Delhi District Court
Smt. Reena Budhiraja vs . Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. on 30 March, 2014
Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN : METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : MAHILA COURT (E) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS : DELHI.
NO. V-334/10
ID No. 02402RO349902010
Smt. Reena Budhiraja
W/o Shri Gagan Budhiraja
D/o Shri Ravish Chandra Katyal
C/o Shri Ravish Chandra Katyal
R/o A-13, New Gobind Pura,
Gali No. 12, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051 ..... Complainant
Versus
i) Shri Gagan Budhiraja
S/o Nand Kishor Budhiraja,
R/o 527/A, Vishwas Nagar,
Gali No. 2, Shahdara, Delhi-32
ii) Shri Nand Kishor Budhiraja
S/o Shri Gagan Budhiraja,
R/o 527/A, Vishwas Nagar,
Gali No. 2, Shahdara, Delhi-32
iii) Smt. Sudesh Rani
W/o Shri Nand Kishor Budhiraja,
R/o 527/A, Vishwas Nagar,
Gali No. 2, Shahdara, Delhi-32
iv) Shri Deepanshu Budhiraja
S/o Shri Nand Kishor Budhiraja
R/o 527/A, Vishwas Nagar,
Gali No. 2, Shahdara, Delhi-32 ....Respondent
Nature of Petition : u/s 12 of PWDV Act
Date of Institution : 13.12.2010
Reserved for judgment : 20.06.2014
Date of judgment : 30.06.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. The brief facts of the present case are that the complainant was married to respondent no. 1 on 11.12.2009 at Arya Samaj 1 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. Mandir as it was a love marriage. It is further stated that the though the complainant's family consented to marriage but the family of respondent no. 1 was against the same and after much persuasion, the marriage was solemnized in the presence of neighbours, well wishers, near relatives and close friends from both sides and parents of complainant gave gold amounting Rs. 1,25,000/-, utensils and other items amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash to the respondents in the marriage and thereafter she was taken to the matrimonial home after several difficulties because of the unwillingness of the respondents no. 2 to 4 to admit the complainant as the member of their family.
2. It is further stated that after few days of marriage, respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 started harassing her for not bring enough dowry from her parental home as per their expectation.It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 and 3 threatened the complainant saying "hamne apne ladke ko pada likha ke bada kiya, Agar dahej nahi la sakti to mere bete ko talak dekar chali ja".
3. It is further stated that respondent no. 3 gave beatings to her and she was forced out of her matrimonial home by respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 after one month of marriage after giving beatings to her.
4. They lived together for three months and respondent was employed in some factory at that time. However, after three months, respondent no. 3 made request to respondent no. 1 to 2 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. return home stating that she was not well. Thereafter, she along with respondent no. 1 returned back to the matrimonial home.
5. It is further stated that after two days of returning back to the matrimonial home, respondent no. 2 and 3 forced the complainant to sign on some blank documents and when she refused the same, they started giving beatings to her cruelly and mercilessly and instructed her not to speak to the respondent no.
1. It is further stated that after few days of the incident, respondent no. 1 also started pressing her to divorce him and stated that he does not need her anymore and she must leave the matrimonial home.
6. It is further stated that on 01.5.2010 at around 11:00 am all the respondents gave beatings to the complainant brutally and turned her out of the matrimonial home in the wearing clothes without any of her possession and everything was retained by them. She filed a complaint on the same day in the Police Station Farsh Bazar and matter was compromised between the complainant and the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 agreed to take the complainant to rented house to live separately.
7. It is further stated that instead of keeping all the promises, he demanded Rs. five lacs from her. Then she again filed a complaint in PS Bhola Nath Nagar on 15.6.2010 and thereafter in CAW Cell Krishna Nagar. She has sought maintenance from the respondent no. 1.
8. Summons were issued to the respondents and the 3 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. respondents filed their reply. In the reply it is stated that the allegations made by the complainant are false and frivolous and it was a love marriage between the parties which was solemnized without the consent of family of respondent no. 1. It is also stated that the marriage was solemnized without any dowry and she joined the company of the respondent no. 1 only in wearing clothes.
9. It is further stated that after marriage, respondent no. 1 and complainant reached the house of the respondent no. 2 to 4 where they were not allowed by the aforesaid respondent to enter the house.
10. On 13.10.2009, respondent no. 3 made a complaint to the police in this regard vide DD No. 10-A, dated 13.10.2009 at PS Farsh Bazar. It is further stated that due to intervention of some respectable member of the society, they were allowed to live in the aforesaid house till the time they do not get any accommodation. It is further stated that during the stay, the behaviour of the complainant was not good to the other respondents and therefore respondent no. 3 debarred respondent no. 1 and the complainant from her assets vide publication in newspaper.
