Delhi District Court
Ms. Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan ... vs Ram Mohan Sharma on 14 March, 2023
Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07 SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 78/2022
CNR No. DLSH01-004559-2022
Ms. Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma
W/o Sh. Ram Mohan Sharma,
R/o:- A-24, Gali No. 5, Ground Floor,
Mohan Park, Near S.R Capital School,
Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
...Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Ram Mohan Sharma
S/o Late Ram Gopal Sharma
R/o A-322, Second Floor,
Shivalik Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017 ...Respondent
Date of Institution : 12.07.2022
Date on which Order was reserved: 06.03.2023
Date on which Order pronounced : 14.03.2023
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in complaint bearing CT No. 1208/2021 PS Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in case titled as "Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma" vide which the petition of the appellant filed U/s 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as per appellant is that Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 1 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 appellant/complainant met with the respondent in the year 2014 in the office of SGS company wherein the complainant was working as an employee and she was attached with the office of the respondent to assist the respondent.
3. It is further alleged by the appellant/complainant that even after leaving the above mentioned office, the respondent continued in touch with the complainant and in the year 2016, the respondent expressed his interest to marry with the appellant/complainant and after considering the proposal of the respondent and considering his social status, appellant/complainant agreed to the proposal of marriage of the respondent. It is further alleged by the appellant/complainant that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu rites and customs.
4. It is further alleged by the appellant/complainant that respondent got the son of the appellant (from the first marriage) admitted in GNFC School, Masoori, Uttrakhand and had paid a total sum of Rs. 63 lacs from the year 2015,2016 and respondent assured the complainant that he would pay a sum of Rs. One Lakh for the expenses of the appellant and her son.
5. It is further alleged by the appellant that the behaviour of the respondent got changed towards the appellant/complainant and he started taunting the appellant. It is further alleged that respondent did not got prepared the Marriage Registration Certificate regarding the marriage of the appellant and respondent despite the request of the appellant/complainant. It is further alleged that on 15.01.2017, the respondent had quarreled with the complainant/appellant and abused her by Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 2 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 saying that she was shame on women and society as she belong from a lower strata and she did not deserve to be a member of the family of the respondent. It is further alleged that respondent also threatened the appellant/complainant.
6. It is further alleged that on 10.04.2017, the respondent had jibed the appellant by saying that she must had illicit relations with advocates as she had worked with them. It is further alleged that on 28.10.20217, the respondent again assassinated the character of the appellant by making derogatory comments towards her and caused her mental agony and harassment by saying that she had extra marital relations with other persons including her previous employers. It is further alleged by the appellant that in February 2018, the respondent stopped giving expenses to the appellant/complainant and he also stopped having any physical relationship with the complainant/appellant and started mistreating her in front of the house maid namely Pooja and on 01.09.2018, respondent accepted his illicit relationship with the maid Pooja and he expressed his love with the Pooja. It is further alleged that on 15.03.2019, the respondent used foul language against the appellant and asked her to leave him. It is further alleged by the appellant that on 10.05.2019, she stopped living in her matrimonial house and she started living in her parental house. It is further alleged that on 07.03.2020, the respondent asked the appellant/complainant to return back and he promised for good behaviour, however during the covid time, when the complainant /appellant was having high fever, the respondent did not take care of her and she was forced to leave her matrimonial Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 3 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 home on 07.05.2020.
7. The appellant/complainant moved the complaint before the Ld. MM (Mahila Court) under the provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the prayer to reside in the shared house hold U/s 17 of the said Act, the protection order U/s 18 of the said Act, residence order U/s 19 of the said Act, monetary relief U/s 20 of the said Act and compensation/damages U/s 22 of the said Act against the respondent. The appellant/complainant also sought interim relief order U/s 23 of the said Act against the respondent.
