Bangalore District Court
Smt.Shakuntala Srinath @ Sada vs Smt.R.Vijayakumari on 20 May, 2019
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 20th DAY OF MAY 2019
Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Shakuntala Srinath @ Sada,
W/o.Srinath Ravichandran @
Babloo, Aged about 29 years,
C/o.Mrs.T.Shanthi Raman, G -
002, Scion Alovera, Kodihalli,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
2. Karan Srinath,
S/o.Srinath Ravichandran @
Babloo, Aged about 1 years,
C/o.Mrs.T.Shanthi Raman, G -
002, Scion Alovera, Kodihalli,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
Karan Srinath being minor is
represented by her Natural
mother, petitioner No.1.
// VS //
RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt.R.Vijayakumari,
W/o.Late.Ravichandran, Aged
about 62 years, Residing at
No.20, 1st and 2nd Floor, (Duplex),
3rd Main Road, Meenakshinagar,
2 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
Behind Krishna Kalyana
Mantapa, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
2. Ms.Priya Ravichandran @
Padmapriya,
D/o.R.Vijayakumari, Aged about
37 years, Residing at No.20, 1st
and 2nd Floor, (Duplex), 3rd Main
Road, Meenakshinagar, Behind
Krishna Kalyana Mantapa,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
3. Smt.Rajini Ganesh, W/o.Ganesh,
Aged about 52 years.
Residing at No.20, 1st and 2nd
Floor, (Duplex), 3rd Main Road,
Meenakshinagar, Behind Krishna
Kalyana Mantapa,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 079.
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under section 12 r/w 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence At., 2005 (herein after referred as P.W.D.V. Act, 2005) seeking various relief's.
3 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is as follows;
The marriage between the 1st petitioner and son of 1st respondent i.e., one Mr.Srinath was solemnized on 06.09.2009 at Suryanarayana Kalyana Mantapa, Domlur, Benglauru. It is the submission of the 1st petitioner that, at the time of marriage, the respondents and said Srinath demanded 50 sovereigns gold and after negotiation, they agreed to 25 sovereigns gold, silver ornaments, household articles, thereafter petitioner agreed to provide 25 sovereigns of gold to the respondents as per their demand during Pongal and Deepavali festival. Accordingly, 15 sovereigns of gold given to the 1st respondent and said Srinath during the festival of pongal and deepavali. Apart from the above said ornaments, 1st petitioners mother and elder sister has spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards the marriage expenses. After the marriage, the petitioner started to reside with the 1st and 2nd respondents and the 3rd respondent was staying along with her family at the ground floor. It is the submission of the petitioner that, the 2nd respondent i.e., sister-in-law of the 1st petitioner had affair with the married man and out of the said affair, she 4 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 conceived and delivered a male child. Further, 1st respondent has suppressed the fact that, she has a elder son by name Keshava who is settled in Salem, Tamil Nadu with his wife. Further, the 1st respondent never called her 1st son and daughter-in-law to any of the function and she does not recognized them as son and daughter-in-law in front of others. Neither the relatives of the respondents nor neighbors had seen the son and daughter-in-law including the 1st petitioner and her family. According to the petitioner, the respondents are not good culture and have no respect to the relationship, they are only behind money and property. Further, the 1st and 2nd respondent are highly aggressive, arrogant, abnormal, greedy, dominating, egoist, insecure, jealous and they show no respect to others. The 3rd respondent has studied astrology and she is much indulged in black magic. The petitioner further submits that, 3rd respondent has a youngest daughter by name Sushmitha who is studying in the 2nd year of PUC, she interferes in the family affairs of the petitioner, she hugs and kisses husband of the 1st petitioner and the same is not objected by other respondents. Further, the said Sushmitha does 5 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 spa treatment like facial, head and body massages to said Srinath and they used to spent time on terrace. The petitioner further submits that, daughter of 3rd respondent by name Deepthi attempted suicide while she was in PUC in order to marry her lover, finally she married her lover and they are residing with respondent No.3. Further, respondent No.3's husband is a drunkard and completely dependant on respondent No.3.
