Bangalore District Court
No.1 And Her Two Children (Towards Food vs No.1 Started Living Together With The on 25 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT-II, BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M. Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2015.
CRL. MISC. No. 225/2012
Aggrieved 1. Smt. Anitha W/o Subramani,
Persons/petitioners aged; 26 Yrs.
: 2. Kum. Mhanya D/o Subramani,
aged; 7 yrs
3. Kum. Trisha D/o Subramani,
aged; 1yr.
All are R/at. Near Anjaneya temple,
opp-Anjanappa building, Nhagawara,
Bengaluru-45.
Represented by: Sri. KAS, Adv.
V/s
Respondents: 1. K. Subramani S/o Kempaiah, aged;
30 yrs, R/at. D.No.1500,
Venkateshwara Nilaya, 7th main
road, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-
60.
Office Address:
Arjuna Opticals.
No.17, 17th cross, Killari road, Near
Gangamma temple, R.T. Street,
Bengaluru-53.
2 C.Misc. No. 225/2012
No.166, Tarabanahalli, Chikkajala post,
Bengaluru north taluk, Bengaluru.
2. K. Venkateshaiah S/o Kempaiah,
aged; 48 yrs.
3. Kamala W/o K. Venkateshaiah,
aged; 40 yrs.
Both are R/at. No. 1500, 7th main, 4th
cross, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-60.
Represented by: Sri. RVN, Adv
ORDER
This is a Petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 praying this court to pass protection order, residence order, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month (Rs. 15,000/- each) to the petitioner no.1 and her two children (towards food, cloth, rent, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities), compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (to compensate for mental agony, torture, harassment, humiliation, desertion etc., ruining her life and loss of decency etc.,) and legal expenses of Rs. 30,000/- and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1 whose marriage 3 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 was solemnized on 19.9.2004 at Kengeri Satelite town Choultry, Bengaluru as per the customs and rites prevailing in Hindu Community. After the marriage the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 started living together with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the above said respondent no.2 address. Due to said wedlock, the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were born to the petitioner no.1 through the respondent no.1.
3. The petitioner no.1 further submits that at the time of marriage, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and parents of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have demanded for the dowry from the parents of the petitioner no.1 and as per the demand of the respondents, the parents of the petitioner gave a dowry of Rs. 1 lakh in cash, and the parents of the petitioner also gave gold ornaments like gold chain, bracelet, ring to the respondent no.1 and necklace, bangles and long chain to the petitioner and other gold ornaments as demanded by the respondent nos. 1 to 3. That, as per the demand of the respondent parents, the parents of petitioner engaged the choultry in Satellite town by bearing expenses of the marriage.
4. The petitioner no.1 further submits that before the marriage also since several years the respondent no.1 lead the life along with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in Kengeri as a joint family. Hence, after marriage also the respondent no.1 took the petitioner to lead a married life in that house. Since from the marriage, the petitioner no.1 and her parents were put in agony and difficulty by the respondents. They have given lot of harassment and torture to the petitioner no.1. Even a single 4 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 day the petitioner is not happy in that house. When the respondent nos. 1 & 2 went to office the respondent no.3 has given ill-treatment and threatened in filthy language and treated the petitioner as her slave. At the instigation of his brother and his sister-in-law, the respondent no.1 started to beat without any reasons. Every day the respondent no.1 started hostile attitude towards the petitioner no.1 and was harassing her by coming late in the night (by consuming alcohol) and abusing with filthy language and he used to assault the petitioner no.1 by picking up of quarrels without reasons nor provided food and shelter to the petitioner no.1.
