Bangalore District Court
G.U.Lakshmivishnuvardhana vs Dr.B.S Vishnuvardhana on 9 January, 2025
KABC080013132012
Presented on : 11-09-2012
Registered on : 11-09-2012
Decided on : 09-01-2025
Duration : 12 years, 3 months, 28 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.157/2012
Petitioner : Smt.G.U. Lakshmi Vishnuvardhana
W/o Dr.B.S. Vishnuvardhana,
D/o Late G.N.Ugraiah
Aged about 33 years,
No.3085, 9th Block,
Janapriya Heavens Apartments,
Allalasandra,
Bangalore - 560 065.
V/s
Respondent : Sri.Dr.B.S. Vishnuvardhana
S/o Shankaralingaiah N
Aged about 43 years,
R/at House No.B1,
2
Crl.Misc.157/2012
Z.A.R.S. Quarters,
Hand Post,
Mudigere,
Chikkamagalur District.
Working at :
C/o J.Venkatesh,
Director of Institution,
Horticulture College,
Mudigere,
Chikkamagalur District.
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; Petitioner and respondent marriage was solemnized on 24.01.1999 and from the wed lock they have 2 children. Further she submitted that, on 21.01.1999 their engagement was held at that time electricity has gone, at that time respondent's mother told every one that the petitioner is a bad omen and is a sign of unluckiness. Since then till today the respondent and his mother have been harassing the petitioner stating that above situation. Further she submitted that, entire marriage expenses borne by her father and 3 Crl.Misc.157/2012 marriage solemnized according to the whims and fancies of the respondent. At the time of marriage respondent demanded and received Rs.45,000/- as dowry plus suit, ring, clothing etc., worth Rs.3 lakhs including the marriage expenses and also received around 50 grams of gold for the petitioner from the parents of the petitioner. Further she submitted that, from the date of marriage respondent was not cordial with the petitioner and very next day after the first night the respondent started abusing about some shortage of ghee rice during the lunch in the marriage ceremony. Further she submitted that, respondent is having a habit of drinking liquor, smoking cigarettes and playing cards. Further she submitted that, even before her marriage respondent went to his colleague one Mr.Lakshman and Mrs.Manjula's house to play cards where Ms.Padma sister of the Mrs.Manjula also used to reside. After marriage respondent told her that Mrs.Manjula had an intention of getting her sister Ms.Padma married to the respondent. Even after her marriage with the respondent the respondent used to go to the house of his colleague Mr.Lakshman and Mrs.Manjula to play cards everyday and used to come home late fully drunk and beat if asked otherwise, for which the petitioner has taken treatment many a times.
4Crl.Misc.157/2012
3. Further petitioner submitted that, during her pregnancy also respondent used to beat her and used to threaten her that he will kill her. During April 2000 one day when the petitioner was 7 months pregnant due to the severe physical harassment by the respondent she took treatment at hospital i.e., R.K.Nursing Home, Chintamani. During September 2001, when she was 3 months pregnant she was forced by the respondent to abort the pregnancy and also she was physically harassed by him. During June 2002 when she was 8 months pregnant for her 2nd baby, again due to the severe physical harassment by the respondent she took treatment at hospital. Further she submitted that, after delivery of her 2nd child during stay at her in law's house everyday she was abused and assaulted by her father in law and mother in law.
4. Further she submitted that, after death of her father in October 1999, respondent's father used to visit her mother's house and misbehaved with her. When petitioner asked the same to respondent, he used to threatened the petitioner to kill and continued to beat her. Further she submitted that, during the year 2003 to 2006 she was at Tumkur with the respondent. At that 5 Crl.Misc.157/2012 time respondent used to harass the petitioner in one way or another in front of the petitioner's cousin Mr.Pradeepa who used to take her to the hospital every time.
5. Further petitioner submitted that, during December 2004, the respondent brought the petitioner to his parent's house at Kengeri Upanagara and told them not to allow the petitioner to meet anyone and not even to go to a Doctor, let her die here itself. Several times the petitioner was threatened by the respondent and her in- laws, thus in self defense, the petitioner along with her children went to the respondent's uncle one Mr.Nanjundaiah and Mrs. Gangamma house at Kunigal, Tumkur District. The respondent came there also and used to beat the petitioner. Further she submitted that, the - psychiatrist Dr. Lokesh Babu at Tumkur advised the respondent to take treatment regarding intolerable irritability trait. Further she submitted that, during March 2005, she along with her children after suffering from all type of harassment, had thought of committing suicide. In the life with the respondent she suffered six abortions. Due to the harassment given by the respondent the petitioner had suffered a lot and she took treatment from the psychiatrist for depression for about a year.
6Crl.Misc.157/2012
6. Further petitioner submitted that, as the respondent had got transferred to Mudigere, she along with her children moved to Mudigere during May 2006 and there also several times the respondent has harassed her mentally and physically in front of their children. And also the respondent used to beat the children several times coming fully drunk. The respondent did not allow the petitioner to meet, not even talk with her parents, sisters, brothers etc., from Nov 2007, and used to abuse the whole of the petitioner's parental family with bad words.
7. Further petitioner submitted that, on 04-06- 2009 and 05-06-2009 she was cruelly sexually harassed by the respondent for which she is taking the treatment till now. The petitioner submits that, the respondent used to bring official gun and bullets to the house and used to train the son Chi. Abhishek to operate the gun. The respondent used to threaten the petitioner that he was very influential and he will kill the petitioner and by killing the petitioner he will not get any punishment as he is very influential. Further she submitted that, in the year 2009 the harassment given by the respondent was more and aggressive. As the respondent started 7 Crl.Misc.157/2012 threatening the petitioner by bringing the gun to the house, the petitioner suffered a lot from the respondent and on 11-06-2009 evening at around 7 p.m. when his harassment and threatening became severe, the petitioner along with her children in self defense went to her neighbour one Mr. Thippeshappa and Mrs. Vijaya. The same day at around 8 pm, the respondent had called a Doctor one Dr.Vishnu Murthy and had told him to give some injection and make the petitioner sleep. The said Doctor came and examined the petitioner at the instance of the respondent and told the respondent that the petitioner is healthy and perfectly alright and there is no necessity of giving any injection or medicine to make her sleep. The whole night, the petitioner slept along with her daughter at another neighbour's home one Mrs. Suchitra and Mr.Janardhan. After suffering from all these incidents, on 12.06.2009 the petitioner filed a complaint before the sub-inspector of police, Mudigere Police Station, Mudigere. The police sent the petitioner to her parent's house and now the petitioner is residing in her parent's house at Allalasandra, Bangalore.