11. It is further stated that on 27.10.2009 respondent no. 1 and complainant left the house and also gave in writing to the respondent no. 2 to 4 that they will not make any demand, any claim and will have no concern with the house of the respondent no. 3 in future. After few days, they again approached the 4 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. respondent and felt sorry for their acts and again they were allowed to come back to the house of respondent no. 3 and was given one room and one kitchen to lead their life. It is further stated that after about one week, the complainant started picking up quarrel with the respondents and also threatened to commit suicide and to implicate the whole family in the false case. It is further stated that on 01.5.2010, she left the house without any intimation or information to any of the respondents. It is further stated that despite sincere efforts of respondent no. 1, the complainant did not join the company and made a false complaint before the CAW Cell.
12. Replication was not filed. Interim application was allowed wherein his income was assessed to be Rs. 6000/- per month as per Minimum Wages Act in the absence of any plea with regard to earning of the respondent no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the complainant.
13. Matter was listed for complainant evidence wherein the complainant examined herself and complainant evidence was closed. Respondent also examined himself and he also closed his evidence.
14. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
15. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is further not disputed that the marriage between the complainant and the respondent no. 1 was a love marriage. The complainant has stated in her affidavit as well as in her application that immediately after the marriage, the complainant was taken by 5 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. the respondent no. 1 to the house of her in law. She has also stated that they were not allowed to enter in the matrimonial home on the day of the marriage by her mother in law but they were taken back to the matrimonial home by the other relatives on the next day of the marriage. However, respondent no. 1 has given a different version. In his cross-examination, he has stated that immediately after marriage, he along with complainant went to Haridwar for two days and thereafter stayed at his in laws house i.e. the complainant's parental home for one week. On the one hand, he has taken this stand that he had stayed at his in laws house after marriage for one week and on the other hand, he had stated in the same cross-examination that the parents of the complainant had not even attended the marriage between the parties. He has denied having given any amount in cash or jewellery or household articles to the complainant in the marriage by the parents of the complainant. He has categorically stated that his family members also did not attend the marriage. Respondent no. 1 has taken two contrary stands. In his cross- examination at one place, he had stated that parents of the complainant did not attend the marriage and on the other hand, he had stated that he had stayed at his in laws house for one week after the marriage. Both the statements are being contrary and cannot be true. Therefore the statement of the respondent no. 1 is not trustworthy and reliable.
16. In the later part of the cross-examination, he had stated that presently he is residing with his parents. He had also denied 6 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. the suggestion that his parents has disowned him just to create a false ground and in fact he is residing with them. On the other hand, he stated that he had incurred losses of around Rs. 5 lacs to 7 lacs in gambling/match fixing. He had further stated that he had taken money for gambling/match fixing from his father and he is a teetotaler. Again both the statements are contrary. On the one hand, he has stated that he had been debarred by his parents and has denied the suggestion that the process of disowning is just an eyewash. Whereas on the other hand, he has himself stated that he had taken money for gambling/match fixing from his father. When once his father had disowned him, how could he give money to his son and that too not for necessity but for luxury and for extravagance. A person who is able to incur the losses of Rs. 5 lacs to 7 lacs in illegal activities of gambling/match fixing cannot be expected to be a poor person. He has failed to mention anything about his job/business either in his statement or during his cross-examination. Though he has denied the suggestion of running of factory or earning of Rs. 40,000/- per month as well as running of tour and travel business and earning handsome amount therefrom. The entire statement of respondent no. 1 appears to be a false one in order to avoid the payment of maintenance to the complainant. The habit of respondent no. 1 to play gambling and match fixing itself suggests that he is a man of means and the process of debarring by his parents from movable and immovable properties is also sham. Since he has not disclosed his income 7 Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. himself, a guess work has to be made. The entire evidence on record also suggests that the complainant is an aggrieved person herein. Therefore the income of the respondent is assessed to be Rs. 30,000/- per month. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month is granted maintenance to the complainant from the date of order till her life time or her re- marriage whichever is earlier. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (VANDANA JAIN )
Dated: 30.06.2014 MM/Mahila Court (E)
8
Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors.
V-334/10
30.6.2014
Present: None for complainant.
Respondent in person.
Vide separate judgment passed today, the present
complaint has been disposed off. Let file be consigned to the record
room.
(VANDANA JAIN )
MM/Mahila Court (E)
30.06.2014
9
Smt. Reena Budhiraja Vs. Shri Gagan Budhiraja & Ors. 10