Delhi District Court
No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove vs . Dr. Sanjive Raghove Etc. Ps Janak Puri on 4 June, 2016
No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA COURT03),WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No.197/01/12
Unique ID No.02401R0477942010
P.S. Janak Puri
Smt. Sonia Chauhan Raghove
W/o Dr. Sanjive Raghove
D/o Sh. R.S. Chauhan
R/o Flat No.266, BlockA5A, Janak Puri,
New Delhi110058. ........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Dr. Sanjive Raghove
S/o Shri H. S. Raghove
General Manager - Twenty Two One
Hotel (A Unit of S.K. Sons Group)
221, Old Court Road, Model Town,
Rewari, Haryana123401.
Also at : Surindera, Hospital, Circular Road,
Rewari, Haryana123401.
2. Shri H. S. Raghove
S/o Shri Dalip Singh Namberdar
3. Smt. Shashi Raghove
W/o Sh. H.S. Raghove
(Both R/o Flat No.5109/3, M.H.C.
Mani Majra, Chandhigarh160101).
4. Dr. Punam Raghove
D/o Sh. H.S. Raghove
Department of Anesthesia
AIIMS, New Delhi110029.
Page 1 of 10
No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
5. Dr. Mahendra Singh Bhayana
At Surendra Hospital,
Circular Road, Rewari, Haryana123401
.......Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 16.08.2010 Reserved for judgment on : 18.05.2016 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.06.2016 EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is an application U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the DV Act), wherein the petitioner has sought composite reliefs under the said Act against her inlaws. Vide order dated 16.08.2010, notice was issued to respondent no.1/husaband Dr. Sanjive Raghove. Cognizance against respondent no.2 to 5 was declined vide order dated 21.10.2010.
2. On the service of the respondent no.1, he appeared in the Court along with his counsel and filed his reply wherein he denied the allegations of the petitioner. Thereafter, he stopped appearing in the Court. Hence, ultimately on 16.07.2014, he was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, the petitioner led her exparte evidence, wherein she examined herself as CW1 and proved the following documents:
Page 2 of 10No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri Sl. No. Documents Exhibits/mark given
1. Wedding Invitation Card Ex. CW1/1
2. Marriage Photographs Ex. CW1/2
3. Photograph of the parties sitting in Ex.CW1/3 car
4. Certified copy of complaint before Ex.CW1/5 CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar
5. Certified copy of FIR Ex.CW1/6
6. Photocopy of rent agreement Mark A
3. Briefly stated facts as alleged by the petitioner are that she is the lawfully wedded wife of respondent no.1 and her marriage was solemnized with respondent no.1 on 10.03.2004. Thereafter, it has been alleged that since the day of marriage, the respondents harassed the petitioner for bringing insufficient dowry. It is submitted that they demanded more dowry and harassment continued.
Then, the respondent no. 1 shifted to Rewari, Haryana on the pretext that he shall have better opportunities there. He promised the petitioner that he shall call her there, once he had settled there but it is submitted that he never did so, despite repeated requests of the petitioner. Hence, it is stated that the respondent no.1 deserted the petitioner. Hence, finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed the present petition.
4. The respondent no.1, in his reply, denied the allegations of the petitioner. He stated that after shifting to Rewari, he made repeated requests to the petitioner to join his company there but she refused to do so. Hence, she is not entitled to any relief.
Page 3 of 10No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
5. Vide order dated 17.03.2016, the exparte PE was closed and final arguments were advanced by the petitioner. I have also gone through the record.
6. Before passing any order under the Act, the court shall first examine as to whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person within the definition as prescribed under the Act. Same has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, which reads 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"
7. Perusal of this section shows that two ingredients needs to be satisfied before a person can be said to be an aggrieved person: (1) Aggrieved person must be a woman in domestic relationship with the respondent; and (2) Aggrieved person must have been subjected to domestic violence while she was in domestic relationship with the respondent.
8. Section 2(f) of DV Act defines domestic relationship as under: "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".
Page 4 of 10No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
9. Hence, the petitioner must first show that she was in relationship with the respondent no.1 by way of blood, adoption or marriage and was residing with him in a shared household. In the present matter, the petitioner has alleged that she is the lawfully wedded wife of respondent no.1. The petitioner has reiterated this fact on oath in her evidence as CW1. She has proved the wedding card as Ex.CW1/1 and the marriage photographs are Ex.CW1/2. Also, as mentioned earlier, the respondent no.1 had appeared in the Court and filed his reply, wherein he admitted that the petitioner is his wife. Hence, it is established that the petitioner is the wife of respondent no.1. The nature of relationship is such that it can be presumed that the petitioner lived with the respondent no.1 in a shared household. She has further stated on oath that she had lived with the respondents under the same roof. This fact has not been controverted by the respondents at any point of time. Hence, the domestic relationship between the parties is established.
10. Further, the petitioner must prove on record that she has been subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. The petitioner has stated on oath that ever since her marriage, she was subjected to abuses, taunts, beatings, tortures etc by the respondents for bringing insufficient dowry. Then, the respondent no. 1 shifted to Rewari, Haryana on the pretext that he shall have better opportunities there. He promised the petitioner that he shall call her there, once he had settled there but it is submitted that he never did so, despite repeated requests of the petitioner. Hence, it is stated that the respondent no.1 deserted the petitioner and failed to fulfill his matrimonial allegations.