8. Further petitioner submitted that, she gave complaint to the Karnataka State Commission for Women on 15.06.2009. Further on 16.06.2009 the respondent 8 Crl.Misc.157/2012 threatened the maternal uncle of the petitioner he will file case against everyone in the petitioner's parental family. For that she has given a complaint against the respondent at Yelahanka Police Station on 19-06-2009 and has requested for protection of herself and her children from the respondent.
9. Further she submitted that, at present she is residing with her parents and all her belongings like gift items, costly jewels, clothes and marks-cards, etc., are in the custody of the respondent. The petitioner is unemployed and she is finding difficulty to maintain her self and children and to pay the home rent. Without the monetary assistance from the respondent it may not be possible for her to maintain her self and children.
10. Further petitioner submitted that, the respondent is a Government employee and is drawing a salary of about Rs.40,000/- per month and he owns a site at Tumkur measuring 60*80 feet. The respondent owns a house in Bangalore and he is receiving Rs.5,000/- per month as rent from it. The respondent also has the ancestral property of about 4 acres at Burudeghatta and from that he will get Rs.16,000/- per month and he is receiving Rs.7,000/- per month from the 9 Crl.Misc.157/2012 provision store at Kengeri Upanagara, Bangalore. So totally the income of the respondent is Rs.68,000/- per month. The petitioner is unemployed and she requires Rs.9,000/- per month for her maintenance and for her children each she requires Rs.8,000/- per month for the maintenance like, food, cloth, medicine, school fee, books and other expenses etc. Further she submitted that, since the petitioner's mother is a widow and has told that she cannot maintain the petitioner and her children, the petitioner has to rent a house, for which she requires Rs.10,000/- per month as rental charges and now she requires Rs.1,00,000/- to deposit as a advance to the house that she has to take for rent. It is submitted that she has to change the school of the children and she has to pay the donation to the school, the petitioner requires a minimum of Rs.1,00,000/- as donation for the schools, so that she can get her children admitted to good school at Bangalore as early as possible. The petitioner submit that, after all this totally she requires Rs.35,000/- per month as the maintenance amount for herself and her children. The petitioner submits that she requires a Compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for extreme sufferings she has undergone by the respondent until today. On all these grounds she has filed this petition.
10Crl.Misc.157/2012
11. After the registration of the petition this Court has issued notice to the respondent and he appeared through his counsel and filed objection statement. In the statement of objection he admitted marriage relationship between them and 2 children born from the wed lock. Further he denied all the allegation made in the petition against him. Further he denied that, he demanded dowry from the petitioner and caused domestic violence against the petitioner. On all these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
12. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 69. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.6.
13. Heard on respondent's sides. Petitioner filed written argument.
14. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner prove that they were subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
11Crl.Misc.157/2012
15. 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
16. 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. The respondent has neglected the petitioner and her children without any reasonable cause and the respondent is capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
17. 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 relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent were residing together till the date of separation. Hence, they have resided together in a 12 Crl.Misc.157/2012 shared household. It is also an admitted fact that they have 2 children from the wedlock. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
18. Before analyzing the evidence in the present matter it has to be borne in mind that, as per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act the petitioner has to prove the allegations made by her in order to succeed in this matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shank Balaji V/s Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774 has held that, the proceedings under DV Act are civil in nature. Hence, the evidence has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. With this proposition of law the evidence on record has to be considered.
19. The Court also has to consider the definition of domestic violence in order to effectively adjudicate the matter. The United Nations has defined Domestic abuse, also called "domestic violence" or "intimate partner violence", as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This 13 Crl.Misc.157/2012 includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone. Sec.3 of PWDV Act provides definition of domestic violence and it states that it includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Before considering if the petitioner is able to prove domestic violence it must be borne in mind that domestic violence is a subjective matter and perception of each person may differ and there is no mathematical standard which is formulated to say that a particular behaviour constitutes domestic violence. It depends on each individual, their social, economic, educational status.
20. Coming to the case in hand, petitioner in order to prove her contentions has examined herself has P.W.1 and got marked 69 documents. Admittedly, petitioner and respondent had an arranged marriage which was held on 24.01.1999. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent separated in 2009. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner has given 1st complaint against the respondent to Mudigere police only on 12.06.2009 and the said acknowledgment and complaint issued by the police is marked as Ex.P.9 and
10. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner did not 14 Crl.Misc.157/2012 file any police complaint against the respondent from 1999 to 2009 i.e., for 10 years.
21. It is an admitted fact that, respondent is a government servant who is working under University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. He is in a transferable job. Hence, petitioner and respondent have resided together at Chintamani Taluk, Tumkur District, Tumkur City, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagalur District. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner is also well educated and she has completed MA in Sociology and LLB and LLM. Although, she is well educated she has not worked during her marital life with the respondent. It is an admitted fact that, the respondent had filed MC No.774/2011 against the petitioner U/Sec.13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act and the same is allowed. Hence, the petitioner and respondent are divorced and the respondent has currently remarried one Smt.Sharada. It is an admitted fact the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed in MC No.774/2011 and the same is pending consideration before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner and respondent have 2 children and both have attained majority. Daughter of the petitioner and respondent Kum.Bhavana is studying B.Arch at UVCE and their son 15 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Abhishek B is studying 6th Semester BE at Ambedkar Engineering Institute of Technology. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner has been granted Rs.35,000/- per month as interim maintenance by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.1178/2015 clubbed with Crl.RP No.1236/2015 and she has been granted Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses in MC No.774/2011. It is an admitted fact that, respondent had filed G & WC for custody of the children and the same has been dismissed.
22. It is the main contention of the petitioner that, the respondent was not cordial with her from the inception of marriage. She has alleged that, respondent had a habit of drinking liquor, smoking cigarettes and playing cards. She has alleged that, respondent often used to go his colleague Mr.Lakshman's house to play cards everyday and used to come home fully drunk and beat her if she questioned him. She has further alleged that, she has undergone 6 abortions due to the harassment given by the respondent.