5. The petitioner no.1 further submits that she was pregnancy, at that time the respondent no.1 has never taken care to petitioner nor provided any medical treatment, food and shelter. When the petitioner no.1 was pregnant to first child, the respondent no.1 always coming in the midnight and used and frighten the petitioner creating sound of devil and used to put the petitioner in fever throughout the night and the respondent disappeared when the petitioner screamed for help. Even though tolerating all harassment the petitioner gave birth to one female child on 3.9.2005. That, the respondent no.1 completely neglected and deserted the petitioner no.1 and her children to maintain them. In the mean while at the instigation of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and only with an intention to marry another girl the respondent no.1 filed the divorce petition in MC no. 966/05 against the petitioner by creating and concocting false story and false 5 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 allegations against the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her child and litigation expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed interim maintenance application u/sec. 24 & 26 of Hindu marriage act in the same case. The Hon'ble Principle Family Judge was pleased to pass the order for interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner and her one child. And also award litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. As per the order of Principle family judge, the petitioner filed execution petition in Ex.Pet. no. 2/2011 the respondent paid maintenance every month. Afterwards, the respondent started to request and begging to the petitioner to lead a marital life. The petitioner refused to join the respondent, but respondent made so many attempts to convince the petitioner finally only for the welfare of female child once again the petitioner believed words, request and assurance of the respondent no.1 and agreed to go with him. As per the request of respondent no.1 without consulting her counsel, petitioner with drew the said execution petition only believing assurance of the respondent no.1.
6. The petitioner no.1 further submits that afterwards the respondent no.1 got one rental house in Nagavara, Bengaluru and once again started to lead married life, the respondent no.1 lead married life with the petitioner no.1 as a dutiful husband only for period of three months. That, at the instigation of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 8.6.2012 once again without informing to the petitioner no.1 the respondent 6 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 no.1 deserted the petitioner no.1 and his kids. That the respondent no.1 completely neglected and deserted the petitioner no.1 and her children in maintaining. Having no alternative the petitioner no.1 is residing separated from the respondent no.1 along with children in above said address. The petitioner no.2 is studying in school. The petitioner no.1 maintaining herself and the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 by providing food, cloth and school expenses. The petitioner no.1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself. The petitioner no.1 approached the respondent no.1 to provide maintenance. But he has completely neglected and rejected to maintain them.
7. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the respondent no.1 is running a own business under the name and style of "Arjun Opticals" (wholesale and retain frames, lenses and sunglasses), at no. 17, 17th cross, Kilari road, Near Gangamma temple, Bengaluru-53 and he has employed 5 to 6 persons in shop by having good business in that area. He is earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month in the optical, apart from that and he is doing money lending business privately. He is having his own residential accommodation in Kengeri, Bengaluru. The respondent no.1 has ancestral property in Tarabanahalli, Chikkajala, Bengaluru. The respondent no.1 has got sufficient income. Hence, the respondents have monthly total income of more than Rs. 75,000/- per month. By contending so, the petitioner prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice and equity.
7 C.Misc. No. 225/20128. On the other hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 put forth their appearance before this court through their counsel and have filed separate objections to the main petition.
9. In the said objections, the respondent no.1 has over all denied the entire case of the petitioner regarding domestic violence. The respondent no.1 submits that the respondent no.2 is his elder brother and the respondent no.3 is the wife of the respondent no.2. It is true that the petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 19.9.2004 at Kengeri Satellite town as per the hindu customs and usages. The allegation that after the marriage this respondent no.1 and the petitioner no.1 stayed in the house of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is false. But their stay in the house of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 was only for 15 days immediately after the marriage.
10. The respondent no.1 further submits that after 15 days from the marriage, the respondent no.1 and the petitioner no.1 shifted their residence to the house of the parents of the respondent no.1 at Tharabanahalli in Chikkajala police station limits in Bengaluru district. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 never joined the family of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at No. 1500, 7th main, 4th cross, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-460060.
11. The respondent no.1 further submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 coming back to the family of the respondent nos. 2 & 3. That the allegation of payment of dowry of Rs. 1 lakh at the time of 8 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 marriage of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 is total falsehood and no such dowry was demanded or it was paid by the petitioner's parents. Even the gold ornaments alleged to have been given by the petitioner's parents are also not given and the same is hereby specifically denied. It is further false that the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 lived with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at Kengeri as joint family members.
12. The respondent no.1 further submits that the petitioners have not filed any case for maintenance so far before any other court. This respondent no.1 is ready and willing to take back the petitioners to his fold and take care of them. The petitioner no.1 has voluntarily withdrawn from the matrimonial home and refusing to join the husband without any legal explanation. All the allegations made in this petition except those admitted are hereby specifically denied as false and baseless. That the respondent no.1 is working as sale assistant in an optic centre at Kilari road in Bengaluru and getting monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/- only. This salary is not sufficient for his own maintenance. This respondent no.1 is residing in a rented house. He is unable to give maintenance to the petitioners. He undertakes to take the petitioners to his fold and take care of them. By contending so, the respondent no.1 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost in the interest of justice and equity.
13. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 have also filed the objections to the main petition separately and submits that 9 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 the respondent no.1 is the immediate younger brother of the respondent no.2 and respondent no.3 is the wife of the respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 married the petitioner no.1 on 19.9.2004 as per the Hindu customs and usages. After the marriage the respondent no.1 and petitioner no.1 stayed in the house of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 just for 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 went to the house of the petitioner no.1 and stayed there for about two months and thereafter they shifted their residence to the house of the parents of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 at Tharabanahalli in Chikkajala police station limits in Bengaluru District. Thereafter the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 never joined the family of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at No. 1500, 7th main, 4th cross, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-460060.
14. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 further submits that they are residing at No. 1500, 7th main, 4th cross, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru since 1998. The respondent no.1 and the petitioner no.1 after shifting their family to Tharabanahalli, they have obtained the ration card from that address. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 are staying separately from the family life of the petitioners and the respondent no.1 since 2004. The petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 are living separately from the family of these respondents since 2004 ever since they married and their stay with these respondents was only for 15 days immediately after the marriage. Thereafter there is no occasion for these 10 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 respondents to live or the respondent no.1 and the petitioners living with these respondents. These respondents are innocent and not concerned with the allegations made in the petition against them.
15. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that it is for the petitioners seek appropriate remedy as available in law against the respondent no.1 only and these respondents are not concerned with those reliefs as prayed by the petitioners. By contending so, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost in the interest of justice and equity.
16. On basis of the above mentioned averments the following points do arise for my consideration:
1. Whether petitioner no.1 proves that the respondent no.1 has committed domestic violence upon her as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner no.1 proves that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have committed Domestic Violence upon her as alleged?
3. Whether the petitioners proves that they are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
4. What order?
17. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 herself has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P. 1 to 23. The respondent no.1 himself has been examined as RW-1 and another witness is examined as RW-2 and got marked documents at Exs.R. 1 to
16. 11 C.Misc. No. 225/2012
18. I have heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire records, my answer to the above framed points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Affirmative Point No.2 : Negative Point No.3 : Partly in Affirmative Point No.4 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
19. Point Nos.1 & 2:- These two points are taken together for discussion as they emanates from same set of facts and circumstances of this case and also they require common discussions.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1 whose marriage was solemnized on 19.9.2004 at Kengeri Satelite town Choultry, Bengaluru as per the customs and rites prevailing in Hindu Community. After the marriage the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 started living together with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the above said respondent no.2 address. Due to said wedlock, the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 were born to the petitioner no.1 through the respondent no.1.
20. The petitioner no.1 further submits that at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the respondents, the parents of the petitioner gave a dowry of Rs. 1 lakh in cash, and the parents of the petitioner also gave gold ornaments like gold chain, bracelet, ring to the respondent no.1 and necklace, bangles and long chain to the petitioner and other gold 12 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 ornaments as demanded by the respondent nos. 1 to 3. That, as per the demand of the respondent parents, the parents of petitioner engaged the choultry in Satellite town by bearing expenses of the marriage.
21. The petitioner no.1 further submits that before the marriage also since several years the respondent no.1 lead the life along with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in Kengeri as a joint family. Hence, after marriage also the respondent no.1 took the petitioner to lead a married life in that house. Since from the marriage, the petitioner no.1 and her parents were put in agony and difficulty by the respondents. They have given lot of harassment and torture to the petitioner no.1. Even a single day the petitioner is not happy in that house. When the respondent nos. 1 & 2 went to office the respondent no.3 has given ill-treatment and threatened in filthy language and treated the petitioner as her slave. At the instigation of his brother and his sister-in-law, the respondent no.1 started to beat without any reasons. Every day the respondent no.1 started hostile attitude towards the petitioner no.1 and was harassing her by coming late in the night (by consuming alcohol) and abusing with filthy language and he used to assault the petitioner no.1 by picking up of quarrels without reasons nor provided food and shelter to the petitioner no.1.
