Bangalore District Court
Deepa. N. 2 Prathima Devi vs Appaji Nunna on 13 November, 2024
1
C.Misc. 24/2014
KABC050001502014
Presented on : 29-01-2014
Registered on : 29-01-2014
Decided on : 13-11-2024
Duration : 10 years, 9 months,
15 days
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC
COURT-III), BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
Present: Smt. Kusuma. V.
BAL, LLB
JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.
Crl. Misc. No. 24/2014
Petitioner : Smt. Deepa. N. @ Prathima Devi,
W/o Appaji Nunna,
Aged about 28 Yrs,
R/at No.347, Nanjareddy Colony,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560075.
Also at:
Shree Santheri Mahalasa,
P.G. Accommodation,
No.52/2, 2nd Cross, 4th Main Road,
2
C.Misc. 24/2014
Nagappa Block, Near Devayya Park,
Bengaluru-21.
(By Sri. RRK Adv.)
V/s.
Respondents: 1. Appaji Nunna
S/o V.V.Nageshwara Rao,
@ Venkanna Babu Nunna,
Aged about 32 Yrs,
R/at No.18-1-74/3,
Flat No.3, Amma Towers,
Jangareddy Gudem,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh-534447.
(By Sri. N.C.S. Adv.)
2. V.V.Nageshwara Rao
@ Venkanna Babu Nunna,
Aged about 60 Yrs.
3. Malleshwara Nunna
W/o V.V. Nageshwara Rao,
aged about 55 Yrs.
Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are
R/at No.18-1-74/3,
Flat No.3, Amma Towers,
Jangareddy Gudem,
West Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh-534447.
4. Smt. Swathi
3
C.Misc. 24/2014
W/o K.K. Ramakrishna,
Aged 29 Yrs,
5. K.K. Ramakrishna
H/o Swathi,
Aged about 35 Yrs,
Both are R/at:
No.8-1-238,
Shivaji Nagar,
Punjab Nagar Bank Back-side,
Secunderabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
6. Divya Jyothi Sri Nunna,
D/o V.V.Nageshwara Rao,
Aged 25 Yrs,
Working at:
Accenture Service Pvt.Ltd.,
No.4/1,IBC Knowledge Park,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru.
(As per court order dtd: 22.10.2019, the
R.Nos.2 to 6 were deleted)
ORDERS ON MAIN PETITION
1. This is petition filed by the petitioner u/sec. 12
of Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
4
C.Misc. 24/2014
2. By filing this petition the petitioner has sought
various reliefs fallen U/sec. 18, 19, 20 and 22 of
PWDV Act-2005.
3. The format as required under the DV Act is duly
filled up and the same is presented by the petitioner
along with the affidavit. In the required format, the
detail of the petitioners' case cannot be made out, the
same can be gone through in the evidence let in by the
petitioner. Hence, before considering the reliefs sought
for, it becomes just and necessary to look into the case
of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner stated that both petitioner and
respondents were belongs to Hindus (Vyshyas by
community), as per the terms and conditions of the 1 st
respondent and other respondents, the marriage was
solemnized on 22.05.2013 at Vyjayanthi Kalyana
Mantapam, Dwaraka Thirumala, West Godavari
5
C.Misc. 24/2014
District, Andhra Pradesh as per Hindu rights and
customs. Out of their wedlock, there is no any issues
and thereafter both of them lived together as husband
and wife in matrimonial house at Jangareddy Godem,
Andra Pradesh.
5. The petitioner and respondent were lived together
happily as husband and wife only for a period of one
month in the matrimonial house at Janareddy Gudem,
West Godavari, AP. At the time of engagement, on
demand of all the respondents, the petitioner's parents
have paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for two wheeler
motor cycle and for the clothes by way of cost and
apart from this other expenses has been spent towards
traveling and performance of engagement a sum of
Rs.50,000/-. The entire marriage expenses borne by
the petitioner's side by expending a huge sum of more
than Rs.7,00,000/-. Even then, the dowry which was
6
C.Misc. 24/2014
paid to the respondent no.1 is not sufficient for them.