23. She has alleged that, she has undergone treatment from psychiatrist for depression for about a year and the cost was borne by her maternal kith and 16 Crl.Misc.157/2012 kin. She has further alleged that, respondent has harassed her mentally and physically in front of the children and he used to abuse her whole family. She has alleged that, the respondent has brought his official gun and tried to train their son to operate the gun by pointing towards the petitioner. She has alleged that, she has been subjected to sexual assault on 04.06.2009 and 05.06.2009. She has alleged that, on 11.06.2009 when the harassment by the respondent became unbearable she along with her children in self defence to save their life went to their neighbors house i.e., Tippeshappa and Vijaya and on the same day at 8.00 p.m. respondent called Dr.Vishnumurthy who runs a clinic at Mudigere and insisted him to give the petitioner sedative injections to make her sleep even when the doctor opined that it is not necessary to give any medicines to the petitioner to make her sleep. Petitioner has alleged that, on that day she slept in her neighbour Suchitra's house along with her daughter. Thereafter, she has filed a complaint before Mudigere police on 12.06.2009. Subsequently, she filed a complaint before Karnataka State Commission for Women on 15.06.2009, 18.06.2009 and 13.07.2009. She has alleged that, she even approached Karnataka State Commission for Women on 24.06.2010 to get back her belonging i.e., education marks card, clothes, jewels 17 Crl.Misc.157/2012 and after obtaining directions from the Women Commission she approached the respondent on 06.07.2010 in his office for return of her belongings but the respondent refused to give her back her belongings. She has stated that, she could not get back any of her belongings in spite of approaching Tahasildar, District Magistrate, SP of Chikkamagaluru and without any other alternative she also got issued a such warrant but even then she could not get back her belongings. She has alleged that, due to the respondent's behavior she has suffered sever chest pain, high BP, depression. In this regard the petitioner has got marked Ex.P.4 which is the medical certificate dated 26.07.2009 issued by Dr.Aruna, Lakshmi Clinic wherein it is stated that, the petitioner was under treatment for depressive psychosis from 1999 to 2002 due to recurrent domestic suffering. She has got marked Ex.P.5 which is issued by Dr.Lokesh Babu, Neuro psychiatrist of Sneha Manovikasa Kendra at Tumkur, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner has under depressive episode. She has got marked wound certificate dated 19.11.2009 issued by Dr.Arati J of Ashwini hospital wherein it is stated that, petitioner is suffering from diffuse swelling on the genitalia measuring 2 x 2 c.m. and the injury is simple in nature. She has got marked complaint filed by her to Mudigere police on 18 Crl.Misc.157/2012 12.06.2009 as Ex.P.10, the complaint filed by her to the Karnataka State Commission of Women on 15.06.2009, 18.06.2009, 13.07.2009 as Ex.P.12 to 14. She has produced the report of PSI Mudigere police station to Secretary, Karnataka Women Commission on 06.07.2010, 28.07.2009 stating that he was unable to get back the belongings of the petitioner marked as Ex.P.17 and 18. She has produced Ex.P.20/ECG conducted at Mudigere government hospital. She has also produced her out patient record of Mudigere Government hospital dated 13.07.2010. She has got marked prescription dated 04.08.2010 issued by Dr.Lokesh Babu for depression episode as Ex.P.21. In order to prove that the respondent was in custody of gun petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 which is issued by Associate Director of Research, Mudigere wherein it is stated that, licence of gun has been given in the name of designation i.e., Sr. Farm Superintendent, Regional research station, Mudigere and the respondent was working as Sr. Farm Superintendent at Mudigere from 12.09.2008 to 12.06.2009. She has also produced Ex.P.8 issued by Circle Inspector of Mudigere police station, wherein it is stated that, the respondent has undergone gun training from 02.02.2009 to 11.02.2009. Petitioner has also produced the case sheet of Karnataka State Women 19 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Commission as Ex.P.27. She has produced the letter written by her brother to Chikkamagaluru S.P. and Chair person for National Commission for Women for registration of complaint against the respondent as Ex.P.28 and 29. She has produced Ex.P.34 which is the FIR registered by Mudigere police against the respondent for offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC marked as Ex.P.34. She has produced charge sheet filed against respondent by Mudigere police for offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC marked as Ex.P.35.
24. Respondent has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. He has alleged that, relationship between himself and petitioner was very cordial till the younger sister of the respondent Bhagyalakshmi married younger brother of the respondent Vasanth Kumar on 18.06.2006. He has alleged that, the mother and brother of the petitioner caused cruelty on his sister and she unable to bear the cruelty meted out by her attempted to commit suicide on 09.05.2009. She was immediately admitted to the hospital on 10.05.2009. In this regard she filed complaint to the concerned police station on 11.05.2009. On the same day i.e., 11.05.2009 she was brought to the house of the respondent. Thereafter on the instigation of her brother and mother petitioner changed 20 Crl.Misc.157/2012 her attitude towards the respondent subsequently she filed complaint against the respondent on 12.06.2009. Therefore, he has contended that, the petitioner has filed the complaint and this petition as a counter blast to the complaint filed by his sister against her mother and brother.
25. It is further contended that, the petitioner has not at all disclosed as to why she was being harassed and ill treated by the respondent in her entire petition. This in itself shows that, the entire petition is an after thought. He has alleged that, the brother of the petitioner Mr.Gurudath has gone to the extent of filing false complaint against him before National Commission of Women at New Delhi. He has stated that, in the interest of the minor children he has sent a notice to the petitioner through his advocate on 17.06.2009 requesting her to come back and reside with him along with the children. Petitioner has not complied with the same. He has stated that, the petitioner has filed several cases against him and family members and has given mental torture to them from 2009 with an intention to harass them. Respondent in support of his contentions has examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 which is judgment dated 03.09.2019 passed in MC 21 Crl.Misc.157/2012 No.774/2011 allowing the divorce petition filed by the respondent. He has got marked Ex.R.2 which is the decree in MC No.774/2011, Ex.R.3 which is the certified copy of the entire charge sheet in CC No.597/2010, Ex.R.5 judgment passed in CC No.23589/2014 registered against the brother of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner has been acquitted as per Ex.R.5. He has produced Ex.R.6 which is the entire charge sheet in CC No.23589/2014 registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the sister of the respondent against the mother and brother of the petitioner.