Page 5 of 10No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
11. On the other hand, it was alleged by the respondent no.1 in his WS that he has not deserted the petitioner but she failed to join his company at Rewari, Haryana despite his repeated requests. However, the respondent did not come forward to prove these allegations on record. He also did not come forward to cross examine the petitioner and hence the testimony of the petitioner remained unchallenged and unopposed throughout the trial. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate her allegations of physical assault. However, in view of her testimony on oath, verbal and emotional abuses by the respondent is made out. Hence, it is proved that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents.
12. Having established that, the court shall now consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as claimed or not.
Protection Order
13. Firstly, the petitioner has sought a protection order that the respondents may be prohibited from having any kind of communication with the petitioner. In view of the facts as mentioned above, the said relief is granted. The respondents are restrained from having any kind of communication with the petitioner except with her permission.
14. Further, the petitioner has sought injunction under Section 19 of the Act that the respondents may be restrained from alienating/dispossessing/ encumbering the shared household and other properties of the respondents at Chandigarh and Rewari, and also from renouncing his rights in the shared Page 6 of 10 No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri household. The petitioner has not led any evidence to show that the respondents are actually the owners of the said property. Also, as per the averments of the petitioner herself, she had shifted at Delhi with the respondent no.1 in 2004 and she has never resided with the respondent no. 1 at Rewari. Hence, this relief is not made out. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence to this effect, this relief cannot be granted to the petitioner.
15. The petitioner has sought protection order that the respondents may be restrained from alienating her istridhan articles to her. However, the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that any articles belonging to her are in the possession of the respondents. Hence, this relief cannot be granted.
16. The petitioner has also sought a protection order that the respondents may be prohibited from causing domestic violence against her. In view of the facts as mentioned above, the said relief is granted. The respondents are restrained from causing any kind of domestic violence to her.
Residence Order
17. Then, the petitioner has sought directions to pay rent, electricity and water bills of total Rs.25,000/ per month in the alternative accommodation of the petitioner. The same shall be dealt with along with the maintenance order.
18. She further seeks injunction that the respondents may be restrained from causing any obstruction to the petitioner from entering in the shared household at Chandigarh and Rewari. As per the judgment of the Page 7 of 10 No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. R. Batra & Anr. V/s Taruna Batra AIR 2007 SC 1118, the petitioner can seek residence only when the property is jointly or individually owned or tenanted by the husband. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed on record to show as to in whose name the property is. Also, as per the averments of the petitioner herself, she had shifted at Delhi with the respondent no.1 in 2004 and she has never resided with the respondent no. 1 at Rewari. Hence, this relief is not made out. Hence, this relief cannot be granted.
19. She also seeks liberty to have access to her personal effects situated at the house at Chandigrah and Rewari, Haryana. In this regard, again, no evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that any of her personal effects are present there. Also, as per the averments of the petitioner herself, she had shifted at Delhi with the respondent no.1 in 2004 and she has never resided with the respondent no. 1 at Rewari. Hence, this relief is not made out.
Monetary Relief
20. The petitioner seeks a compensation of Rs.15 lacs for the stridhan articles which are in the possession of the respondents. However, as mentioned earlier, the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that any articles belonging to her are in the possession of the respondents. Hence, this relief cannot be granted.
21. The petitioner has also sought the monetary relief under Section 22 of the Act for compensation for physical and mental injuries to her since the date Page 8 of 10 No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri of marriage till the present date. She has claimed compensation of Rs. 25 Lacs. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate the fact that she was physically abused by the respondents at any point of time. She has not proved on record any MLC to show that she has been physically tortured. Hence, this court is not inclined to pass any order to this effect.
22. Lastly, the petitioner seeks maintenance to the tune of Rs.31,000/ per month which includes money for daily expenses and rent alongwith water and electricity charges. It is submitted that the petitioner is a housewife. She was never working before and after marriage also, she remained a housewife only, while on the other hand, respondent no.1 is a practising doctor having an income of Rs.1 lac per month. It is submitted that this income is inclusive of his income from a hotel. The respondent has denied this in his reply. However, the denial is evasive. He has not mentioned as to what is his true income. Hence, as per the provisions of CPC, it is deemed to be an admission. Hence, his income is deemed to be Rs. 1 lac per month. The respondent has not alleged that any other person is dependent upon him.
23. In view of the same, considering the assessed income of respondent no.1, I hereby award maintenance at the rate of Rs.31,000/ per month each in favour of petitioner and against respondent no.1 from the date of filing of the petition. This amount shall be inclusive of rent, electricity and water etc. charges. Petitioner shall be entitled to claim maintenance till further order or remarriage.
Page 9 of 10No.197/01/12 Sonia Chauhan Raghove Vs. Dr. Sanjive Raghove etc. PS Janak Puri
24. Payment made earlier in this case or in any other case towards maintenance shall be adjusted. Arrears of maintenance be cleared within six months from today. No order as to costs.
Petition is accordingly disposed off.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
today on 04.06.2016 (Ruchika Singla)
MM (Mahila Court03)
West,THC,Delhi
Page 10 of 10