3. The petitioner further submits that, when she was supposed to fly down to Kerala for Honeymoon, her husband was misbehaving with daughter of 3rd respondent. When the petitioner objected the same, her husband removed Mangalsutra from her neck, when the same was brought to the knowledge of respondents, they did not responded. The petitioner further submits that, she came to know that, 1st respondent left her husband, 35 year above, in order to grab the ancestral property and took permanent shelter at her father's house. Further, she had many extra marital affairs including a long term affair with one Nagaraj along with whom, she is running a fancy store., there was lot of protest from the family of Nagaraj for the alleged relationship and the Nagaraj died by 6 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 committing suicide 10 years ago. The petitioner further submits that, she came to know that, 2nd respondent conceived without marriage and entire family has no values. After the marriage, petitioner was forced to continue her job, in spite of the fact that, she was suppose to travel 45 kilo meter every day. Even after pregnancy, due to the force of the respondents and her husband, petitioner continued to work, from March - 2010 till July 2010, with Idea Cellular Limited. When the petitioner left her job without the consent of respondents, they used to hide provision and never allowed the petitioner to cook the food to eat. Further, they used to hide fruits underneath cots and they used to lock soap, detergent, emergency lamp, water heater kettle etc., they used to intentionally switch off the main power and also used to empty water sump., so that petitioner can draw water from the sump which is situated in the ground floor. Further, they used to inform the relatives that, the 1st petitioner eats 25 kgs of rice and uses 5 kg of ghee every month.
4. The petitioner further submits that, respondent No.2 used to give information of every activities of the petitioner No.1 to 7 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 her husband. Further, though the respondent No.2 used to wear slippers inside the premises, the petitioner No.1 was not allowed to use and the respondents used to blame the 1st petitioner that, after her marriage, many deaths has taken place in respondent's family. The petitioner further submits that, the respondent No.1 and 2 had the intention to kill, petitioner No.2 when he was in the womb of the 1st petitioner, further they believes in the black magic and they used to conduct black magic pooja and scarifies higher animals to destroy the petitioners, her family and well wishers. According to petitioner, respondents used black magic even to win the divorce case filed by the husband of the petitioner and black magic is part and parcel of respondent's life. The petitioner further submits that, the respondent No.1 and 2 never allowed Mr.Srinath to spend time with the 1st petitioner and they made him to file complaint against the petitioner in Vanitha Sahayavani, when he did not succeeded, he withdraw the complaint and filed a M.C. Petition in M.C.No.2841/2010 against the 1st petitioner seeking divorce. The petitioner further submits that, during November - 2009, she had been to hospital for check-up along with her husband, wherein 8 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 respondent No.1 and 2 called him and informed to abort the child stating that, as per custom, two pregnant women cannot stay in the same house and at that time, even 2nd respondent was 4 month pregnant, when the petitioner did not agreed to the same, she was forced to go to her mother's place for delivery. The petitioner further submits that, the 3rd respondent along with other respondents has kept master almara in the bed room of 1st petitioner, so that every member of 3rd respondent's family can walk in their room for every 15 minutes or less in the pretext of using almara and whenever any guests stays back at the matrimonial house or at the 3rd respondent's house, they were asked to use the bed room of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner further submits that, after marriage she was not allowed to visit the guest, she was asked to stay back in the bed room, in order to create bad impression among the relatives. The petitioner further submits that, Late.Doraiswamypilliai, i.e., father of the respondent No.1 was not allowed to speak to 1st petitioner, though he was also residing at the matrimonial house. According to petitioner, they did not allowed Doraiswamypilliai to speak to 1st petitioner, so that 9 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 he should not informed about the ancestral properties and his earnings to the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that, when the Late.Doraiswamypillai informed her about the character of the 2nd respondent that, she became pregnant without marriage, the respondent No.1 and 2 became very violent and started to beat the Late.Doraiswamypillai, when the petitioner intervened, she was also assaulted by the respondents and they asked the husband of the petitioner to send the petitioner out of matrimonial