26. On an examination of the contentions of the respondent it is clear that, the respondent is not denying various cases filed by the petitioner. It is his contention that, the said cases are all false cases. In respondent 's cross examination dated 13.09.2023 respondent has admitted that, petitioner has undergone one abortion. He has denied that, petitioner has undergone abortion due to the harassment caused by him. However, in Ex.R.1/judgment in MC No.774/2011 it is noticed by the Hon'ble Family Court that, petitioner has suffered abortion for about 4 times and this is admitted by the respondent in his cross examination. Even though the respondent has denied that the abortions occurred due 22 Crl.Misc.157/2012 to the harassment caused by him he has not produced any counter evidence to show the reasons for the said abortions. He has not given any explanation why these abortions occurred. Hence, it is probabalized by the petitioner that she has suffered abortions due to the harassment of the respondent.
27. The petitioner is mainly relying on Ex.P.4 to 6 to prove that, respondent has caused harassment to her and she has undergone depression due to his conduct. Ex.P.4 is the medical certificate dated 26.07.2009 issued by Dr.Aruna at Chintamani Taluk, Tumkur District. Ex.P.5 is medical certificate issued by Dr.Lokesh Babu on 02.07.2009. In both the certificates it is stated that, the petitioner is suffering from depression and she is under treatment. Respondent in his cross examination dated 18.12.2023 in para 8 has stated that, the petitioner has undergone treatment for depression at Sneha Manovikas Kendra at Tumkur before marriage and she has not undergone any treatment after marriage. Respondent has filed an application to summon the medical records and the concerned doctors who have issued Ex.P.4 to 6. The said application was dismissed by this Court on 08.07.2024 for the reason that the petitioner has been cross examined rigorously with 23 Crl.Misc.157/2012 respect to these documents. The said order has not been challenged by the respondent and hence, it has attained finality. Ex.P.4 has been issued by Dr.Aruna who is stated to be a Sonologist in Ex.P.4. Therefore, it is not believable that the petitioner was under her treatment for depressive psychosis from 1999 to 2002 since the said doctor lacks the required expertise to either diagnose or treat a condition like depressive psychosis. Hence, Ex.P.4 cannot be taken into consideration. However, Ex.P.5 has been issued by a Neuro psychiatrist and respondent has not brought out anything in the cross examination of the petitioner to disbelieve Ex.P.5. Further petitioner has also produced Ex.P.21 issued from Dr.Lokesh Babu wherein it is stated that, petitioner is suffering from depression episode. There is no reason to disbelieve Ex.P.5 and 21. Although, Ex.P.5 and 21 do not mention the reasons for depression undergone by the petitioner it can be attributed to the respondent as it is already probabalized by the petitioner that she has suffered abortions due to his conduct. It is the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner was suffering from depression even before her marriage with him. In this regard the counsel for the respondent has cross examined the petitioner and it is elicited from her in cross examination dated 01.03.2024 24 Crl.Misc.157/2012 in para 1 that, she could not have possibly taken treatment from doctor Lokesh Babu before marriage as she was born and brought up in Dharwad and Dr.Lokesh Babu's clinic was located in Tumkur. This shows that it is improbable that Dr.Lokesh Babu was treating the petitioner for depression even before marriage. Further the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that petitioner was suffering from depression even before marriage. Admittedly, petitioner has received treatment for depression even after separating from the respondent as indicated in Ex.P.21. However, this proves that petitioner has suffered due to the conduct of the respondent even after separation.
28. Further, petitioner is relying on Ex.P.6 to prove sexual abuse by the respondent. Petitioner has been thoroughly cross examined regarding Ex.P.6 by the counsel for the respondent. In her cross examination dated 26.02.2024 in para 3 she has stated that, " ನಿ.ಪಿ 5 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಕಿನ್ನತೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಶ್ವಿನಿ ಆಸ್ಪತ್ರೆಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ನನಗೆ ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಕಿರುಕುಳ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ಕಾರಣ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ನ್ನು ಕೊಡುವ ಪೂರ್ವದಲ್ಲಿ ವೈದ್ಯರು ತಪಾಸಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿ ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ಗರ್ಭಿಣಿ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೆ ಕೂಡಾ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಾನು ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಗರ್ಭಿಣಿ ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ಹೆಂಗಸರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ 25 Crl.Misc.157/2012 ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ಸಂಭೋಗದಿಂದ ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ವೈದ್ಯರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ವಿಕೃತವಾಗಿ ಸಂಭೋಗ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಬರೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನನ್ನ ಎಕ್ಸರೆ ರಿಪೋರ್ಟ್ ನಾರ್ಮಲ್ ಎಂದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವಂತ ತೊಂದರೆ ಸಂಭೋಗ ಮಾಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ನನಗೆ ರಕ್ತಸ್ರಾವ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಶೌಚಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆ ಕೊಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಆಗಿರುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ಸ್ವರೂಪದ್ದು ಎಂದು ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಘಟನೆ ಆದ 10 ದಿನದ ನಂತರ ಚಿಕಿತ್ಸೆಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುವ ಕಾರಣ ಆ ರೀತಿ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ 6 ನ್ನು ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಡಾ. ಆರತಿ ಜೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆಸಲು ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ.".
Therefore, from Ex.P.4 to 6 and 21 petitioner is able to probabalize that she has been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the respondent.
29. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, in November 2004 the respondent has beaten her on head, face, ear, stomach etc., due to which she started developing severe head ache for this she has undergone treatment at Ayurvedic hospital in Ballary as an inpatient. The respondent in his cross examination has admitted that, the petitioner has taken treatment at Ayurvedic hospital in Ballary in November 2004. He has stated that, his maternal aunt and the petitioner were 26 Crl.Misc.157/2012 admitted together in the Ayurvedic hospital at Ballary. He has not explained the reason for admission of petitioner in the said hospital. He has denied the suggestion that, he has not paid for the hospital expenses and stated that, he has the relevant bills to show that he has paid the hospital expenses. Admittedly, these bills have not been produced by the respondent. The respondent has also not given any explanation regarding the reason for admission of the petitioner to the hospital. Under such circumstances it is probabalized by the petitioner that she was admitted in the hospital at Ballary due to the physical abuse by the respondent and that the respondent did not pay for the medical expenses.