The 1st respondent give mental torture to the petitioner
and even man-handled the petitioner many times. Due
to the harassment, mental torture, humiliation made
by the respondents, the petitioner was forced to
undergo lot of mental agony and harassment due to
the conduct of the respondent no.1. Often and often
the respondents are abusing the petitioner in filthy
language and man-handled several times. Later the
petitioner came to know that the respondent no.1 is
having extra marital affairs with one girl by name
Nikitha who is already married. He is a typical
character and psycho.
6. The petitioner further submits that prior to the
marriage, they said the respondent no.1 and other
respondents are all residing in Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh and that the respondent no.1 is having 8 to 10
7
C.Misc. 24/2014
autorickhaws rented out on daily basis, doing real
estate business and running a General Merchant shop
and having good contacts of Film actors and cinemas
people contacts. The 1st respondent is having the habit
of consuming alcohol, chain smoker and also extending
illicit relationship with a woman by name Nikitha and
regularly using non-vegetarian even cooking in their
house. The respondent no.1 is a huge spend thrift,
always involved in partying and used to come home
drunk during late night. The petitioner tried her level
best to bring him as a common man and wanted to live
with him, but one or the other reasons raising the
quarrels and assaulting her mercilessly.
7. The respondent no.1 was a quarrelsome husband
and used to quarrel on all trivial issues and never
respected her. All the respondents believe in black
magic, a Manthrika by name Nataraj who resides in
8
C.Misc. 24/2014
Secunderabad. The respondent no.1 regularly used to
visit his place and wearing all sorts of threads and
thayathas daily in the night he is using some powder in
the milk for power and for sexual acts. The income of
respondent no.1 is Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per
month. The petitioner confronted the harassment and
mental torture on 10.12.2013, on the same day the
respondent no.1 beaten up the petitioner and thrown
out the petitioner from the matrimonial home.
8. During stay by the petitioner with the respondent
no.1 is also not maintained in a proper manner and
willfully neglected his dutiful legally wedded wife,
deserting her for no fault on her part. The petitioner
submits that the willful desertion of the respondent
no.1 by causing suffer, mental agony, as he has
completely neglected to provide all the marital
relationship, the petitioner is suffering mental agony
9
C.Misc. 24/2014
and physical harassment at the hands of 1 st
respondent and other respondents supporting him.
Since, there is a sexual abuse, economical abuse and
other abuses made by the respondent no.1 towards the
petitioner though she is legally wedded wife. The
petitioner required monthly maintenance a sum of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
9. On service of notice, the respondents have
appeared before court and filed vakalath. Thereafter as
per court order dtd: 22.10.2019, the respondent nos.2
to 6 were deleted. The respondent no.1 filed objections,
in there he submits that there was no cohabitation
between the petitioner and the 1st respondent at
Bengaluru as 1st respondent is permanent resident of
Jangareddy Gudem, Andrapradesh. When the parties
to the petition has not resided in the state of Karnataka
and when respondents are permanent residents of AP
10
C.Misc. 24/2014
and at no point of time they have resided in Bengaluru
city, this court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the present complaint filed by the petitioner.
10. The respondent no.1 further submits that no
marriage expenses were borne by the petitioner's
family. The allegation of spending Rs.7,00,000/-
towards marriage expenses by petitioner's side is false
and untenable. It is submitted that there is neither
desertion on the part of the 1 st respondent nor he has
caused mental agony to the petitioner. Therefore,
petitioner's claim of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per
month is untenable. The petitioner being gainfully
employed at Bengaluru is not entitled for any
maintenance amount/order. No domestic incident
report can be accepted. If at all, if such report is made
by any officer of the state, the same is concocted just
given to help the petitioner to extract money from the
11
C.Misc. 24/2014
1st respondent. The petitioner is not entitled for any
relief sought for as she has spent only 25 days of
married life with the 1st respondent, voluntarily
returned to Bengaluru without there being any alleged
violence, mental agony or desertion on the part of any
respondents. Accordingly, her petition is liable to be
dismissed as against all the respondents. Hence, prays
to dismiss the petition.