house. Thereafter, her husband asked her to stay in her sister's house till the respondents calm down. The petitioner further submits that, the respondents never allowed her husband to spend weekends with her, they used to call him at every 15 minutes, even if they went to her mother's place, the respondents used to call her husband for every few minutes for one or other reasons. The petitioner further submits that, after delivery, the 1st and 2nd respondent informed her not to enter the matrimonial house and when the petitioner tried to enter the matrimonial house along with her child, respondents and Ms.Sushmitha created all possible scene to ensure that, petitioner does not enter the matrimonial 10 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 house. According to petitioner, whenever there was discussions on the property in the matrimonial house, she was asked to leave the matrimonial house and to stay with her mother for 2 to 3 days and all property matters were discussed in her absence. Further, when the petitioner completely came to know about unlawful relationship of the 2nd respondent, the tortures and harassments by the respondent No.1 and 2 against the petitioner No.1 increased and they started to demand for dowry. During the course, the petitioner was not given food and she was not allowed to cook the food. The petitioner further submits that, one Mr.Anand used to come to matrimonial house regularly between 7.30 to 8.30 pm., to meet respondent No.2 and during his visit, she was forced to lock the door and sit inside her bed room and the 1st respondent used to go the 3rd respondents house situated in the same building. During December - 2009, petitioner was demanded to leave the matrimonial house and her husband and respondents filed a complaint to Vanitha Sahayavani without any base to ensure that, the 1st petitioner stays out of matrimonial house permanently. According to petitioner, the said complaint was filed to keep the 11 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 petitioner out of matrimonial house and also to file divorce petition. The petitioner further submits that, during March - 2010, she was forced out of matrimonial house and during the said period, said Doraiswamypillai died and petitioner No.1 was not informed about the same and neither she was invited for the ceremonies. The petitioner further submits that, she suspects the death of Doraiswampilliai and the respondents frequently used to visit Vellore, KGF darga, Mangalore and other places at Kerala and Bangalore to conduct black magic. According to petitioner, respondents even kill the people for property, money and respect. The petitioner further submits that, when she had been to her mother's place for delivery, her husband sent divorce notice to the petitioner. After the delivery, though the petitioner tried to contact the respondents, they avoided her and she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house. During July 10, 2011, the 1st petitioner along with 2nd petitioner again tried to visit the matrimonial house and she found the doors were intentionally locked and the respondents and her husband refused to allow her inside the matrimonial house, thereafter respondents filed a false complaint 12 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 against the petitioner and her sister informing to the police that, they are threaten college going girl i.e., Ms.Sushmitha, her sister and mother visited the police station, the respondents also came and they quarreled with the petitioners and they tried to throw the child in the dustbin. During the shuffle, the petitioners mother was pushed by the respondents and on the way petitioner noticed that, there was a severe swelling and blood clotting at the left foot of the ankle region, hence she was rushed to the hospital. According to petitioner, the respondents have cursed that, her mother will die soon or she will be paralysed, as they are expert in black magic. The petitioner further submits that, the respondents did not allowed her husband to conduct Namakarana to petitioner No.2, according to the customary practice, which is to be conducted within 11 days, they neither allowed Mr.Srinath to visit the hospital or to see petitioner No.1 and 2. Further, they have informed the neighbors and relatives that, petitioner's husband has obtained divorce from her by paying 2½ crores and she will not be taken into matrimonial house again and have also asked the neighbors and relatives not to invite the 1st petitioner to any family 13 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 functions, hence the respondents, petitioners husband had completely neglected the petitioners and subjected them to cruelty and also harassed mentally and physically for dowry. According to petitioner, her sister is also bearing the burden of her mother, now the petitioners are also burden on her sister's family. Though, the petitioner No.1 had made several requests to the respondents and her husband to provide a place in the matrimonial house, however they are intentionally refusing and creating all kind of trouble to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.
