed his objections to the main petition.
4. On the other hand, respondent in his objection to main petition denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. However, he admitted his marriage with the petitioner and denied all other allegations made by the petitioner. It is contention of the respondent that, they never submitted the petitioner to harassment or cruelty, however it is the petitioner who has subjected them to harassment as her father is working in the police department. He further submits that, the marriage expenses were borne by both sides and the petitioners father had given a Hero Honda motorcycle to use and the same was recovered by father of the petitioner before police after furnishing a letter. He further submits that, the gold ornaments were purchased by him at the time of marriage for the petitioner. He further submits that, the petitioner has filed a petition under M.C.No.335/2009 before IInd Addl. Prl.Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru for maintenance wherein he has filed detailed objection along with the documents to show that she had 5 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 relationship with one Jagadeesh and she ran away with him and stayed in a separate house at Mysore, thereafter she herself gave compliant against the Jagadeesh for kidnapping. He further submits that, Crl.Mis.No.335/2009 was dismissed for default on 22.02.2011, the complainant after the dismissal of Crl.Mis.No.335/2009 filed this petition suppressing all the facts. He further submits that, meanwhile he has filed petition for divorce against the petitioner and the same is pending for consideration. With this the respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to prove the contention of the petitioner, she examined herself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are marked. On the other hand, respondent in his defence examined himself as RW.1 and got 10 documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10.
6. Perused both the documentary and oral evidence. Heard the arguments of petitioner side.
7. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioners proves that the respondent has subjected them to domestic violence ?
6 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief's sought by them ?
3. What order?
8. My findings on the above said points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.3: As per the final order
for the following :
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 and 2: As these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
10. In the present petition, respondent has not disputed his relationship with the complainant and factum of living together in the shared household prior to their separation. Accordingly, domestic relationship between the parties as defined under section 2(f) of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 is proved. In order to grant relief under the provision of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005., it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent and she is aggrieved person as per the provisions of the said act.
7 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
11. In order to prove her contention, the petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and deposed that, after the marriage, she was residing with the respondent and her in-laws in his house during that time, the respondent used to demand more money from her and used to beat her. After to 6 to 7 month, one Jagadeesh to her matrimonial house and informed that, her father is not keep well, hence the respondent sent her to Bengaluru. She further deposed that, she does not the route of the Bengaluru and the said Jagadeesh took her to Mysore and left her with one Parvathamma and Kavitha wherein the said Parvathamma and Kavitha took her jewellaries and money. After 15 to 20 days of keeping her there, they informed the petitioner that, her father has come to know about her stay with the said Parvathamma and Kavitha and they sent her back to her parents house. After going to her parents house, she came to know that, her father has not sent anyone to pick her, hence she along with her father on the next day, went to police station and lodged a complaint. Thereafter, police arrested the said Jagadeesh, Parvathamma and Kavitha and returned her jewellaries. The said kidnapping case is still pending for the consideration and meanwhile the respondent came to her parents 8 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 house and stayed with her for 6 to 7 months, during this period, the respondent filed an application for the custody of the jewellaries and petitioner has also filed the same application. Hence, the respondent has filed a petition for divorce during that period she was pregnant and even after the delivery of the child, the respondent did not came to see the child.
12. On the other hand, the respondent got himself examined as RW.1 and deposed that, the petitioner has filed a petition for maintenance before IInd Addl. Prl.Judge Family Court, wherein he has filed detailed objection and submitted that, the petitioner had relationship with one Jagadeesh with whom she had ran away and stayed in a separate house at Mysore, thereafter he has produced all the relevant documents to show the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, statement of the said Jagadeesh and statement of owner of the house, wherein both the petitioner and Jagadeesh resided together. After considering the materials available on record, the Hon'ble IInd Addl. Prl.Judge Family Court, dismissed the said petition on 22.02.2011, thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition by suppressing all true facts. 9 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011
13. In support of his contention, he has produced certified copy of Judgment Hon'ble Family Court in M.C.No.7/2008 and got that marked as Ex.R.1 along with that, he has also produced certified copy of deposition of PW.2 and PW.3 in the said M.C.No.7/2008.