11. Keeping in mind the evidence given by the
petitioner it becomes just and necessary to look into
whether the orders required by the petitioner various
reliefs which are fallen U/Sec. 18, 19, 20 & 22 of DV
Act can be granted.
12. The petitioner in support of her case has got
examined herself as PW.1 and got exhibited
documents as Exs.P.1 to 11. Ex.P.1 is marriage
invitation, Ex.P.2 is legal notice, Ex.P.3 is reply, Ex.P.4
12
C.Misc. 24/2014
is bank statement, Ex.P.5 is acknowledgment, Exs.P.6
& 10 are medical reports, Ex.P.7 is photos, Ex.P.8 is
DIR, Ex.P.9 is receipts, Ex.P.11 is copy of E.Mail and
Ex.P.12 is sale deed dtd: 10.08.2017. The respondent
examined himself as RW.1 and got exhibited Exs.R.1 to
11. Ex.R.1 is certified copy of Judgment and Decree
copy of HMOP no. 122/2014, Ex.R.2 is certified copy of
Judgment in CC no. 325/2019, Ex.R.3 is certified copy
of Judgment in CC no. 326/2019, Ex.R.4 is certified
copy of examination-in-chief of petitioner in CC no.
326/2019, Ex.R.5 is certified copy of interim and final
order in Crl.P.no. 5198/2014, Ex.R.6 is certified copy
of examination-in-chief of petitioner in
C.Mis.no.126/2014, Ex.R.7 is cross of petitioner,
Ex.R.8 is certified copy of examination-in-chief of
petitioner in MC no. 4436/2017, Ex.R.9 is cross of
petitioner, Ex.R.10 is ration card and Ex.P. 11 is CC of
Judgment in Crl.A.no.453/2019.
13
C.Misc. 24/2014
13. Heard both sides. The counsel for the
petitioner filed written arguments and perused the
materials placed on record.
14. The counsel for the petitioner cited below
mentioned citations;
i) CO A (SB) 50/2013 between Arun
Dhawan & Anr V/s Lokesh Dhawan.
ii) Writ petition (ST) no. 4899/2017,
between Union of India and Ors V/s
Haresh Virumal Milani dtd: 17.04.2017.
iii) Kuttaiah V/s Federal Bank Ltd.,
dtd: 21.03.2006.
15. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for protection order relief
as contemplated U/sec.18 of DV
Act?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled
for residence relief as
contemplated U/sec.19 of DV Act?
3. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for monetary relief as
contemplated U/sec. 20 of DV Act?
14
C.Misc. 24/2014
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation relief as
contemplated U/sec. 20 of DV Act?
5. What order?
16. The findings to the above points are as
follows:-
Point Nos.1 to 4 - In the Negative
Point No.5 - As per Final Order, for the
following:-
REASONS
17. Reasoning on Point Nos.1 to 4: Since these
points are interconnected with each other and requires
common appreciation of evidence, hence to avoid
repetition of facts all the points are taken together for
common consideration.
18. The case of the petitioner is that the
respondents have given mental, sexual and physical
harassment and for grant of permanent
accommodation. The petitioner has sought for various
reliefs which are fallen U/sec. 18, 19, 20 and 22 of DV
Act.
15
C.Misc. 24/2014
19. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner along
with petition she has stated that the averments made
in the petition are all true and correct. The petitioner
has stated that she was subjected to verbal, sexual,
physical and emotional abuse by the respondent no.1
and his family members and she was also subjected to
economic violence by not providing money for
maintaining herself. Further, the petitioner stated
that the respondent and their family members always
tortured the petitioner both mentally and physically by
abusing her in filthy language without any reason. The
1st respondent being husband of the petitioner did not
control the illegal acts of the in-laws, who were tried to
dispossess the petitioner from the matrimonial home.
Thereafter, the respondent has neglected the petitioner
and also avoiding maintaining the petitioner for one or
other reasons. When the petitioner tried to leave her
marital house, the respondent was not living the
16
C.Misc. 24/2014
petitioner to lead her own life. But, in the objections,
the respondent no.1 had denied all allegations made by
the petitioner.