5. After the registration of the petition, the notice was sent to the respondents through RPAD and P.O. The respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their objection to the main petition.
On the other hand, respondents have denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and contended that, petitioner's marriage with her husband Mr.Srinath was an arranged marriage and all the expenses was borne by Mr.Srinath himself. The respondents further submits that, subsequently the 1st respondent 14 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 realized the real nature of the petitioner, as she was aggressive and has no manners of respecting others in the family. According to respondents, within very short period, the petitioner started to behave arrogantly with her husband and the 1st respondent and she was not at all interested to have the company of her husband. The respondents further submits that, the petitioner never liked relatives visiting the house and she used to shout at the relatives. Further, it is only petitioner No.1, Srinath and respondent No.1 who lived together in the matrimonial house, the 3rd respondent and her family used to reside separately in the ground floor. The respondents further submits that, petitioner No.1 is working as Assistant Manager in Idea Cellular Limited, Richmond Road, Bengaluru and she gets salary of Rs.44,000/- per month, as she used to get more salary than her husband, she used to humiliate him. She never paid any amount from her salary to the household expenses. She used to treat her husband and relatives as her slaves and always used to do go to hotels for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Further, she used to suspect the character of her husband and used to call his work place and friends to enquire about his 15 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 presence and conduct, hence people used to avoid her husband. According to respondents, petitioner is a quarrelsome lady and they have suffered untold, mental, torture at the hands of 1st petitioner. When the same was brought to the knowledge of petitioner's mother, she requested the respondent No.1 and Srinath to adjust with the petitioner telling that, petitioner No.1 used to beat her also. When respondent No.1 and Srinath attempting to convince the petitioner with the help of elders, she turned violent and had beaten the 1st respondent. Thereafter, she used to threaten saying she will file false dowry harassment case, like wise she has filed a false complaint. The respondents further submits that, respondent No.2 came to the matrimonial house in order to give birth to her first child and the same is opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner also suggested her husband to thrown 1st respondent out of matrimonial house and to live separately. As petitioner used to threaten to file false complaints against the respondents, petitioner's husband and 1st respondent approached Commissioner of Police, hence Commissioner of Police referred the matter to Vanitha Sahayavani. On 05.02.2010, both petitioner No.1 and 16 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 Srinath appeared before the counseling center, however the petitioner mis-behaved with the staff and scolded everybody in filthy language, after counseling Vanitha Sahayavani advised Mr.Srinath to approach the court to get appropriate remedy, as the petitioner is not good women to lead marital life. The respondents further submits that, once 1st petitioner and her husband had been to hospital for check up, wherein the 1st petitioner started to shout and beat her husband in the public and due to the said incident, her husband sustained lacerated wound, hence he went to Jeevanbhimanagar Police. On the other hand, petitioner went to Ulsoor Gate Police station, thereafter 1st petitioner abused her husband and left his company on the same day stating she would never return to the matrimonial house. Thereafter, 1st respondent realized that, it is impossible to live with dignity, hence she determine to live separately from the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent further submits that, the house in which she is residing is her absolute property and petitioner's husband has no right over it. With the above submission, respondents pray to dismiss the petition.
17 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
6. In order to prove her case petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, respondent in his defence examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5.
7. Perused both the documentary and oral evidence. Heard the arguments of petitioner side.
8. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondents have subjected her to domestic violence ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief's sought in the petition ?
3. What order?
9. 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 :
18 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
REASONS
10. 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.