14. On perusal of materials available on record, it is the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner has ran away with one Jagadeesh and stayed with him at Mysore and the respondent did not subjected her to any kind of domestic violence. As her petition for maintenance was rejected on the same ground, she has filed the present petition and on the same facts, the respondent has filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner before Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Maddur., wherein the Hon'ble Court by order dated 27.09.2013 allowed the petition. The respondent has produced the certified copy of the Judgment dated 27.09.2013 wherein the Hon'ble Court while allowing the petition filed by the respondent observed that, in the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members, the petitioner has alleged "£À£Àß zÀÆgÀzÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü £À£Àß CtÚ dUÀ¢Ã±À £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ®Ä 10 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 AiÀÄgÀUÀ£ÀºÀ½îUÉ §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀAUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DvÀ¤UÉ w½¹zÉ. DvÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸Àé®à ¢£À ªÉÆʸÀÆj£À°è £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw PÀ«vÁ¼À eÉÆvÉ EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀÄzsÁj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÉ ¨Á JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ. DUÀ £À£Àß CvÉÛ PÉA¥ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÆA¨Á¼ÀAiÀÄå ¸ÀºÀ EzÀÄÝ, D¬ÄvÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀªÀÄä ¤ªÀÄä aPÀÌ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ dUÀ¢Ã±À£À eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÁj£À°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ §mÉÖ §gÉ MqÀªÉ ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃV £À£Àß CtÚ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 15 jAzÀ 20 ¢ªÀ¸À EzÉÝ. D ¢£ÀUÀ¼° À è ¸ÀĪÀÄÁgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ 15 jAzÀ 20 ¸Áj £À£Àß ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9880222769 UÉ ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß AiÉÆÃUÀPÉëêÀÄ «ZÁj¸ÀÄvÁÛ gÀd¤ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À DUÀĪÀ ºÁUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ C°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄ ºÉzÀgÀ¨ÉÃqÀ, £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ, AiÀÄÄ qÉÆÃAmï ªÀj JAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆãÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. D£À £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ¥sÉÆãÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ, ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÆA¨Á¼ÀAiÀÄå£ÀªjÀ UÉ w½¹zÉAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ D «ZÁgÀPÉÌ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀ¯É PÉr¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ DgÁªÀĪÁV EgÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ, F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ UÉÆëAzÀgÁdÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥ÁgÀªÁzÀ £ÀA©PÉ ElÄÖ gÀd¤ ¤ÃªÀÅ J°èzÀÝgÀÆ £À£ÀߪÀ¼ÉÃ, ¤£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtðªÁzÀ £ÀA©PÉ EzÉ. AiÀÄÄ qÉÆÃAmï ªÀj JAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆãÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ZÀ£ÉßUËqÀ£ÀzÉÆrØAiÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÆAUÀAiÀÄå JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß CtÚ dUÀ¢Ã±À 11 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É GzÉÝÉñÀ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV £À£ÀߣÀÄß C¥ÀºÀgÀt ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆlÄÖ PɸÀÆÛgÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ºÉÆA¨Á¼ÀAiÀÄå¤AzÀ ºÉAUÀ¸ÀÄ PÁuÉAiÀiÁVzÁݼÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". Hence, in the said complaint, the petitioner has contended that, the said Jagadeesh is her brother and the respondent and his family member themselves have sent her with the said Jagadeesh to Mysore. Wherein in the present petition, during her examination-in-chief, the petitioner deposed that after 6 to 7 month, one Jagadeesh came to her matrimonial house and informed that, her father is not keep well, hence the respondent sent her to Bengaluru. She further deposed that, she does not the route of the Bengaluru and the said Jagadeesh took her to Mysore and left her with one Parvathamma and Kavitha wherein the said Parvathamma and Kavitha took her jewellaries and money. They kept her there for 15 to 20 days, thereafter they informed her that, her father came to know about her staying with them, hence they send her to her parents house and after reaching the home, her father told her that, he has not sent anyone to pick her, hence next day she had lodged a complaint against the said Jagadeesh. However, during her cross- 12 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 examination, she deposes that "¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÀÆA£À°è PÀÆr ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¥ÉÇÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. E¥ÀàvÀÄÛ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ dUÀ¢Ã±À, ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ«vÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©nÖzÁÝgÉ. ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À°è ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß §¸ï¸ÁÖ¥ïUÉ §AzÀÄ §¸ï ºÀwÛ¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
15. During her cross-examination, she deposes that "£Á£ÀÄ ¥sÁå«Ä° PÉÆÃnð£À°è fêÀ£ÁA±À PÉý Cfð ¸À°è¹zÉÝ£ÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj Cfð ªÀeÁ DVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ EzÁÝUÀ dUÀ¢Ã±ï J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d". She further deposed that "DUÀ £À£Àß a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉU¼À À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ°è §gɬĹzÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ ¤d". Further, during her cross-examination, she denies the suggestion that "dUÀ¢Ã±ï J£ÀÄߪÀªÀ£ÀÄ £À£Àß CtÚ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ JAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢zÉÝÃ£É J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è". From the above observation, it is very clear that, the petitioner had again and again given contradictory statement against her own case. On one hand, the petitioner claims that, the said Jagadeesh is a stranger and he 13 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011 came to pick her by informing that, her father is not keeping well, thereafter she deposes that, Jagadeesh came to pick her as there was a program in her parents house and in her complaint she has stated that, Jagadeesh is her brother, hence it is proved that, the petitioner herself has left the company of the respondent, further she has failed to prove that, the respondent has deserted her due to the application made by her claiming the custody of the gold. Hence, the petitioner has failed to prove the alleged domestic violence by the respondent. From the above observation, it is very clear that, it is the petitioner who has left the company of the respondent. Hence, both Point No.1 and Point No.2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
16. Point No.3: For the foregoing discussion and finding on Point No.1 and 2, following order is passed;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act., 2005 is hereby dismissed.
Parties have to bear their own cost.
14 Crl. Misc.No.340 - 2011(The order dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced and signed by me on this 8th day of June 2018) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Rajini.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P.1 Marriage Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2 to 4 Marriage Photos.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT
R.W.1 Sri.Govindaraju.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Judgment.
Ex.R.2 & 3 Copies.
Ex.R.4 to 9 6 Bills.
Ex.R.10 Bills.
(POOJA SHETTI)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.