20. Further, the respondent stated that without
any reason the petitioner has filed this petition. He
stated that the petitioner spent only 25 days of married
life with the 1st respondent and the petitioner
voluntarily left the matrimonial home and thereafter
she issued notices to the respondent through her
counsel one and the other reason. More over, the
petitioner is hardly stayed in the matrimonial home for
about 25 days only. Without any reason the petitioner
has filed this petition.
21. Further on perusal of the petition, it can be
seen that the petitioner and respondent no.1 are living
in shared household, at that time, the respondent no.1
and his family members harassed the petitioner
17
C.Misc. 24/2014
emotionally and mentally by not taking care of her. On
the other hand, the respondents has also filed
objections by denying the allegations of the petitioner
leveled against him. Thereafter, also the respondent
no.1 had looked after the petitioner with fulfilling her
all necessities with love and affection.
22. No doubt, as per Sec.3 of DV Act, if at all the
respondent commits any domestic violence as above
pleaded is fully established by the petitioner then
definitely the petitioner will be entitled for an order of
residential orders as per Sec.19 of DV Act and
mandatory reliefs as contemplated under Sec.20 of the
Act.
23. As per Sec.19 of DV Act while disposing an
application U/sec.12(1) PWDV Act, a Magistrate, may
on being satisfied that the domestic violence has taken
place can pass residence order restraining the
18
C.Misc. 24/2014
respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner
disturbing the possession of the petitioner from the
shared household.
24. In the case on hand, it is the case of the
petitioner that she is residing along with the
respondent after the marriage in the shared house.
When in the respondent has given mental and
emotional torture and also he neglected the petitioner.
25. On perusal of the pleadings as well as
evidence of both sides, it appears that there is no such
domestic violence caused by the respondent against
the petitioner. Further, it appears that the petitioner
herself has left the matrimonial home without any
reason and went to her parents house. Therefore, the
question of granting residential orders as per Sec.19 of
DV Act cannot be considered in favour of the petitioner.
19
C.Misc. 24/2014
26. With regard to the possession of mandatory
reliefs as contemplated under Sec.20, it becomes just
and necessary for the petitioner to establish the same.
27. The fact that both petitioner and the
respondent no.1 are wife and husband is not in
dispute. When the petitioner has let in evidence she
has stated that subsequent to marriage, she is residing
along with the respondent no.1 in the shared
household, in there the respondent no.1 intentionally
neglected the petitioner by giving mental, physical,
sexual harassment to her. The said contention had
been categorically denied by the respondent no.1.
Further, he stated that she stayed only for a period of
25 days, without any reason the petitioner has left the
matrimonial home. At this stage, no need to act like
what the petitioner stated in her petition.
28. On the other hand, after service of notice, the
20
C.Misc. 24/2014
respondents have appeared before the court by filing
vakalath from his counsel and filed objections to the
main petition by denying all averments pleaded by the
petitioner in her petition.
29. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 by
filing affidavit of examination-in-chief. In the said
examination-in-chief, she reiterated the averments of
the petition. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has
cross examined the PW.1. In the cross examination,
she admitted that the petition which has been filed by
the respondent no.1 for restitution of conjugal rights
has been allowed and as per the orders, the petitioner
has not returned to her matrimonial home even there
is a direction from Hon'ble Court. Further she admits
that she was residing with the respondent no.1 in the
matrimonial home for a period of 6 months. Further,
the respondent stated that the petitioner resides in the
21
C.Misc. 24/2014
matrimonial home only for a period of 25 days. It
seems that the petitioner was residing with the
respondent no.1 in shared household in the limited
period. It seems that there was no any domestic
violence caused by the respondents towards the
petitioner. The said admission is very clear that the
respondent no.1 has not given any torture to the
petitioner in any manner as stated by her in the
petition.
30. On the other hand, the respondent himself
examined as RW.1 by filing affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief and reiterated the averments of
his objections. In the cross examination, he denied the
suggestions made by counsel for the petitioner and he
had not admitted any suggestions of the petitioner.