11. In the present petition, the respondents did not denied their relationship with the petitioner, however it is the contention of the respondents that, only 1st respondent and husband of the petitioner were living with the 1st petitioner in the matrimonial house prior to their separation. In order to claim any relief under the provisions of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005., the existence of shared household, domestic relationship and domestic violence is must. It is the submission of the petitioner that, 1st and 2nd respondent were staying in the 1st floor whereas 3rd respondent was staying along with her family members in the ground floor of the matrimonial house. According to respondents, 3rd respondent is residing along with her family in the ground floor and it is only 1st respondent who resided with the 1st petitioner, during the pregnancy, 2nd respondent came to the matrimonial house as per the custom. In view of submission made by the petitioner herself, it is very clear that, the 3rd respondent 19 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 is residing separately along with her family in the ground floor, hence their exist in domestic relationship between petitioners and 3rd respondent. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief against 3rd respondent.
12. According to section 2(f) of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005., in order to found domestic relationship, it is not necessary that, respondent should reside with the petitioner continuously. Even if a person resides in the matrimonial house for a considerable time, it is sufficient to form domestic relationship, when that person is connected to the aggrieved person as a family member. Hence, domestic relationship between petitioners and 1st and 2nd respondent stands proved.
13. The domestic relationship between the petitioner, 1st and 2nd respondent, has been proved 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.
20 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
14. In order to prove her contention, petitioner got herself examined as PW.1. It is her contention that, at the time of marriage, respondents and her husband demanded money for reception and marriage expenses, hence before marriage she had given Rs.30,000/- and Rs.60,000/- to the respondents and had spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards marriage expenses. Apart from that, she has also given 40 sovereign gold ornaments to the respondents. During her cross- examination dated 11.06.2013, she admits the suggestion that, she has not filed any complaint of dowry harassment against the respondents till the receipt of notice by her with respect to divorce petition filed by her husband. In the present petition, the petitioner has not produced any corroborative evidence to prove her allegations of demand of dowry, though during her cross-examination she claims that, she has documents and she can produce the same. Further, these are the allegations prior to marriage and at that time, there existed no domestic relationship. Further, all these allegations does not come within the preview of domestic violence act.
15. The petitioner further contends that, 1st and 2nd respondents did not allowed her to have food at the home, even if she 21 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 cooks the food, 1st and 2nd respondents never used to eat the food and there were no utensils and groceries in the kitchen. In her petition, it was her contention that, the respondents used to hide groceries, so that petitioner should not cook for her. During her cross-examination dated 11.06.2013, in page No.13, petitioner deposes that, she used to bring food from canteen likewise she also used to cook food and she used to eat the same. When it has been questioned her that, all the necessary articles were available for her in the kitchen, she deposes that, some of the articles were kept in a lock. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that, the respondents used to throw her cloths out of washing machine and they used to lock soap, detergent, emergency lamp and water heater kettle etc., they used to intentionally switch off the main power and also used to empty water sump., so that petitioner can draw water from the sump which is situated in the ground floor. However, during her cross- examination, she deposes that, she used to wash her cloths by hand, which is in contradiction with her allegation. Further, except these vague allegations, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner.
22 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
16. The petitioner further contends that, she was not allowed to spend time with her husband and respondent No.1 and 2 used to again and again call her husband, in order to make sure that, he does not spend time with the petitioner. She further claims that, 2nd respondent used to send vulgar messages to her husband and used to ask him to get divorce from the petitioner. During her cross- examination, she deposes that, "¸ÀzÀj J¸ïJAJ¸ïUÀ¼À°è 2 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¢£À E°è EgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É, AiÀiÁªÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JA§ÄzÁV PÉüÀÄwÛzÀgÝ ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ºÀĵÁgÁVgÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀgÝ ÀÄ. PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¨Áj PÉlÖ ¨sÁµÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §¼À¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÉĸÉÃeïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÉĸÉÃeï §A¢®è". According to petitioner, in those SMS, 2nd respondent used to enquire the petitioner as to how many days she will stay at matrimonial house when she will go to her mother house and she used to ask the husband of the petitioner to be careful when he was with the petitioner and some times she used to use filthy language. Obviously these messages cannot be called as vulagar messages, even if it is believed that, 2nd respondent used to send such messages, however except vague allegations, no corroborative evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to prove her contention. The 23 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 petitioner herself has produced a print-out of E-mail which she claims to have sent to the 2nd respondent where the petitioner herself is stating as to what 2nd respondent has stated to the petitioner, when petitioner called the 2nd respondent. However, petitioner neither produced earlier conversation nor later conservations, that itself goes to show that, it is a created document, the said document was marked as Ex.P.1.