22. The petitioner no.1 further submits that she was pregnancy, at that time the respondent no.1 has never taken care to petitioner nor provided any medical treatment, food and shelter. When the petitioner no.1 was pregnant to first 13 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 child, the respondent no.1 always coming in the midnight and used and frighten the petitioner creating sound of devil and used to put the petitioner in fever throughout the night and the respondent disappeared when the petitioner screamed for help. Even though tolerating all harassment the petitioner gave birth to one female child on 3.9.2005. That, the respondent no.1 completely neglected and deserted the petitioner no.1 and her children to maintain them. In the mean while at the instigation of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and only with an intention to marry another girl the respondent no.1 filed the divorce petition in MC no. 966/05 against the petitioner by creating and concocting false story and false allegations against the petitioner no.1. The petitioner no.1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself and her child and litigation expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed interim maintenance application u/sec. 24 & 26 of Hindu marriage act in the same case. The Hon'ble Principle Family Judge was pleased to pass the order for interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner and her one child. And also award litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. As per the order of Principle family judge, the petitioner filed execution petition in Ex.Pet. no. 2/2011 the respondent paid maintenance every month. Afterwards, the respondent started to request and begging to the petitioner to lead a marital life. The petitioner refused to join the respondent, but respondent made so many attempts to convince the petitioner finally only for the welfare of female child once again the petitioner 14 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 believed words, request and assurance of the respondent no.1 and agreed to go with him. As per the request of respondent no.1 without consulting her counsel, petitioner with drew the said execution petition only believing assurance of the respondent no.1.
23. The petitioner no.1 further submits that afterwards the respondent no.1 got one rental house in Nagavara, Bengaluru and once again started to lead married life, the respondent no.1 lead married life with the petitioner no.1 as a dutiful husband only for period of three months. That, at the instigation of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 on 8.6.2012 once again without informing to the petitioner no.1 the respondent no.1 deserted the petitioner no.1 and his kids. That the respondent no.1 completely neglected and deserted the petitioner no.1 and her children in maintaining. Having no alternative the petitioner no.1 is residing separated from the respondent no.1 along with children in above said address. The petitioner no.2 is studying in school. The petitioner no.1 maintaining herself and the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 by providing food, cloth and school expenses. The petitioner no.1 has no independent source of income to maintain herself. The petitioner no.1 approached the respondent no.1 to provide maintenance. But he has completely neglected and rejected to maintain them.
24. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the respondent no.1 is running a own business under the name and style of "Arjun Opticals" (wholesale and retain frames, 15 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 lenses and sunglasses), at no. 17, 17th cross, Kilari road, Near Gangamma temple, Bengaluru-53 and he has employed 5 to 6 persons in shop by having good business in that area. He is earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month in the optical, apart from that and he is doing money lending business privately. He is having his own residential accommodation in Kengeri, Bengaluru. The respondent no.1 has ancestral property in Tarabanahalli, Chikkajala, Bengaluru. The respondent no.1 has got sufficient income. Hence, the respondents have monthly total income of more than Rs. 75,000/- per month.
25. On the other hand, the respondents have filed separate objections and have over all denied the entire case of the petitioner no.1 regarding domestic violence. The respondent no.1 submits that the above petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the petition is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. The respondent no.1 denies all the averments other than those, which are specifically admitted therein.
26. In view of the above rival contentions on behalf of either parties, it is necessary to go through the evidence led by petitioner on record. To substantiate her case, the petitioner no.1 herself has been examined as PW-1 wherein she has almost all reiterated her petition averments. Apart from, the PW-1 produced the Ex.P.1 which is marriage invitation card of the PW-1 with the respondent no.1 which is not in dispute.
16 C.Misc. No. 225/2012The Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the petition filed by the respondent no.1 in M.C. no. 966/05 seeking for divorce against his wife. The Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the order sheet in M.C no. 966/05. The Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the execution petition filed by the PW-1 before the Family court which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent and his family members dtd: 10.7.2012. On careful reading of the said document, it appears that the PW-1 herself has mentioned that she had resided in the house of the brother of the respondent no.1 only for 15 days after her marriage.
