Bangalore District Court
Smt. Alamelu Janakiram @ Prajnya ... vs Prashanth.S. Kulkarni on 15 November, 2024
1
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016
JUDGMENT
KABC070051982016 Presented on : 20-04-2016 Registered on : 20-04-2016 Decided on : 15-11-2024 Duration : 8 years, 6 months, 25 days IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - V, BENGALURU Present : VISHWANATH SAVADI B.A., LL.B.,(Hon's) M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 DATED THIS THE 15 t h DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 Petitioners: 1. Smt.Alamelu Janakiram @ Prajnya Kulkarni, W/o.Prashanth S. Kulkarni, D/o.G.S.Janakiram, Aged about 32 years.
2. Kum.Shriya, D/o.Prashanth S. Kulkarni, Aged about 3 years.
(Petitioner No.2 being minor represented by the 1st petitioner).
Both are residing at No.172, Shri Ramadhama, 6th Main, NOBO Agar, 2nd Sector, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru -
560 076.
(By Sri.H.V.N., Advocate) 2 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT V/s Respondent: Prashanth S. Kulkarni, S/o.Suresh S. Kulkarni, Aged about 38 years, Assistant Manager, South Indian Bank, Jayanagara Branch, 4th Block, 28th Cross, 10th Main Road, Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.V.B.N., Advocate) JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent for seeking various relief under the Act.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:
a. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at the petitioner's residence, located at Guru Rayara Sannidhi, Jayanagara, Bengaluru. Out of their wedlock, they have a female child. At the time of the marriage negotiations, the respondent demanded cash, gold items, and a grand wedding ceremony. Accordingly, the petitioner's parents managed to fulfill these demands by 3 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT providing cash, gold items, and organizing a grand wedding at a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
b. After the marriage, the respondent took petitioner No.1 to the matrimonial home. Initially, the respondent treated the petitioner well, but after a few months, he began to harass her both mentally and physically over trivial matters. The petitioner No.1 later realized that the respondent was dissatisfied with the dowry provided at the time of the marriage.
Over time, the harassment intensified. Despite this, the petitioner No.1 endured the cruelty in the hope that the respondent would change and that better days lay ahead.
c. The respondent consistently demanded additional money from the petitioner No.1. When the matter came to the attention of the petitioner No.1's parents, several community meetings (panchayats) were convened to resolve the disputes between petitioner No.1 and the respondent. However, despite these efforts, the respondent failed to fulfill his duties as a husband and father, neglecting both the petitioner No.1 and 4 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT their child. The respondent is employed as an Assistant Manager at South India Bank, earning a salary of more than Rs. 1,00,000 per month, in addition to an income of Rs. 50,000 per month from other sources. Based on these facts, the petitioners respectfully pray for the reliefs sought in the petition.
3. Upon being served with the notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel and submitted his statement of objections
4. The statement of objections of respondent is as follows:
a. The respondent has denied the petitioner's claims in their entirety, calling them false, frivolous, and vexatious. He contends that he has never threatened the petitioner No.1 at any time and asserts that it was the petitioner No.1 who deserted the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause, with the sole intention of filing a false and baseless petition. He 5 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT further claims that the petitioner No.1 has made all these untenable allegations against him.
b. According to the respondent, the petitioner No.1 went to her mother's house for delivery in January 2013 and gave birth to a female child in May 2013. Since the delivery, the petitioner No.1 has refused to return to the matrimonial home and has voluntarily deserted the respondent without valid reason. The respondent states that he has approached the petitioner No.1 on multiple occasions, requesting her to return to the matrimonial home, but she has refused for reasons known only to her.
c. The respondent also asserts that he is always ready and willing to lead a happy married life with the petitioner No.1.
However, the petitioner No.1 has made various baseless, wild, and defamatory allegations against him. Additionally, the respondent claims that the petitioner No.1 is employed as a Testing Engineer at IBM, earning a salary of Rs. 8,00,000 per 6 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT annum. Based on these contentions, the respondent prays for the dismissal of the petition.
5. To substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 has deposed as PW.1 and produced the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.5 and closed her side. The respondent has deposed as RW.1 and produced the documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9 and closed his side. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, the Ex.R.1 is confronted.