30. It is alleged by the petitioner that, on 11.06.2009 in the evening at 7.00 p.m. the petitioner and her children unable to bear the harassment caused by the respondent went to their neighbor Mr.Tippeshappa and his wife Vijaya's house. She has alleged that, on the same day the respondent called Dr.Vishnumurthy at Mudigere and insisted him to give sedative to the petitioner to enable her to sleep. The said doctor refused to give any medicine to make the petitioner to sleep as she was perfectly alright. The petitioner unable to bear 27 Crl.Misc.157/2012 the fear of respondent motives went to her neighbor Mrs.Suchitra Janardhan's house and stayed there for the entire night along with her daughter. She has submitted that, on the next day she has filed a complaint against the respondent to Mudigere police. The respondent in his cross examination dated 08.01.2024 in para 2 has admitted that, the petitioner stayed at Mrs.Suchitra Janardhan's house in the night at 11.06.2009. However, he has stated that, the petitioner preplanned to call her family to Mudigere and she has stayed at their neighbour's house. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the respondent on 12.06.2009. There is no evidence before the Court that, the petitioner's family members arrived at Mudigere on 12.06.2009. Therefore, the respondent's explanation that petitioner stayed at Mrs.Suchitra Janardhan's house on 11.06.2009 with a plan to get her family members to Mudigere cannot be accepted. The fact that, the petitioner stayed at her neighbour's house on 11.06.2009 and immediately on the next day i.e., 12.06.2009 she lodged a complaint against the respondent before Mudigere police shows that, on 11.06.2009 petitioner faced a imminent threat from the respondent and fearing for her life and she has stayed over at her neighbor's house. It is the contention of the respondent that, the 28 Crl.Misc.157/2012 petitioner has used the influence of her brother who is employed in DRDO in New Delhi and she has got several false complaints registered against him and his family members. It is the contention of the petitioner that, even though she filed a complaint against the respondent on 12.06.2009 before Mudigere police, the respondent used his influence and ensured that there is no action taken against him by the police. She has stated that, in order to ensure action is taken against the respondent she had to approach S.P. Chikkamagaluru, Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka, DYSP, Chikkamagaluru and only thereafter Mudigere police have registered FIR against the respondent. In order to substantiate her contention she has produced Ex.P.28, 30 to 33. These documents show that, in spite of a complaint being lodged against the respondent at Mudigere police station on 12.06.2009 Mudigere police have not registered FIR against the respondent. Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.34 which is the FIR in crime No.09/2010 registered against the respondent for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC on 14.01.2010 by Mudigere police. Therefore, it is clear that the FIR was registered 6 months after the petitioner lodged the complaint against the respondent. Hence, if the petitioner had preplanned to lodge a complaint against the respondent and purposefully 29 Crl.Misc.157/2012 stayed over at her neighbour's house on 11.06.2009 she would have ensured that the FIR is registered against the respondent on 12.06.2009 itself by using her brother Mr.Gurudutt's influence. The very fact that, the petitioner had to run pillar to post to get an FIR registered against the respondent shows that, she had not preplanned against the respondent while staying over at her neighbour's house on 11.06.2009. In deed petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent before Karnataka State Commission for Women and also her brother has filed a complaint to the National Commission for Women against the respondent. But legal recourse taken by the petitioner for the harassment meted out to her cannot be considered as petitioner harassing the respondent.
31. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home without taking her belongings like clothes, jewels, her and her children's educational documents etc., Hence, in order to get back the same she has approached the Karnataka State Commission of Women and also obtained an order to visit the house of the respondent along with police protection and get her belongings back. But the respondent has refused to give back the documents. She 30 Crl.Misc.157/2012 has further alleged that, even she has obtained search warrant to get back her educational documents. In this regard she has produced Ex.P.41, 42, 43, 44. She has alleged that, the respondent has purposefully taken half day C.L from his office and avoided returning the document to the petitioner. In order to prove that, the respondent has purposefully taken CL for half day on the date of execution of search warrant petitioner has produced Ex.P.68 which shows that respondent has availed half day C.L on 28.07.2009 and reason for availing leave is not mentioned in Ex.P.68. In the cross examination dated 08.01.2024 in para 7 respondent has stated that, he was not informed about the search warrant hence he was not present when the police came to get the educational documents of the petitioner. He has admitted that, petitioner has left the marks card and the books in the Mudigere house and she has taken her clothes and jewels. He has stated that, he does not know about medical receipts of the petitioner. He has stated that, he was not aware about the order of the State Commission of Women passed for return of belongings to the petitioner as per Ex.P.18. From the admission of the respondent it is proved that, the marks cards of the petitioner and her children were in the house at Mudigere when the petitioner left the matrimonial 31 Crl.Misc.157/2012 home on 12.06.2009. From Ex.P.18, Ex.P.41 to 44 it is clear that the petitioner till today has been unsuccessful in getting back her educational documents especially her marks cards. As per Sec.3(iv)(c) of PWDV Act prohibiting or restricting the petitioner's access to resources or facilities which she is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of domestic relationship including access to shared household also constitutes economic abuse. Even though the said events occurred after separation of the parties the conduct of the respondent would still constitute domestic violence as he has purposefully avoided returning the belongings especially the educational documents of the petitioner with an intention to harass her. The contention of the respondent that, he was unaware about the search warrant is meritless as the police in Ex.P.41 and 42 have clearly mentioned the office address of the respondent. In Ex.P.18 it is clearly mentioned by PSI, Mudigere PS that, the respondent was unavailable at his house and his office on 28.07.2009 when he visited to execute the search warrant. It is evident that the respondent would have been informed about the search warrant on the said date or on the next date and the respondent could have voluntarily co- operated with the police for the execution of the search warrant. The very fact that, the respondent avoided the 32 Crl.Misc.157/2012 execution of search warrant proves that, respondent wanted to harass the petitioner by not returning her belongings.
32. Petitioner has alleged that, after her separation with the respondent he has issued a legal notice to her which is in the nature of threat to come back to the matrimonial house along with the children within 24 hours of receiving the notice and create an environment conducive to the education of the children failing which legal action will be taken against her. The said legal notice has been marked as Ex.P.69 by confronting the respondent in his cross examination . Respondent has denied the said letter is inform of a threat. However, the perusal of the said legal notice/Ex.P.69 states that "ನೀವು ಈ ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಪತ್ರ ತಲುಪಿ 24 ಗಂಟೆಯ ಒಳಗೆ ಮಕ್ಕಳೊಡನೆ ನನ್ನ ಕಕ್ಷಿದಾರರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಬರತಕ್ಕದ್ದು ಮತ್ತು ಮಕ್ಕಳ ವಿದ್ಯಾಭ್ಯಾಸಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುಕೂಲವಾದ ವಾತಾವರಣ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸತಕ್ಕದ್ದು. ತಪ್ಪಿ ದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಕಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನಿಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮ ಜರುಗಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ." The wordings used in the legal notice clearly is a warning to the petitioner. It is in a form of a order to the petitioner to return back to the matrimonial home. This legal notice reveals the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner. Even though the said legal notice is sent after separation of parties it 33 Crl.Misc.157/2012 would fall under the purview of this Act since domestic violence is a continuing offence.