17. The petitioner further contends that, respondents used to disconnect the wire of the telephone in order to prevent petitioner from speaking to her mother. During her cross-examination dated 27.06.2013, petitioner deposes that, prior to her marriage itself, she is using mobile phone. Under such circumstances, when she had mobile phone, her contention that, respondent used to disconnect the wire of the telephone, in order to prevent petitioner from speaking to her mother is not reliable. The petitioner further alleges that, her husband and respondent No.1 to 3 used to take her salary. During her cross-examination dated 27.06.2013, petitioner deposes that, "£À£Àß ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛUÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è DzÀgÉ DPÉ ºÀt PÉýzÁUÀ PÉýzÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝ". She further deposes that, she does not know, as to what was her 24 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 salary at that time. In view of above observation, the petitioner herself claims that, she has not given salary to her mother-in-law, however she had given money whenever her mother-in-law demanded for it, which is clearly in contradiction with her allegation. Further, petitioner fails to produce any corroborative evidence to prove that, she had given salary to respondents. Though, petitioner has produced some of the medical records and got that marked as Ex.P.2 stating those are the medical bills of 2nd respondent which has been paid by the 1st petitioner. On perusal of Ex.P.2, nothing can be made out as to who has paid those receipts.
18. The petitioner further alleges that, respondents used to ask husband of the petitioner to get divorce from the petitioner and they were making efforts for re-marriage of the husband of the petitioner. During her cross-examination dated 27.06.2013 in page No.15, petitioner claims that, "£À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ £Á£ÀÄ EzÁÝUÀ £ÀqÉ¢®è". The above deposition of the petitioner goes to show that, till she was in the matrimonial house, no effort has been made by the respondents for her husband's remarriage. 25 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
19. The petitioner further contends that, respondents used to do black magic in order to get rid of petitioner and her son, they also used to do black magic to win cases against the petitioner. Except vague allegation of black magic, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner during her trial. Mere repetition of pleading does not constitute evidence.
20. The petitioner further alleges that, the respondents were leading immoral life, when the petitioner joined them in the matrimonial house, father of 1st respondent was also residing with them. According to petitioner, respondents used to warn father of the 1st respondent from talking to petitioner, so as to conceal immoral life of respondents and property disputes. In the petition, it was alleged by the petitioner that, when the Late.Doraiswamypillai informed her about the character of the 2nd respondent that, she became pregnant without marriage, the respondent No.1 and 2 became very violent and started to beat the Late.Doraiswamypillai, when the petitioner intervened, she was also assaulted by the respondents and they asked the husband of the petitioner to send the petitioner out of matrimonial house. However, during her examination-in- 26 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 chief, it was the contention of the petitioner that, on 26.12.2009, 2nd respondent scolded her in filthy language and pushed towards a wall when the petitioner was two month pregnant. She also had shown knife to the petitioner stating, if she does not leave the matrimonial house, she will kill the petitioner. According to petitioner, 2nd respondent did all these things to prevent petitioner from knowing about properties of Doraiswamypillai and about the marital life of 2nd respondent. Hence, in the petition, the petitioner has contended that, both 1st and 2nd respondent assaulted her. However, during her examination-in-chief, when she refers to the same incident, nothing has been deposed about 1st respondent and she deposes nothing about 2nd respondent beating her grand father as he has disclosed about her marital life to the petitioner. ¦¦
21. The petitioner further contends that, though her mother-in-law i.e., 1st respondent has rental income of more than Rs.50,000/-, she used to collect salary of 1st petitioner and her husband. During her cross-examination, petitioner submits that, 1st respondent is receiving approximately Rs.35,000/- as rent, 27 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 which is in contradiction with the contention of the petitioner taken in her examination-in-chief. The petitioner further alleges that, respondent used to demand Rs.15,00,000/- to repay the loan incurred by husband of the petitioner. Further, petitioner was not allowed to speak to the guest, she was asked to remain in her room all the time. Further, during her pregnancy, respondents used to throw soap water on the floor, so that petitioner can fall down from the stair case. Further, petitioner was not allowed to attend death ceremony of relatives of the respondent. All these allegations are vague in nature, no specific date or time has been mentioned by the petitioner. Further, no corroborative evidence has been placed on record.