27. The Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the statement given by the respondent no.2 before the Ulsoor gate Woman police station. The Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the statement given by the respondent no.1. The Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the statement given by the respondent no.2 before the police. The Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the statement of PW-1 before the Ulsoor gate police which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.10 is the copy of the domestic incident report. I have carefully perused the said report wherein it appears that there is mention that the petitioner no.1 has suffered Domestic Violence at the hands of the respondents. However, there is no mention as to when and where the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have committed Domestic Violence upon the petitioner no.1 who has admittedly resided only for 15 days in the house of the respondent no.2. The Ex.P.11 is the school certificate issued 17 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 by the school authorities in which the daughter of the PW-1 is studying. The Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of the missing complaint lodged by the PW-1 before the K.G. Halli police station. The Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of the statement of respondent no.1 before K.G. Halli police station dtd:
21.6.2012. I have carefully gone through the statement of respondent no.1 wherein the respondent no.1 has clearly mentioned that he has got Arjun Optical shop in Chickpet area for his livelihood. The respondent no.1 also submitted that 3 peoples are also working under him in the said shop. It means the respondent no.1 has got sufficient source of income from the said optical shop. The Ex.P.14 are the two visiting cards of Arjun Optical. The Ex.P.15 is the photo of the Arjun Optical.
The Ex.P.16 is the photo of the house said to be belongs to the respondent no.1. The Ex.P.17 is the house which said to be belongs to the respondents. The Ex.P.18 is the name board of the said house no. 1500. On relying upon the Ex.P.18 it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner no.1 that the respondent no.1 is also the owner of the said house. It is further submitted that as the respondent no.1 was also co- owner of the said house, the name of the respondent no.1 is mentioned on the said name board. However, the arguments of the petitioner's counsel holds no water because out of love and affection towards the brother, the respondent no.2 might have mentioned his younger brother name along with his children on the name board. The Exs.P. 19 & 20 are the photos of the house situated at Tharabanahalli. The Ex.P.21 is the 14 18 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 school payment receipts which are not in dispute. The Ex.P.22 is the estimation of school payment for the academic year 2014-15 wherein it appears that the petitioner has to pay Rs. 19,200/- per annum as school fee. On careful reading of the Exs.P. 21 & 22 it is very much clear that the minor children is under care and custody of the PW-1. The Ex.P.23 is the certified copy of the information issued by the Asst. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Office, wherein it is mentioned that the Arjun Optical stands in the name of the respondent no.3 for the year 2006 to 2009.
28. On combined reading of the Exs.P. 13 & 23, it appears that the respondent no.1 was the owner of the said Arjun Optical in the year 2012 and out of which the respondent no.1 is having sufficient source of income.
29. It is the specific case of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 that the respondent no.1 along with his wife were living separately and therefore the case filed against them is not maintainable. It is further the case of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 that the petitioner no.1 only once has complained against them before Ulsoor gate Women police station wherein as per Ex.R.1 the petitioner no.1 has given statement and except that there is no other complaint lodged by petitioner no.1 against them. The said Ex.R.1 is marked by confronting it to PW-1 during the course of cross-examination.
30. To substantiate the claim of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 the PW-1 during her course of cross-examination at page no.11 admits which reads as follows "«ªÁºÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ 19 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÉÝ. And further admits that "¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¨ÉÃgÉ J®Æè JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À ªÉÄïÁUÀ°Ã, DvÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄïÁUÀ°Ã ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀÄ ¤Ãr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
31. On careful reading of the said admission it appears that except Ex.R.1, the PW-1 has not lodged any other complaint against the respondent nos. 2 & 3. The PW-1 further admits that after her marriage she lived with the respondent no.1 only for six months and thereafter she went to her parental house for delivery. The PW-1 further admits that she used to live in her parental house from the beginning.
32. The PW-1 further admits at page no.14 which reads as follows "£À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DzÀ 6 wAUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝãÉ. 2012 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀªÀgÀÉUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉÝ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CwÛUÉ PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ£ÁzÀ ªÉAPÀmÉñÀAiÀÄå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ PÀÆqÀ PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. FUÀ®Æ PÀÆqÀ C°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DzÀ PÉêÀ® 6 wAUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrzÉ, CzÁzÀ §½PÀ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÀÆqÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉAUÉÃj G¥À£ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÁèUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÁUÀ°Ã £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CwÛUÉ AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÀÆqÀ C°è §AzÀÄ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". On careful reading of the above admission of PW-1 it becomes clear that the PW-1 has not resided with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at any point of time.
33. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 in his support has been examined as RW-1, wherein he has almost all reiterated his entire objection averments. Apart from, the 20 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 RW-1 got produced the Ex.R.1 which is the notarized copy of the election I.D card of RW-1. I have carefully perused the said document, wherein it appears that the address mentioned in the said document is of the Tarabanahalli which is admittedly the native place of the RW-1. The Ex.R.2 is also the notarized copy of the adhar card standing in the name of RW-1 wherein the address is also mentioned as Tarabanahalli. The Ex.R.3 is the notarized copy of the ration card with respect to family of the father of RW-1. I have carefully gone through the said document, wherein it appears that in the said document the names of the father, mother of RW-1 along with his wife i.e., petitioner no.1 is mentioned as one family and the address which is mentioned in the said document is also of the Tarabanahalli. On careful perusal of the Exs.R.1 to R.3, this court can draw an inference that the RW-1 along with his wife was not at all residing along with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 at Kengeri.
34. As far as, the income of the respondent no.1, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no.1 has cross-examined the RW-1, wherein the RW-1 has clearly admitted at page no.6 with respect to his experience in the optical shop which reads as follows; "£Á£ÀÄ 9 £Éà vÀgÀUÀwAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ optical CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è grinder JAzÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è £À£U À É 14 ªÀµðÀ UÀ¼À C£ÀĨÀsªÀ«zÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAvÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä Q¯Áj gÉÆÃqï, 15 £Éà PÁæ¸ï, gÁd±ÉÃRgÀ optical CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÁqÀÄwÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj gÁd±ÉÃRgï CAzÀgÉ CzÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ EzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj optical 21 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ¸ÀħæªÀÄtô JAzÀÄ EzÉ". The RW-1 further admits at para no.2 of page no.6 as follows; "¸ÀzÀj 3 ªÀµÀð DzÀ §½PÀ £Á£Éà ¸ÀévÀB MAzÀÄ optical grinding work shop £ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA¨Às ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ 2003 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÀPïð±Á¥ï£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA¨Às ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀPïð±Á¥ï£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ £Á£Éà DVzÉÝ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj". The RW-1 further admits at page no.7, para no.4 which reads as follows; "£À£Àß E§âgÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÆ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ §AzÀgÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÄÁÃV CªÀjUÉ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ «zÁå¨sÁå¸À PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÁPÀĪÀ ±ÀQÛ £À£Àß°è EzÉ". The RW-1 further feigned his ignorance as to where exactly his child is studying. On careful perusal of the admission of RW-1, it is very much clear that the respondent no.1 is capable to maintaining his wife and children. Being a father, the RW-1 has feigned his ignorance as to where his child exactly is studying. It means the RW-1 has neglected to maintain his wife and children.
35. The respondent no.2 on behalf of his wife has been examined as RW-2 wherein he has supported his objection averments. It is specific case of the respondent no.2 that the petitioner no.1 along with respondent no.1 have only resided for 15 days in their house after their marriage and thereafter the respondent no.1 along with his family have shifted to Nagavara. Therefore, it is the case of the respondent no.2 that he and his wife have not committed any kind of Domestic Violence upon the petitioner no.1. Apart from, the RW-2 also got produced the Ex.R.4 which is the certified copy of the mortgage deed with respect to his house property bearing no. 1500. The Ex.R.5 is the certified copy of the sale deed through 22 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 which the present RW-2 has purchased the said site no. 1500 from BDA on his own capacity. On careful perusal of the Exs.R. 4 & 5 nowhere it is mentioned that the respondent no.1 has invested any kind of amount to purchase the said property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.1 is not the co-owner of the said property.