33. Petitioner has alleged that, the sister of the respondent has assaulted her daughter and her mother but the alleged incident is after the separation of the parties. Hence, it does not come under the purview of PWDV Act. Further she has also alleged that, the father of the respondent had a bad eye on her mother and used to visit her mother's house without any reason after her father's death. Even this alleged incident has not occurred in the shared household hence, it does not fall under the purview of PWDV Act.
34. It is the main contention of the respondent that, the petitioner has not stated the reason for the respondent to continuously harass her. In this regard petitioner in her cross examination has stated that, the respondent did not need any reason to harass her. As already stated domestic violence is about power and control over the partner or spouse and is often marked by complex dynamics between the spouses. The abuser is always trying to gain power and control for that purpose he will use any method possible. Hence, Court cannot look for a reason for the respondent to harass the 34 Crl.Misc.157/2012 petitioner. The nature of the offence is such that it is done to gain control over the spouse. Hence, a reason to harass the spouse is not required as such.
35. It is the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner has filed all the cases in 2009 after the respondent's sister filed a complaint against the petitioner's brother Vasanth Kumar and her mother. Hence, the complaints of the petitioner are an after thought and they are counter blast to his sister's complaint. Although it is true that, the petitioner has started filing cases against the respondent in 2009 after respondent's sister filed complaint against the petitioner's brother but it is an admitted fact that the sister of the respondent and the brother of the petitioner have settled the issues between them and obtained mutual consent divorce. If at all the present case and the other complaints filed by the petitioner were a counter blast the petitioner would have withdrawn all the cases filed by her when the matter between her brother and her sister-in law got settled. The very fact that, the petitioner is continuing the litigation shows that the present case is not a counter blast and it is not filed as an after thought. It is also the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner has filed the present 35 Crl.Misc.157/2012 petition after leading 10 years of marital life with the respondent. Hence, the petition is delayed. It is contended that, there was no impediment to the petitioner to lodge a complaint against the respondent soon after the alleged physical and sexual abuse meted out to her. It is true that, the petitioner has filed the complaint after 10 years of marital life with the respondent and has alleged that, the respondent has harassed her from the inception of the marriage. Petitioner has stated that, the respondent has not allowed her to even contact her maternal relatives hence, she did not have an opportunity to file any complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee V/s Sarathi Choudhuri reported in (2016) 2 SCC 705 has held that domestic violence is a continuing offence. In cases of domestic violence it is often found that the aggrieved person does not immediately rush to the police when inflicted with physical, mental, psychological and economic abuse. The domestic abuse is so subtle and complex that the aggrieved person may not realize that they are experiencing domestic violence. There are many cultural and social factors involved in the conduct of the aggrieved person. In a patriarchal society like India any untoward action by the women is often viewed by the society as acts of dishonor towards the family and the 36 Crl.Misc.157/2012 women is never viewed kindly. Moreover, there is a tendency to treat these matters as a private family matter and aggrieved persons do not tend to reveal them to the outside world. Hence, just because there is delay in filing the complaint the allegations made in the petition cannot be considered as untrue. Apart from that, the sole testimony of the petitioner with respect to domestic violence when considered as a whole is found to be trust worthy, credible. There are certain exaggerations, improvements in the evidence of the petitioner but it is the duty of this Court to separate the grain from the chaff and only take the truthful part of the evidence of the petitioner. In this context the evidence of the petitioner with respect to domestic violence is found to be truthful and it inspires in the confidence in the mind of the Court. When the contention of the respondent are considered they are not enough to nullify the evidence of the petitioner. Hence, point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
36. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.35,000/- per month for herself and her children, Rs.1,00,000/- towards security deposit for rent, Rs.1,00,000/- towards donation to admit her children to school. Petitioner has filed her Assets and liabilities affidavit. She has stated that, she has studied 37 Crl.Misc.157/2012 MA LLB LLM. She has stated that, she is residing in a separated rented house. She has monthly expenses of Rs.1,07,471/-. She has stated that, she has availed personal loan from SBI for medical expenses and she is paying Rs.5,460/- towards EMI. She has stated that, the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.R.P No.1236/2015 clubbed with Crl.R.P.1178/2015 directed the respondent to pay Rs.35,000/- as interim maintenance to the petitioner. She has stated that, she has been awarded litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- by Hon'ble Family Court in MC No.774/2011. She has stated that, her daughter is currently studying in Architecture and her son is studying Engineering. She has stated that, she is incurring expenses Rs.40,000/- per month on account of her children. She has stated that, she is suffering from cervical spondylosis vertigo. In this regard she has submitted her medical documents. She has stated that, she has availed loan of Rs.9,55,000/- from relatives and friends for education and other expenses of the children. She has stated that, she is unemployed due to her health issues. He has submitted her SBI bank ,statement. She has stated that, she has availed mortgage loan from Kosamattam finance ltd., for Rs.85,000/- and she is paying EMI of Rs.1,011/- towards the mortgage loan and she is paying Rs.15,058/- towards her health insurance.