22. According to petitioner, respondent No.1 to 3 were leading immoral life. Respondent No.1 has elder son about whom nothing has been disclosed by the 1st respondent to the petitioner. In the petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that, 1st respondent had many extra marital affairs with married men including a long term affair with one Nagaraj who committed suicide 10 years above. According to petitioner, 2nd respondent 28 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 conceived without marriage and she had affair with one Mr.Anand, who has not divorce his wife. Further, 3rd respondents elder daughter attempted suicide in order to marry her lover and 3rd respondent's husband is a drunkard, jobless and completely dependant on 3rd respondent, 3rd respondents another daughter by name Sushmitha and petitioner's husband Srinath used to misbehave. During her examination-in-chief, the petitioner has deposed nothing about the character of respondent No.1. However, she claims that, one Anand was also living in the matrimonial house. Later, she herself claims that, Anand used to visit the matrimonial house again and again with whom 2nd respondent had extra marital affair. During her cross-examination, she denies the suggestion that, she has falsely deposed before the court saying Anand was also residing in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, she herself admits the suggestion that, she has not produced any document to that, said Anand was also residing in the matrimonial house. In the petition, it was the contention of the petitioner that, said Anand used to visit regularly between 7.30 to 8.30 pm., to meet respondent No.2 and during his visit, she was 29 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011 forced to lock the door and sit inside her bed room and the 1st respondent used to go the 3rd respondents house situated in the same building. Further, petitioner also makes baseless and vague allegation against daughter's of 3rd respondent, who are not even party to the present petition. In view of above observation, except vague allegations of immoral character, nothing has been placed on record.
23. Under section 3 of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005., any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence, if it harms or injuries or endangers, the life of any person including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. Averments made in the present petition, do not fall under any of the aforesaid expressions. Further, during the cross-examination of PW.1, she herself has admitted that, till the receipt of notice of divorce proceedings, she has not filed any complaint or case against the respondents. With the above observation, petitioner fails to prove that, she is an aggrieved person. Hence, I answered both Point No.1 and Point No.2 are in the NEGATIVE.
30 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
24. 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.
The parties shall bear their own cost.
(The order dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced and signed by me on this 20th day of May 2019) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Shakuntala Srinath @ Sada.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P.1 Copy of E-Mail.
Ex.P.2 Medical Bills.
Ex.P.3 Copy of Two Receipts.
Ex.P.4 & 5 Copy of complaints.
Ex.P.6 Copy of complaint.
Ex.P.7 Copy of Statement.
31 Crl. Misc.No.401 - 2011
Ex.P.8 Copy of Statement.
Ex.P.9 Receipt.
Ex.P.10 Copy of complaint.
Ex.P.11 to 13 Photos.
Ex.P.14 Photo.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT
R.W.1 Smt.R.Vijayakumari.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 Copy of FIR, complaint, Final Report and other
documents in C.C.No.6634/2011.
Ex.R.2 Complaint.
Ex.R.3 Final report and other documents.
Ex.R.4 Certified copy of examination-in-chief in
M.C.No.2841/2010 of petitioner.
Ex.R.5 Certified copy of examination-in-chief in
Crl.Mis.No.411/2011 of petitioner.
(POOJA SHETTI)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.