6. I have perused written arguments of petitioners and written synopsis of respondent.
7 7. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that petitioner No.1 was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
7
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
8. The findings of this Court on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1: The specific case of the petitioners that, the petitioner No.1 being the legally wedded wife of the respondent has been subjected to cruelty and domestic violence by the respondent. She contended that, her marriage was solemnized on 24.02.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at the residence of petitioner situated at Guru Rayara Sannidhi, Jayanagara, Bengaluru. Out of their wedlock, they have begotten a female child. The respondent has given ill-treatment to the petitioner No.1 and he has not provided any maintenance to the petitioners.
10. The petitioners averred in the petition about the ill treatment and domestic violence committed by the respondent and also deposed as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 8 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card and Ex.P.2 to 5 are the 4 Receipts issued by Hello Kids. On perusal of these documents, the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent are not in dispute.
11. The respondent has appeared before the Court and filed objections denying the case of the petitioners. The respondent in order to establish their defense, the respondent got examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination in chief, wherein he has deposed in consonance with the averments of the objection and in support of his oral evidence he has confronted Ex.R.1 during the cross- examination of PW.1. Ex.R.1 is the Appointment Letter, Ex.R.2 is the Certified copy of Payment Slip for the month of September - 2018, Ex.R.3 is the Copy of Appointment Letter, Ex.R.4 is the Legal Notice dated 20.02.2016, Ex.R.5 is the Certified copy of Order Sheet in M.C.No.2210/2016, Ex.R.6 is the Certified copy of petition and affidavit in M.C.No.2210/2016, Ex.R.7 is the Rental Agreement dated 01.08.2014 and Ex.R.8 is the Certified copy of Affidavit and 9 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT statement in M.C.No.2210/2016 and Ex.R.9 is the Certified copy of Judgment and Decree.
12. Ex.R.9 is the certified copy of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble 3rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C. No. 2210/2016, dated 25.01.2024. A careful examination of these documents reveals that the respondent husband had initiated a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. This petition was filed with the intention of requesting the petitioner wife to return to the matrimonial home and resume cohabitation as husband and wife.
13. The records indicate that the petitioner wife was duly served with notice of the proceedings and, through her legal counsel, appeared before the Hon'ble Family Court to contest the petition. She filed a detailed statement of objections, outlining her reasons for opposing the respondent husband's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. 10
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
14. The Hon'ble Family Court, after an exhaustive evaluation of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and oral testimony presented by both parties, passed a reasoned judgment. The Court allowed the respondent husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It specifically directed the petitioner wife to join the respondent husband in his matrimonial home, along with their minor child, within a period of 60 days from the date of the order. The judgment underscored the mutual obligations of the parties to cohabit and maintain the sanctity of their marital relationship, as mandated by law.
15. A critical observation in this matter is that, despite the issuance of Ex.R.9, the petitioner wife has not availed the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent husband regarding the evidence presented in support of his petition. This omission raises significant doubts about her intent to challenge or dispute the respondent's claims effectively. 11
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
16. Moreover, it is pertinent to highlight that the petitioner wife has not produced any documentary evidence or court orders to show that the Judgment and Decree issued by the Hon'ble Family Court have been set aside, modified, or overturned by any higher judicial authority. Neither has she demonstrated any attempt to appeal or challenge the said judgment within the prescribed legal framework.
17. In the absence of any contrary evidence or documentation, it is evident that the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Family Court have attained finality. The legal presumption, therefore, is that the petitioner wife is bound by the directions issued therein.
18. The Court's decision reflects its determination, based on the available evidence, that the respondent husband had established a valid case for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner wife's failure to comply with the order further reinforces the validity of the respondent's position and raises 12 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT questions regarding her unwillingness to fulfill her marital obligations.