38Crl.Misc.157/2012 She has stated that, her gold bangle, 3 pairs of ear rings and 4 rings, silver items, 5 gold rings of the children, 2 pairs ear rings of the children and silver chain are in the custody of the respondent. She has stated that, respondent is residing in his own house, he has a residential site measuring 50*80 at Tumkuru, 4 acre agricultural land and ancestral house at Burudegatta, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur district. He has ancestral residential house at Kengeri. She has stated that, respondent is professor at Horticultural University and he has monthly income of Rs.3,05,000/- per month. He owns a car and a bike. She has stated that, she has incurred litigation expenses of Rs.2,97,000/- till now and she has to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to her advocates. She has stated that, she has incurred Rs.2,50,000/- towards her education i.e., LLB and LLM. She has furnished copy of the Order of Interim Maintenance dated 12/11/2009 in Crl.Misc. No.1213/2009, copy of the Order passed in Cr.A.No.942/2009 dated 09/04/2009, copy of the Order passed in Cr.Misc.No.157/2012 dated 17/02/2014, copy of the Order passed in Cr.A.No.289/2014 dated 01/10/2015, copy of the Order passed in Cr.R.P.No.1236/2015 c/w Cr.R.P.No.1178/2015 dated 16/02/2015 passed by High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, copy of Order towards litigation expenses 39 Crl.Misc.157/2012 passed by 6th Addl. Family Court at Bangalore in M.C.No.774/2011 dated 14/07/2014, copy of the Interim Order passed in M.F.A.No.9084/2019 dated 17/01/2020, bank Statement of Deponent held at State Bank of India, bank Statement of Loan held at State Bank of India, statement of Account of loan obtaining from Kosamattam Finance Ltd., copy of Rental Agreement, copy of MRI Scan Reports, medical Expenses Bills of Deponent, insurance Policy issued by Star Health Insurance, Household Articles bills, Fees paid towards Duplicate Marks Sheets of Deponent, education Expenditure Fee Receipts of Deponent, hand loan Receipts, education Fees of Master Abhishek, medical Expenses of Master Abhishek B V, education Fees of Miss Bhavana B V, medical Expenses of Miss Bhavana B V, laptop Bill etc., photos of Respondent's House, B-Register Extract of Vehicle KA53M3995, RTC of ancestral land bearing Sy.No.82/1, Sy. No.135/1, 134/3, 135/3 situated at Burudegatta Village, Nonaveenakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluka, Tumkur District measuring 4.00 Acres, information obtained under RTI regarding property at Kengeri (as mentioned in Affidavit) alongwith Photos of Shop and copy of the Cheque bearing No.128/98-99 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Chintamani in favour of Sri 40 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Sai Motors dated 04/02/1999 regarding purchase of Motor Cycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing KA07H8618.
37. On the other hand the respondent has stated that, he has studied M.Sc., PHD. He is residing in his own house. He has stated that, he has monthly expenses of Rs.2,11,000/-. He has to pay arrears of maintenance of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. He has stated that, his parents, 2nd wife, his sister and her son are dependent on him. He is spending Rs.25,000/- per month on account of dependents. He has stated that, his father is receiving pension of Rs.30,000/-. He has stated that, his father is suffering from Ortho related problems, his sister is suffering from Uterus cancer, his mother is suffering from B.P. and diabetes. He has stated that, he is receiving salary of respondent.2,12,500/- after deductions as on 10.04.2023. He has stated that, he has availed house loan from Karnataka Grameena bank of Rs.80 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs and he has paid Rs.15 lakhs towards the said loan. He has stated that, he has availed hand loan of Rs.60,000/-. He has stated that, he is paying medical insurance of the children to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. He has stated that, petitioner is a MA, LLM post graduate and she is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. He has stated that, petitioner has agricultural land at 41 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Gangenahalli, Turuvekere Hobli, Tumkur District. He has submitted his income tax calculation statements for 2022-23, pay slip from September 2022 to December 2022, January 2023, IT return from 2022 to 2023, bank loan statement of the Karnataka Grameen Bank, RTC in the name of the petitioner with crop certification.
38. As per the pay slip of the respondent for January 2023 he is receiving net pay of Rs.2,26,292/-. As per the pay slip he is paying Rs.19,960/- towards GPF, Rs.450/- towards GSLI, Rs.200 towards professional tax, Rs.59,000/- towards income tax, Rs.1,807/- towards LIC, Rs.100/- towards TCH association, Rs.25/- towards SCST association. Therefore, his total deductions is Rs.81,452/-. Out of the said deductions the statutory deductions is Rs.19,960/- towards GPF, Rs.200/- towards professional tax, Rs.59,000/- towards income tax, Rs.450/- towards GSLI. Therefore, his net salary is Rs.2,68,144/-. Therefore, said amount has to be taken into consideration to assess the maintenance to be awarded to the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent currently about 57 years old. Hence, he is nearing retirement. Since, he is a government employee there is assured increment in the salary of the respondent. However, 42 Crl.Misc.157/2012 after retirement respondent will receive approximately 50% of his last drawn net salary. Hence, his salary will be Rs.1,50,000/- approximately. This Court has to take into consideration that the respondent will be liable to pay tax even on his pension. He has stated that, his parents, sister and her son are dependent on him. He has stated that, his father is a pensioner and he is receiving pension of Rs.30,000/-. Admittedly, the respondent is residing in his own house. The respondent in his cross examination dated 18.12.2023 has admitted that, his sister is working as a Sr. Typist in Ayush Department as a contract worker. Hence, this admission proves that, his sister is not dependent on him. He has stated that, he has availed house loan of Rs.80 lakhs for purchase of site and construction of house. However, the said liability cannot be taken into consideration. Further he has stated that, he requires Rs2,11,000/- per month for his monthly expenses. But the respondent has not given a break up of the said expenses. Hence, it appears he has inflated his expenses. Further he has stated that, his sister is suffering from cancer but he has not submitted any documents in this regard.
39. Petitioner is claiming maintenance for herself and her children. She has stated that, she is incurring 43 Crl.Misc.157/2012 expenses of Rs.40,000/- per month on account of her children. She has stated that, she requires Rs.2 lakhs towards education expenses of her son from 2023 to 2025 and she requires Rs.3 lakhs towards education expenses of her daughter. She has further stated that, she requires Rs.3,50,000/- towards M.Tech expenses of her son. Admittedly, both the children have attained majority hence this Court cannot award maintenance to the petitioner for the expenses incurred by her on behalf of the children after attaining majority.