8. After receiving the summons, the respondent moved application/petition and had challenged the maintainability of the complaint of the complainant. It was stated by the respondent that no domestic relationship existed between the parties and the appellant/complainant was working as maid servant in the house of the respondent. It was further stated that appellant/complainant was habitual in making false and frivolous allegations against the respondent in order to harass him and she misused the provision of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to extract money from the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent that police had already investigated the allegation of the complainant/appellant and there was a finding by the police official that no case whatsoever was made out against the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent that appellant/complainant had filed a letter dated 31.08.2021 on the record wherein appellant/complainant had allegedly admitted that she was instigated by one lawyer namely Sanjay Kumar for Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 4 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 extorting money from the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent that the complaint of the complainant was the misuse of the process of law and was moved on frivolous ground in order to personal gain to the appellant/complainant. The respondent had prayed for dismissal of the complaint filed under the provision of The Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
9. The reply of the application of the respondent was filed on behalf of the appellant/complainant and in the reply, the appellant/complainant had reiterated the averment made in the complaint and stated about the factum of domestic relationship between the appellant/complainant and respondent and complainant had prayed for dismissal of the application of the respondent. The appellant/complainant had also filed certain documents in support of her contention being legally wedded wife of the respondent and in order to establish the factum of domestic relationship between the parties.
10. The Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court:01) Shahdara after hearing the submission of both the parties had allowed the application of the respondent and dismissed the petition of the complainant filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide order dated 09.06.2022. The Ld. Trial Court also dismissed the application of the respondent filed U/s 340 Cr.PC vide same order.
11. The appellant/complainant had challenged the order of the Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court:01) Shahdara dated 09.06.2022 on the ground that the impugned order was passed against the fact of the case and law. The appellant stated that the Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 5 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 impugned order was passed in mechanical manner without applying the judicial mind and without considering the fact of the present case. The appellant further stated that the impugned order was passed without considering the various reliefs prayed in the complaint of the complainant. The appellant further stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the maintenance per month U/s 20 of the said Act and also failed to consider the relief sought under Section 23 of the said Act regarding the prayer of interim maintenance, return of various documents, articles, personal articles of the appellant. The appellant further stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the various evidence available on the record and had not analyzed the photographs, marriage video and appearance of both the parties in the society as husband and wife. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court had not appreciated the various documents like Aadhar Card, Election Card and Passport wherein appellant was mentioned as wife of the respondent. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that parties of the case were living in shared house and were sharing house hold articles during their stay at House No. A-322, Second Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the parties were having domestic relationship by marriage or through a relationship of the nature of the marriage. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that appellant had mentioned the various incident of the domestic violence, mental and physical violence and being aggrieved by the said domestic violence, she moved petition U/s 12 of The Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 6 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 Protection of the Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court had passed the impugned order while dismissing the petition of the appellant at threshold and without considering the merit of the case which could be ascertained by proper examination of parties. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court had given undue weightage to the police inquiry report which were required to be proved by the respondent and had not considered the various documents placed by the appellant issued by the Government agencies. It is further stated that the Ld. Trial Court had not granted proper opportunity to the appellant to bring the evidence on record to establish her case against the respondent and order was passed on the miscellaneous application on the ground of maintainability of the petition of the appellant. The appellant had prayed in the petition of appeal to set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 of Ld. Trial Court.
12. The respondent had filed the reply of the appeal and denied the contents of the appeal being wrong, false, misleading, vexatious and unsustainable in law. The respondent had also placed on reliance the document as relied by him in his application filed in complaint bearing no. 1208 of 2021 Under Section 195 Cr.PC and Section 340 Cr.PC alongwith the prayer for dismissal of the complaint filed under the provision of The Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
13. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that appellant was a widow lady prior to her introduction with the respondent as her previous husband had expired in a road accident. It is further submitted that the appellant started working in the company Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 7 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 where respondent was working as Chief Legal Advisor and in the year 2014, she met with the respondent. It is further submitted that respondent represented himself as a high profile personality and respondent engaged the appellant on some part time job at his home in the year 2014. It is further submitted that respondent proposed to the appellant for marriage and on 13.07.2016, the respondent and appellant solemnized marriage as per Hindu rites and customs. It is further submitted that in the year 2014, the respondent was 68 years old and appellant was 35 years old. It is further submitted that the photographs attached with the appeal clearly reflect that the appellant was in matrimonial relationship with the respondent. It is further submitted that respondent always represented the appellant as his wife in various social functions and the document/photographs attached with the file clearly reflect regarding the same. It is further submitted that various documents like Aadhar, Passport, Registration Certificate of the vehicle, Driving license and Election Card issued by Government agencies clearly reflect the status of appellant as wife of the respondent and address of the respondent is also mentioned in these documents. It is further submitted that respondent had falsely denied the matrimonial status of the appellant and stated that appellant was a maid working for the respondent. It is further submitted that the appellant left her matrimonial home on 07.05.2020. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court had not appreciated the document attached with the petition filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground of its maintainability contrary to the Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 8 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 various documents attached with the petition. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice, the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court dated 09.06.2022 may be set aside.
14. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that appellant was working as maid with the respondent and she misused her status and got prepared a forged affidavit on the basis of which, she got prepared various documents while showing herself as a wife of the respondent. It is further submitted that the appellant was working as maid against the payment of salary and the salary slip was filed with the application which was moved when the maintainability of the petition of the complainant was challenged before Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant does not fall within the category of the aggrieved person as per the provision of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is further submitted that there was no domestic relationship as per the provision of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is further submitted that on the complaint dated 30.08.2021 of the appellant to the police, the appellant herself admitted that she was in the active relationship with another person namely Sanjay Kumar and she in conspiracy with the said Sanjay Kumar planned to extort money from the respondent. It is further submitted that appellant lodged complaint to the CAW Cell to the police at PS Shahdara against the respondent while claiming herself as the wife of the respondent and the said complaint was enquired by the police. It is further submitted that in the inquiry report of the police, respondent was examined and he denied the alleged marriage Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 9 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 between appellant and respondent and the said complaint was disposed off as no case was found to be made against the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent had given loan to the appellant and copy of that document was filed alongwith the application before the Ld. Trial Court when maintainability of the petition U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was challenged. It is further submitted that appellant had forged the photograph of the alleged marriage and even otherwise when the marriage itself is in dispute, the petition of the appellant was not maintainable before the Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court had considered the legal aspect of the maintainability of the petition of the appellant U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and had rightly dismissed the same as there was no merit in the contention of the appellant before the Ld. Trial Court. It is further submitted that the appeal of the appellant is not maintainable in the eyes of law and on the basis of fact. Hence, appeal may be dismissed.
15. Heard the submission of both the parties. Perused the record of the appeal and documents as filed by both the parties.
16. Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides that:-
Application to Magistrate-
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 10 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:
Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.
(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.
(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
17. Section 2 (a) of The Protection of Women from Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 11 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides the definition of aggrieved person as under:-
"aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
18. Section 2(f) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides the definition of domestic relationship as under:-
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
19. Section 2 (q) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides the definition of respondent as under:-
"respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
20. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 of the Court of Ld. MM (Mahila Court) mainly on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court had not considered the various reliefs prayed by the appellant in her petition filed U/s 12 Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 12 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 of the said Act and dismissed the petition of the appellant on the ground of its maintainability without giving opportunity to produce the evidence and not considered the various documents including photographs, video etc. filed in support of her petition. The appellant has stated that the appellant and respondent were in the domestic relationship with each other which were apparent from the photographs, regarding their social appearance in the parties to the society where they used to appear as husband and wife like relationship. It is also stated by the appellant that appellant and respondent stayed together in a room but Ld. Trial Court had not considered and appreciated the hotel bills attached with the petition. It is further stated by the appellant that Ld. Trial Court had not considered the documents like Aadhar Card, Election Card, Passport wherein the appellant and respondent were mentioned as husband and wife. It is further stated that appellant and respondent lived in shared house at A-322, Second Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi but Ld. Trial Court had not considered it and dismissed the petition filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