19. It is crucial to note that the pleadings contained in the petition filed by Petitioner No.1 (the wife) and the allegations made in her evidence affidavit are inconsistent and contradictory. Specifically, the evidence affidavit of PW.1 introduces serious allegations that the respondent (the husband) is a homosexual (gay), suffers from erectile dysfunction, and has engaged in unusual and inappropriate conduct, including collecting semen and applying it to her private parts. These allegations are accompanied by claims of cruelty and harassment, which the petitioner No.1 asserts caused significant distress in the marital relationship. To fully appreciate the nature of these allegations, it is important to reproduce the relevant portion of paragraph No. 4 of the evidence affidavit submitted by PW.1, which reads as follows:
"...During our honeymoon, I got to know some peculiar things about my husband - like he does not wear any undergarments and that he considered physical 13 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT relationship between man and woman as a sin. These revelations were very surprising and caused deep sorrow to me but I maintained my calm and requested him to at least have a child to maintain our relationship. Also, to my astonishment I came to know that he has got physical relationships with his male friends and colleagues whom he used to bring home on Sundays and holidays and spent time with them locking the bedroom. These behaviors slowly made me realize that he is a gay and suffering from Erectile deficiency and used to collect semen and used to rub on my private part and so only he behaves so roughly with me and tortured me. The harassment by the respondent became severe gradually but I tolerated cruelty of the respondent hoping that one or the other day the respondent will mend his behavior. I was spending my days in anticipation of good future days, in the meantime I conceived (after which physical relationship completely stopped) and went to my parent's home for the delivery".14
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
20. Upon careful examination, it is evident that the above allegations are serious and highly specific, touching upon deeply personal aspects of the marital relationship. However, these allegations were not included in the original petition filed by the petitioner wife. The petition, which forms the foundation of the case, lacks any reference to the claims that the respondent is homosexual, suffers from erectile dysfunction, or engaged in the inappropriate conduct described above. This omission raises several important questions:
i. Failure to Plead in the Petition Pleadings are the cornerstone of any legal proceeding. They outline the specific allegations and claims a party seeks to prove and provide notice to the opposing party of the case they must answer. The absence of these allegations in the original petition deprives the respondent of an opportunity to address and counter these claims effectively at the initial stage of proceedings. The failure to include these serious allegations in the pleadings casts doubt on the credibility of the claims themselves.
15
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT ii. Introduction of New Allegations at Evidence Stage Introducing entirely new and significant allegations at the stage of evidence, without any prior mention in the pleadings, is procedurally improper. Courts have consistently held that no amount of evidence can be considered in support of a claim that has not been pleaded in the initial filings. This principle is grounded in ensuring procedural fairness and preventing surprise or prejudice to the opposing party.
iii. Lack of Explanation for Inconsistency The petitioner wife has not provided any explanation for why these allegations, which she now describes as pivotal to her case, were omitted from the original petition. This unexplained inconsistency further weakens the probative value of the allegations made in the evidence affidavit.
iv. Impact on Credibility and Legal Standing The introduction of these allegations at a later stage, combined with the absence of any corroborative evidence, raises concerns about their veracity. Furthermore, without proper pleading, 16 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT these allegations cannot form the basis for any findings by the Court, regardless of their gravity or perceived relevance.
v. Legal Precedent and Principles It is a well-settled principle of law that the court cannot entertain evidence or allegations that have not been pleaded. Pleadings serve to define the scope of the case, and any deviation from them must be justified and supported by valid reasons. In this instance, the petitioner has neither sought an amendment to her pleadings nor provided any explanation for the disparity between her petition and her evidence affidavit.
21. Given the above, this Court cannot consider the allegations made in the evidence affidavit of PW.1 as true or genuine in the absence of proper pleading and procedural compliance. The petitioner No.1's failure to raise these allegations in her initial petition and the absence of an explanation for their omission undermine the credibility of her claims and render them legally inadmissible. In conclusion, the allegations introduced in the evidence affidavit, while serious in nature, cannot be given any weight or consideration by this 17 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT Court due to the lack of proper pleading and the procedural irregularity in their introduction. As a result, these claims will not influence the determination of the issues in this case.