36. The Ex.R.6 is the certified copy of the possession certificate. On careful perusal of the said document, it appears in the year 1985 the site no. 1500 was first handed over to one Balakrishna. V.S. on lease for a period of 10 yrs. The Ex.R.7 is the certified copy of the khatha issued by BBMP standing in the name of respondent no.2 which is not in dispute. The Ex.R.8 is the certified copy of the khatha extract standing in the name of respondent no.2. The Ex.R.9 is the notarized copy of the ration card with respect to the family members of the respondent no.2. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein it appears that in the said document the name of respondent no.2 along with his wife i.e., respondent no.3 and his two children are mentioned as one family member. It is pertinent here to mention that if the respondent no.1 along with his wife were ever residing in the said house no. 1500 then definitely the name of the respondent no.1 and his wife used to appear in the said ration card Ex.R.9. The Ex.R.10 is the notarized copy of the Adhar card of the respondent no.2. On careful reading of Exs.R.9 & 10, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.2 is the absolute owner and in possession of the house no.1500.
23 C.Misc. No. 225/201237. The Ex.R.11 is the notarized copy of the deed of title with respect to the property allotted by the Government in the name of RW-2. The Ex.R.12 is the khata extract standing in the name of respondent no.3 with respect to house which is mentioned in the photo Ex.P.16. The Ex.R.13 is the copy of the khatha extract with respect to the said house standing in the name of respondent no.3. The Exs.R.14 & 15 are tax paid receipts with respect to the property mentioned in Ex.P.16 which also stands in the name of the wife of respondent no.2. On careful perusal of the said documents, I am of the opinion that the said property is standing in the name of the wife of respondent no.2. Therefore, neither the petitioner no.1 nor her husband i.e., respondent no.1 can claim any kind of right over the said property. The Ex.R.16 is the encumbrance certificate wherein it appears that the wife of the respondent no.2 has purchased the said property from respondent no.1. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that said property mentioned in Ex.R.16 photo also belongs to the respondent no.1 and to defeat her claim over the said property the respondent no.1 along with respondent no.2 have managed to transfer the property in favour of the respondent no.3. However, to substantiate the claim of the petitioner no.1, she has not produced any document to show that the respondent no.1 has invested any kind of amount to purchase the said house. However, the petitioner no.1 and her children can claim maintenance from her husband i.e., respondent no.1 for their survival.
24 C.Misc. No. 225/201238. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cross- examined the RW-2 at length. However, the RW-2 stood firm to his case. The counsel for the petitioner has not elicited anything from the mouth of the RW-2 which is infavour of the petitioner and against the case of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued relying upon the admission of RW-2 at page no.6 that since RW-2 has admitted that the respondent no.1 has resided with him, this court has to draw an inference that the RW-2 has also committed Domestic Violence upon the petitioner. However, I am of the opinion that the said argument canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner holds no water because nowhere in entire course of cross-examination it is suggested to RW-2 that the petitioner along with respondent no.1 had resided with RW-2. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner herself has not resided along with the respondent no.1 in the house of RW-2 then the question of committing Domestic Violence by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 does not arise at all. The RW-2 further admits that his brother RW-1 had addicted to alcohol.
39. On marshalling entire evidence and on meticulous perusal of the documentary proofs, in this case the petitioner no.1 has successfully proved that her husband respondent no.1 has neglected to maintain her and her children and also committed Domestic Violence upon her. The admission of RW- 1 and Ex.P.13 clearly goes to show that the RW-1 is the owner of Arjun Optical having sufficient source of income. Non-
25 C.Misc. No. 225/2012maintaining of the petitioner by the respondent no.1 also amounts to Domestic Violence.
40. The petitioner in this case has failed to prove that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have ever committed Domestic Violence upon her as she has admitted as per Ex.P.5 that she lived along with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for a period of only 15 days. Hence, I am of the opinion that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have not committed any act of Domestic Violence upon the petitioners. Hence, I answer the point no.1 in the Affirmative and point no.2 in the Negative.
41. Point No.3: In this case, the present petitioner no.1 has sought for pass protection order, residence order, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 45,000/- per month (Rs. 15,000/- each) to the petitioner and her two children (towards food, cloth, rent, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities), compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs (to compensate for mental agony, torture, harassment, humiliation, desertion etc., ruining her life and loss of decency etc.,) and legal expenses of Rs. 30,000/-.