40. Petitioner has stated that, she is unemployed and she requires Rs.1,07,471/- per month for her general expenses. Admittedly, the petitioner is a well qualified lady. She has admitted in her cross examination that, she has enrolled herself as an advocate. Hence, she is a practicing advocate. It is her contention that, she is not earning any amount from advocacy as she is suffering from cervical spondylosis, vertigo, diabetes, thyroid and she is unable to practice. In this regard she has submitted her medical documents. Perusal of the medical documents reveal that, the medical issues faced by the petitioner are chronic in nature and they are not serious enough to cause an impediment to the day to day life of the petitioner. The 44 Crl.Misc.157/2012 very fact that the petitioner was able to complete her law degree and masters in Law proves that, petitioner is able to function on a day to day basis without much impediment. Respondent has contended that, the petitioner is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. But there is no evidence on record to prove the same. Although it is settled law that, capability to earn and real income that the petitioner is getting is not one and the same. At the same time it is also true that the petitioner being a highly qualified lady cannot sit idle and expect the respondent to pay her maintenance. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Shilpashree J.M. V/s Gurumanjunatha A.S. reported in 2023 SCC online KAR 36 has held that, educated wife should not sit idle and is legally bound to make some efforts to meet her expenses and she should seek only supportive maintenance from her husband. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held in Smt.Mamta Jaiswal V/s Rajesh Jaiswal reported in 200(3)MPLJ100 that well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged. Hence, the petitioner is legally bound to make efforts to eke out her own livelihood. Further this litigation started in 2009 i.e., 15 years ago and respondent has been directed to pay 45 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Rs.35,000/- per month from the date of the petition till disposal of the petition. Therefore, respondent has been directed to Rs.35,000/- per month to the petitioner and her children for past 15 years. In the past 15 years the petitioner has completed her LLB and LLM degree, children have enrolled themselves into professional courses. This aspect has to be taken into consideration while awarding maintenance to the petitioner.
41. Another important aspect that, the Court has to consider is the age of the parties. Petitioner is currently about 48 years old whereas the respondent is aged about 57 years old and he is nearing retirement. Under such circumstances the petitioner has to make effort to find a suitable job. Further the children will enter the workforce soon since they have attained majority and they have almost completed their respective degrees. Further the maintenance awarded by this Court cannot be in form of a penalty to the respondent. The Court has to consider the needs and expenses of both the parties and grant a reasonable order. Further the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to deposit Rs.1 lakh towards rent. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing in a rented house and she has submitted a copy of rental agreement with 46 Crl.Misc.157/2012 respect to her house. As already discussed the petitioner should also make efforts to support herself. Hence, this Court by considering the status of the parties, earning capacity of the parties, needs and expenses of the petitioner, number of dependents on the respondent, expenses of the respondent, educational qualification of the parties, cost of living, cost for medical care, cost of education etc., Considering all the above factors petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance and rent of Rs.15,000/- per month from the respondent.
42. Petitioner has also sought for protection order directing the respondent to be restrained from committing domestic violence and seeking a direction to the SHO of nearest police station to give protection to her and her children. Admittedly, the parties have been residing separately. Hence, this prayer of the petitioner is unnecessary.
43. Petitioner has also sought for custody order. Since G & WC filed by the respondent is dismissed by the Hon'ble Family Court. It is unnecessary for this Court to consider this prayer of the petitioner.
47Crl.Misc.157/2012
44. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent to pay compensation and damages of Rs.8,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture suffered at the hands of the respondent. Sec.22 of PWDV Act states, Magistrate may grant compensation in addition to the other reliefs that may be granted under this Act and direct the respondent to pay compensation and damages 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 and she has incurred litigation expenses as well. Hence, U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, she is entitled for compensation. Hence, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation. Hence, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
45. Point No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women
48
Crl.Misc.157/2012
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
hereby allowed in part.
Respondent is hereby directed to pay
an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month to the petitioner towards maintenance and rent from the date of this order till her life time or her remarriage whichever is earlier.
Further, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation within 3 months from 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 9th day of January 2025).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW.1 : G.U. Lakshmi Vishnuvardhana
49
Crl.Misc.157/2012
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Invitation card
Ex.P.2 : Marriage Photo
Ex.P.3 : Domestic incident report
Ex.P.4 & 5 : Medical certificates
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 : Letter dated 27.10.2010 isued by
ZHRS, Mudigere
Ex.P.8 : License issued to respondent by the
CPI of Mudigere Police
Ex.P.9 & 10 : Endorsement along with true copy of complaint Ex.P.11 : Statement of respondent before PSI, Mudigere Ex.P.12 to 14 : True copies of complaint dated 15.06.2009, 19.06.2009 and 13.07.2009 to Karnataka State Commission for Women Ex.P.15 & 16 : Salary certificate of respondent for the month of November 2010 Ex.P.17 & 8 : Police report dated 06.07.2010 and 28.07.2009 Ex.P.19 & 20 : OPC chit & ECG report Ex.P.21 : Medical prescription Ex.P.22 & 23 : Endorsement and complaint dated 14.1.2010 Ex.P.24 : Statement of petitioner's daughter Ex.P.25 : Complaint dated 07.12.2010 Ex.P.26 : Petitioner's daughter's wound certificate Ex.P.27 : Complaint to Women's Commission Ex.P.28 Police Intimation Ex.P.29 Intimation Ex.P.30 Karnataka Governor letter Ex.P.31 Complaint to Police Ex.P.32 Complaint to Police 50 Crl.Misc.157/2012 Ex.P.33 Memo Ex.P.34 FIR Ex.P.35 Charge sheet Ex.P.36 Order of Crl.Misc.4718/2011 Ex.P.37 Complaint Ex.P.38 Complaint to IGP Ex.P.39 Complaint to Mudigere Police Ex.P.40 Search Warrant Ex.P.41 Search Proceeding Ex.P.42 Mahazar Ex.P.43 Complaint to Mudigere police Ex.P.44 Complaint to Mudigere Police Ex.P.45 Police acknowledgment Ex.P.46 Complaint to Yelahanka police Ex.P.47 Complaint to Yelahanka police Ex.P.48-49 Order & order sheet in G & WC 48/2011 Ex.P.50 Information given by BBMP dated 25.05.2010 Ex.P.51 & 52 RTI letter and information Ex.P.53 Pay slip Ex.P.54 B-register extract Ex.P.55 to 58 RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.82/1, 135/1, 134/3 and 135/3 Ex.P.59 & 60 Complaint and acknowledgment Ex.P.61 to 64 Photos Ex.P.65 Letter dated 30.09.2009 written by Mudigere police to State Women Commission Ex.P.66 RTI information dated 29.06.2010 Ex.P.67 Charge sheet in crime No.9/2010 Ex.P.68 Leave information of respondent Ex.P.69 Legal notice dated 17.06.2009 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
RW.1 Dr. Vishnuvardhan
51
Crl.Misc.157/2012
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Ex.R.1 and 2 : Certified copies of MC
No.774/2011 judgment and decree
Ex.R.3 & 4 : Certified copies of order sheet and
charge sheet in CC No.597/2010
Ex.R.5 & 6 : Certified copies of judgment and
charge sheet in CC 23589/2014
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.