22. At this stage, it is relevant to closely examine Ex.R.9, the Judgment and Decree passed by the Hon'ble Family Court, Bengaluru, in the restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the respondent husband against the petitioner wife. In this matter, the petitioner wife appeared through her counsel, filed detailed objections, and raised serious allegations against the husband. She contended that the respondent husband was homosexual (gay), incapable of cohabitation, and had deliberately avoided her despite her repeated oral requests to mend their marital relationship. She further asserted that the respondent was unwilling to lead a normal married life and incapable of discharging his marital obligations due to his alleged homosexuality and erectile dysfunction. The petitioner wife also claimed that the respondent had refused to undergo medical treatment to address these issues. On these grounds, she argued that the husband, being homosexual and unable to 18 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT fulfill his marital responsibilities, was not entitled to seek relief under a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
23. The Hon'ble Family Court, after thoroughly considering the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence presented by both parties, delivered a reasoned judgment rejecting the wife's allegations. The Court allowed the restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the respondent husband, directing the petitioner wife to join the respondent husband along with their child within 60 days from the date of the order. For better appreciation of the reasoning adopted by the Hon'ble Family Court, the relevant portion from paragraph No. 41 of its judgment is reproduced as follows:
"... The entire evidence placed before the court by the respondent regarding the cause for her separate living contradicts and varies. At one stretch, the respondent claims that they refused to take back her to her matrimonial home and at another stretch refused to join petitioner, apprehending danger for the safety of herself and the child in her matrimonial home alleging that the petitioner is homosexual and gay. Though, the 19 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT respondent has made serious allegations against the petitioner alleging that he is homosexual and gay, the evidence placed before the court shows that she made her efforts to continue her matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and she also contended that the parents of the petitioner did not allow her to return to their house for the reason that she did not agree to return to their house after two months of her delivery. The contradictory evidence placed before the court cannot be termed as the satisfactory reasons for her withdrawal from the company of the petitioner. In the absence of any satisfactory and convincing reason for her separate living, the respondent being the wife of the petitioner bound to restore conjugal rights to the petitioner and she is bound to rejoin her husband with the child. In the absence of any satisfactory and convincing reasons for staying away from her husband, I proceed to hold that the respondent has failed to assign sufficient reasons for her separate living. Under such circumstances, the respondent is bound to restore conjugal rights in favour of the petitioner. Thereby the petitioner made out the grounds for restitution of conjugal rights".20
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
24. Upon analyzing the above observations made by the Hon'ble Family Court, it is evident that the petitioner wife's allegations lacked sufficient corroborative evidence. The Court observed significant contradictions in the wife's evidence. On the one hand, she alleged that the respondent's family prevented her from returning to the matrimonial home. On the other, she claimed she avoided returning due to apprehensions for her safety based on the respondent's alleged homosexuality and abnormal behaviour. These inconsistencies weakened her case.
25. Despite making grave allegations about the respondent being homosexual and incapable of cohabitation, the petitioner wife failed to produce any substantive evidence to corroborate her claims. Allegations of this nature, particularly concerning sexual orientation and medical conditions, require credible and convincing evidence, which was not furnished.
26. The Court noted that the wife's evidence showed she had made efforts to continue her marital relationship at some point, further undermining her allegations. If the respondent 21 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT was indeed homosexual and incapable of marital cohabitation, such efforts would appear contradictory to her claims. The petitioner wife failed to provide satisfactory reasons to justify her decision to live separately. The Court found no compelling evidence to substantiate her assertions that the respondent's behavior posed a danger to her safety or that of her child.
27. In the absence of valid reasons for her withdrawal from the matrimonial home, the Court held that the petitioner wife was legally bound to restore conjugal rights in favor of the respondent husband. It directed her to rejoin the matrimonial home with their child within the stipulated period.
28. The findings of the Hon'ble Family Court have a direct bearing on the present proceedings. It is evident that the petitioner wife's allegations regarding the respondent's homosexuality, erectile dysfunction, and inability to cohabitate have already been considered and dismissed by the Family Court. The judgment highlights her inability to substantiate 22 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT these claims with credible evidence and underscores the contradictions in her statements.
29. Based on the observations of the Hon'ble Family Court and the lack of new evidence in the present proceedings, this Court finds no reason to revisit or re-adjudicate the issues already settled. The petitioner wife has failed to produce any additional evidence or justification to challenge the conclusions reached by the Hon'ble Family Court. Consequently, this Court declines to entertain the allegations regarding the respondent's homosexuality and inability to fulfil marital obligations, as these matters have already been conclusively addressed. The findings of the Hon'ble Family Court stand affirmed, and the petitioner wife's contentions on these grounds are hereby dismissed.