42. In view of my answering to the point no.1 in the Affirmative and point no.2 in the negative, holding that the petitioner has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondent no.1, it is just to pass the protection order within the meaning of sec. 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 to protect and safeguard the petitioners from possible violence upon her at the hands of respondent no.1. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for 26 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 protection and prohibition orders as sought by her. The provisions of domestic violence act are social beneficial legislation for those who are neglected and who have no income of their own to support themselves so as to keep their body and soul together. The object of this act is to prevent starvation and vagrancy by compelling a person to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children who are unable to support. Further this case is pending from the year 2012 and the children are residing admittedly residing with the petitioner no.1. The respondent admittedly has not paid any amount to his wife and minor children for their care and custody till now. Hence the respondent is liable to pay the maintenance to his wife and children from the date of petition.
43. On marshalling the entire evidence and meticulous perusal of the documents in this case and also in view of the discussions made by me in the above point, the petitioner no.1 is entitled for only rs 6,000/- (Rs. Six thousand only) per month and Rs. 2,000/- each (Rs. Two thousand each) per month towards minor children for food, cloth, rent, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities as maintenance from the respondent no.1. Further, the petitioner no.1 is also not entitled for damages and other expenses as she has not substantiated her claim. Hence, said reliefs cannot be granted at this stage. Taking into consideration of the inflation and day to day price hiking, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total an amount of Rs.
27 C.Misc. No. 225/201210,000/- (ten thousand only) per month towards her maintenance including food, cloth, rent, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities. Hence, I answer the point no.3 partly in affirmative.
44. Point No.4: In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the petitioners are entitled for the following reliefs. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/-(six thousand) per month to the petitioner no.1 (including food, cloth, rent, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till her lifetime.
The respondent no.1 is also directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each (Two thousand each) per month to the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 (including food, cloth, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till they attain age of majority.
The respondent no.1 or his men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from 28 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner.
The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioner no.1 in enforcing the order.
The other prayers of the petitioner no.1 are deemed to be rejected.
The claim made by the petitioners against the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is hereby dismissed.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE i.List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW.1 : Anitha
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation
Ex.P.2 certified copy of the petition in M.C. no.
966/05
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the order sheet in M.C. no.
966/05
Ex.P. 4 Certified copy of the execution petition
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the complaint lodged by
the petitioner
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the statement given by the
respondent no.2
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of the statement given by the
respondent no.1
29 C.Misc. No. 225/2012
Ex.P. 8 Certified copy of the statement given by the
respondent no.2
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the statement given by the
petitioner
Ex. P.10 Domestic incident report
Ex.P.11 School certificate
Ex.P. 12 Certified copy of the missing complaint
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the statement given by the
respondent no.1
Ex.P.14 Visiting cards
Ex.P.15 Photo of Arjun optical
Ex.P.16 & 17 Photos of house
Ex.P.18 Name board of house no. 1500
Exs.P.19 & 20 Photos of the house
Ex.P.21 14 school receipts
Ex.P.22 Estimation of school payment
Ex.P.23 Certificate of information
List of witnesses examined for Respondent:
RW-1 Subramani RW-2 Venkateshaiah List of documents marked for Respondent: Ex.R.1 Statement dtd: 13.7.2012 Ex.R.1 Notarized copy of election ID Ex.R.2 Notarized copy of Adhar card Ex.R.3 Notarized copy of ration card Ex.R.4 Certified copy of mortgage Ex.R.5 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.R.6 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.R.7 Khatha certificate Ex.R.8 Certified copy of Khatha extract Ex.R.9 Certified copy of ration card Ex.R.10 Adhar card of respondent no.2 Ex.R.11 Certified copy of Hakku pathra
Ex.R.12 to 15 Certified copies of tax receipts Ex.R.16 Encumbrance certificate (Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
30 C.Misc. No. 225/2012Orders vide separate Order sheet ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/-(six thousand) per month to the petitioner no.1 (including food, cloth, rent, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till her lifetime.
The respondent no.1 is also directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each (Two thousand each) per month to the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 (including food, cloth, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till they attain age of majority.
The respondent no.1 or his men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from 31 C.Misc. No. 225/2012 aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner.
The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioner no.1 in enforcing the order.
The other prayers of the petitioner no.1 are deemed to be rejected.
The claim made by the petitioners against the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is hereby dismissed.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both the parties.
b (Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.