31. On going through the oral and documentary
evidence as well as affidavit of assets liabilities
22
C.Misc. 24/2014
furnished by petitioner, it discloses that the petitioner
is not having any source of income, but the respondent
no.1 is having textile shop. Further on perusal of
affidavit of liabilities furnished by the respondent, he
declared that he is working as a Sales man at Srinivasa
Cloth Show Room and receiving sum of Rs.3,300/- per
month. Looking into the oral and documentary
evidence by both sides, it clear that there is no any
domestic violence caused by the respondent no.1
towards the petitioner. Further, she is utterly fails to
prove her case by oral and documentary evidence.
32. On perusal of the entire pleadings and
documents and oral testimony of the petitioner, it is
crystal clear that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of
respondent no.1 and both are living in the shared
house under same roof. Mean while, on the petitioner
has filed petition for divorce in MC no. 4436/2017
23
C.Misc. 24/2014
before Hon'ble IV Addl. Prl.Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru. The said petition was allowed on
01.07.2022. In this the petitioner herself has filed
divorce petition, it shows that the petitioner is not
intending to continue the marital life with the
respondent. Further, it is clear that the respondent
no.1 has not given any harassment mentally and
physically to the petitioner.
33. It is undisputed that on the date of filing the
petitioner was legal wedded wife of respondent no.1.
Further, the respondent no.1 in his objections stated
that she is having sufficient income to lead her life. To
this effect the respondent no.1 has not furnished any
single document to show that she is having sufficient
income. Mere admission is very clear that the
respondent no.1 has not caused any domestic violence
against the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner in her
24
C.Misc. 24/2014
petition.
34. Further, the petitioner is failed to prove the
allegations which are made by her in the petition as
well as in examination in chief in respect of domestic
violence caused by the respondent u/sec. 3 of PWDV
Act.
The Section 3 in The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 reads as under;
Sec. 3. Definition of domestic violence.--
For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or
commission or conduct of the respondent shall
constitute domestic violence in case it.
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety,
life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical,
of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes
causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and
emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the
aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any
other person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person
or any person related to her by any conduct
mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
25
C.Misc. 24/2014
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether
physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
35. On careful perusal of the above section, it is clear
that in this case, the respondent has not committed any
domestic violence against the petitioner as explained
above. On discussing above, if the respondent has not
committed any domestic violence against the petitioner,
as contemplated u/sec. 3 of PWDV Act, the petitioner is
not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed by her in the
petition. Hence, this court answer these point nos.1 to 4
in the the negative.
36. Point No.5: In view of the findings on the
above point nos.1 to 4 and the reasons stated
therein, this court proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of November 2024).
(Kusuma. V) JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.
26C.Misc. 24/2014 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW-1 Deepa. N. @ Prathima Devi List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 Marriage invitation Ex.P.2 Legal notice Ex.P.3 Reply Ex.P.4 Bank statement Ex.P.5 Acknowledgment Ex.P.6 & 10 Medical report Ex.P.7 Photos Ex.P.8 DIR Ex.P.9 Receipts Ex.P.11 Copy of E-Mail Ex.P.12 Sale deed dtd: 10.08.2017 List of witnesses examined for Respondent:-
RW.1 Appaji Nunna List of documents marked for Respondent: Ex.R.1 CC of Judgment and decree copy in HMOP no.
122/2014 Ex.R.2 CC of Judgment in CC no. 325/2019 27 C.Misc. 24/2014 Ex.R.3 CC of Judgment in CC no. 326/2019 Ex.R.4 CC of Examination-in-chief of petitioner in CC no. 326/2019 Ex.R.5 CC of interim and final order in Crl.P.no.
5198/2014 Ex.R.6 CC of examination-in-chief of petitioner in C.Mis.no.126/2014 Ex.R.7 Cross of petitioner Ex.R.8 CC of examination-in-chief of petitioner in MC no. 4436/2017 Ex.R.9 Cross of petitioner Ex.R.10 Ration card Ex.R.11 CC of Judgment in Crl.A.no.453/2019 JMFC (T.C-III), Bengaluru.