30. The legal notice at Ex.R.4, dated 20.02.2016, was issued by Petitioner No.1 through her counsel and has been produced by the respondent. Upon thorough examination, it becomes clear that the notice lacks any indication of Petitioner 23 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT No.1's intent or willingness to reunite with Respondent to resume their marital life. Instead, the content of the notice reveals a focus on financial claims and the assertion of rights stemming from their marital relationship. At this juncture, for better appreciation, it is relevant to reproduce paragraph No.12 of Ex.R.4 is as follows:
"12. My client instructs me to state that, her parents are not in a position to maintain my client and her child, so, my client has decided to reside separately and she requires monthly maintenance, accommodation for her livelihood and for the education and welfare of the child, a minimum amount of Rs.30,000/- per month and you are getting a salary of Rs.60,000/- or more per month.
Under the above, I hereby call upon you to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to my client and her child and make arrangement for her separate residence within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of this notice failing which my client will have no other alternative, but to approach competent court of law or her redressal".24
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
31. A thorough reading of these paragraphs reveals that Petitioner No.1 is primarily focused on securing financial stability for herself and her child, rather than seeking reconciliation with Respondent. The lack of any expressed desire for resuming their marital relationship is particularly noteworthy. Instead, Petitioner No.1's demands centre around maintenance.
32. The legal notice issued by Petitioner No.1 reflects her intention to demand maintenance from Respondent. Her failure to mention any willingness to reunite with Respondent strongly suggests that her primary concern is financial relief, underscoring a lack of interest in repairing their relationship. This conduct illustrates Petitioner No.1's prioritization of her and her child's financial well-being over any desire for reconciliation.
33. The evidence presented indicates that Respondent has willing to take back his wife and child to the matrimonial home. Upon careful consideration of all the material on record, 25 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT it is evident that the petitioner No.1 has not succeeded in demonstrating instances of domestic violence against her husband during their time in the shared household or matrimonial home.
34. The evidence presented by the petitioner wife fails to establish a clear and consistent pattern of domestic violence or cruelty. The absence of substantial and credible proof significantly undermines the credibility of her claims. In cases involving allegations of domestic violence or cruelty under family law, the burden of proof lies squarely on the petitioner, in this case, the wife, to substantiate her allegations with concrete and reliable evidence. This requirement is critical to ensure fairness and to prevent baseless accusations from influencing the judicial process.
35. One of the pivotal aspects of this case is the outcome of the restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the respondent husband, which resulted in the Hon'ble Family Court directing the petitioner wife to rejoin the respondent in 26 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT the matrimonial home. The issuance of such an order holds considerable weight as it indicates that the claims of cruelty and domestic violence made by the petitioner wife were either unsubstantiated or lacked sufficient merit to negate the husband's right to conjugal companionship. The findings in the restitution petition further strengthen the defense of the respondent husband and cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner.
36. It is pertinent to note that, for allegations of cruelty and domestic violence to hold legal ground, the petitioner must present evidence that clearly demonstrates a persistent pattern of abusive behavior, physical or mental, inflicted by the respondent. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to provide such evidence. Her assertions remain largely unsupported by independent witnesses, medical reports, or any other corroborative material that could substantiate her claims of cruelty or abuse.
27
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
37. Furthermore, the petitioner's claim that the respondent has neglected his duty to provide maintenance also remains unproven. There is no evidence presented to suggest that the respondent failed to fulfil his financial obligations or that the petitioner and the child were left without necessary means of subsistence. In fact, the direction issued by the Hon'ble Family Court in the restitution of conjugal rights petition suggests that the respondent was willing to fulfil his duties as a husband and father by maintaining a matrimonial relationship and ensuring the welfare of his family.
38. The Court is also mindful of the principle that allegations of cruelty and domestic violence must be specific and backed by credible evidence. Vague, general, or inconsistent allegations cannot form the basis for granting relief under the law. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to any form of cruelty, harassment, or neglect that would warrant judicial intervention in her favor.