21. The first basic requirement for the maintainability of complaint U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is that there must have a domestic relationship between the two persons who lived or have, at any point of time, live together in a shared house hold, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or family members living together as a joint family. The second basic requirement for maintainability of complaint U/s 12 of The Protection of Women Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 13 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is that the person who have domestic relationship must be an aggrieved person meaning thereby as per Section 2(a) of the said Act, that any women who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The term ' domestic violence' has been defined U/s 3 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the present case, the respondent had challenged the maintainability of the petition filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the ground that no domestic relationship existed between the parties and the appellant/complainant was just a maid servant working in the house of the respondent. It was alleged in the application of the respondent that complainant /appellant was habitual in making false and frivolous allegations against the respondent in order to harass him and the petition filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was a next step by the complainant towards the misuse of process of law in order to extort money from the respondent. The respondent also alleged in his application before the Ld. Trial Court that police had already enquired into the matter and police closed the complaint as no case was made out against the respondent. The respondent had also placed various documents alongwith application while challenging the maintainability of complaint U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, like copy of letter dated 31.08.2021 in which complainant had allegedly admitted that she was instigated by one lawyer namely Sanjay Kumar to extort money from the Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 14 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 respondent. The Ld. Trial Court while disposing the application of the respondent regarding the maintainability of the petition U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 had duly considered the aspect of domestic relationship between the the appellant and respondent. The Ld. Trial Court also duly considered the aspect that whether the appellant/complainant falls within the category of aggrieved person within the definition as provided U/s 2 (a) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The perusal of order dated 09.06.2022 reflect that Ld. Trial Court also considered the various documents relied upon by the complainant in support of her complaint filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also considered the copy of documents filed on behalf of the respondent alongwith application regarding challenging the maintainability of complaint U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Ld. Trial Court also considered the photographs and other documents attached with the petition filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and formed the definite opinion that complaint U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was not maintainable. The appellant/complainant had challenged the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 mainly on the ground that Ld. Trial Court had not considered the relief prayed by appellant U/s 17, 18, 19,20,22 and 23 of the said Act and stated that the various documents like Aadhar Card, Passport, Election Card clearly reflect the status of the appellant/complainant as wife of the respondent and both the parties were living in shared house Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 15 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 hold at H.No. A-322, Second Floor, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. However, the Court is of the view that the other reliefs as prayed U/s 17, 18, 19,20,22 and 23 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are consequential relief subject to the maintainability of the petition U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
22. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prima facie satisfy to the Ld. Trial Court that complainant falls within the category of aggrieved person as defined U/s 2(a) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The complainant /appellant also fails to satisfy prima facie that there was a domestic relationship existed between the complainant/appellant and respondent as defined U/s 2(f) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The basic requirement for maintainability of the petition U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is that the petitioner must fall within the category of aggrieved person as defined U/s 2(a) of the said Act and there must be a domestic relationship existed between the parties i.e. between the petitioner and respondent as defined U/s 2 (f) of the said Act. In support of her contention, the complainant had relied upon certain photographs, Aadhar Card, Election Card, Passport etc. while mentioning the respondent as husband. However, as per the averment of the respondent, the Aadhar Card, Election Card, Passport and other identification documents were got prepared by the appellant/complainant while using a forged affidavit regarding address of the appellant/complainant and her status as wife of the respondent. The Court is of the considered view that Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 16 Crl. Appeal No. 78/2022 D.O.D.: 14.03.2023 Ld. Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition of the complainant filed U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the photographs, identification documents relied by the complainant/appellant were itself under challenge and were allegedly prepared on the basis of affidavit which was allegedly forged by the appellant. The Ld. Trial Court had rightly observed that complainant/appellant does not prima facie fall within the meaning of aggrieved person as defined U/s 2(a) of the said Act and there was no domestic relationship as defined U/s 2(f) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 existed between the parties and various documents placed by the respondent alongwith application clearly reflect that appellant was duly paid salary regarding her services provided as house maid to the respondent and she also took loan from the respondent. The Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court dated 09.06.2022. Accordingly, the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court dated 09.06.2022 is upheld and appeal filed by the appellant/complainant stands dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court, On 14th March, 2023. (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:07/Shahdara/KKD Courts/Delhi.
14.03.2023 Neeti Shiv Sharma @ Neeti Mohan Sharma Vs. Ram Mohan Sharma Page 17