28
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
39. In light of these considerations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to prove her allegations of cruelty and domestic violence against the respondent. The absence of substantial and corroborative evidence makes it impossible to accept her claims as credible or reliable. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to support the assertion that the respondent neglected the petitioner or failed to provide necessary maintenance for her and the child.
40. Therefore, the petitioner wife's claims regarding domestic violence, cruelty, and neglect are dismissed as unsubstantiated. The findings of the Hon'ble Family Court in the restitution of conjugal rights petition, directing the petitioner wife to rejoin the respondent husband, further reinforce this conclusion. This Court accordingly holds that the petitioner's allegations lack merit and fail to meet the required standard of proof under the law. With these observations, this Court answers the point No.1 is in the NEGATIVE. 29
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT
41. Point No.2: - As noted above, the petitioners are seeking monetary relief under the provisions of the Act. However, the key issue that arises is whether such relief can be granted in the absence of proof of domestic violence committed by the respondent. To address this question, it is necessary to refer to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Vijayanand Dattanand Naik v. Vishranthi Vijayanand Naik, reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 314. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court held that when there is no evidence to support allegations of domestic violence against the respondent, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief under the Act. Therefore, in the present case, it becomes evident that since the petitioners have failed to establish Points No. 1--namely, the proof of domestic violence--she is not entitled to any monetary or other reliefs as sought in her petition. The failure to prove these essential elements of her claim results in the denial of the reliefs she has requested under the Act.
42. Another important question that arises is whether Respondent can be ordered to pay maintenance for his 30 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT daughter in the absence of proof of domestic violence committed by him. This question was also considered and addressed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Koushik v. Sangeetha Koushik Gharami, decided on May 5, 2015. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court formulated a key question for consideration: whether the absence of proven acts of domestic violence precludes the court from ordering maintenance for a child.
"A short question that arises for determination in present writ petition is, as to whether the minor children of the aggrieved person are entitled for maintenance under Section 20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic violence Act, 2005 if the trial Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence has not been proved".
43. The Hon'ble High Court after referring to relevant provisions of the Act, held as under:
It is thus, clear that the monitory relief is available for the children of the aggrieved person if the monitory relief is required to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. The monitory relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic 31 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT violence. The monitory relief is available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act. However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence on the part of the respondent. In the present case, since the learned magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent No.2 and 3 also.
44. The aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble High Court demonstrates that, even in cases involving a child, monetary relief cannot be granted in the absence of proof of domestic violence committed by the respondent. The court made it clear that for any form of maintenance or financial relief to be awarded under the Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner No.1 must establish that acts of domestic violence have occurred. In the absence of such proof, both the petitioners are not entitled to receive monetary relief. This judgment underscores the legal requirement that allegations of domestic violence must be substantiated for the court to grant any financial benefits, including maintenance for the child. 32
Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT Therefore, without concrete evidence of domestic violence, the petitioners, cannot be awarded monetary relief. With these observations, this Court answers the point No.2 in the NEGATIVE.
45. Point No.3 : In view of discussion held above, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act., is hereby dismissed.
In view of dismissal of petition, all pending interim applications are stands disposed of.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court on this 15 th day of November 2024) VISHWANATH SAVADI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Alamelu Janakiram @ Prajnya Kulkarni.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER 33 Crl.Misc.No.74/2016 JUDGMENT Ex.P.1 Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.P.2 to 5 4 Receipts issued by Hello Kids. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT R.W.1 Prashanth S. Kulkarni. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 Appointment Letter.
Ex.R.1(a) Certified copy of Payment Slip for the month of
February - 2012.
Ex.R.2 Certified copy of Payment Slip for the month of
September - 2018.
Ex.R.3 Copy of Appointment Letter.
Ex.R.4 Legal Notice dated 20.02.2016.
Ex.R.5 Certified copy of Order Sheet in
M.C.No.2210/2016.
Ex.R.6 Certified copy of petition and affidavit in
M.C.No.2210/2016.
Ex.R.7 Rental Agreement dated 01.08.2014.
Ex.R.8 Certified copy of Affidavit and statement in
M.C.No.2210/2016.
Ex.R.9 Certified copy of Judgment and Decree.
VISHWANATH SAVADI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.