Bangalore District Court
Sharmada vs Prajwal Prasad on 16 November, 2024
KABC0A0012422024
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated: This the 16th day of November, 2024.
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
CRL. APPEAL No.25142/2024
APPELLANT/
PETITIONER: Smt.Sharmada,
W/o.Prajwal Prasad,
D/o.Kumaraswamy,
aged about 29 yrs,
R/o.No.1116, 13th Cross,
Indiranagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560038.
(Rep.by Sri.B.R.Deepak, Advocate)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1 Prajwal Prasad,
2
CRL.A. No.25142/2024
S/o.Prasad.K.R.,
aged about 32 yrs,
2 K.R.Prasad,
aged about 64 yrs,
3 Smt.Brahmarambika,
W/o.Prasad.K.R.,
aged about 59 yrs,
All are residents of No.84,
14th Cross, Ullal Main Road,
Bengaluru-560056.
(Rep.by Sri.Kalpana.H.S., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner in Crl.Misc. No.64/2024 on the file of MMTC-1, Bengaluru, seeking modify the impugned order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the learned MMTC-1, Mayhohall Unit, Bengaluru.
2. The appellant was the petitioner and respondents herein were the respondents before the trial court and hereinafter they are referred to as per the ranks assigned to 3 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 them before the trial court. For brevity it is mentioned that appellant/petitioner is the wife and 1st respondent herein is the husband.
3. The brief facts averred in the memorandum of appeal are that the petitioner who is no other than the wife of 1st respondent had filed a petition before the MMTC under Section 12 of PWDV Act and further had filed an application under Section 23 of PWDV Act seeking interim order of maintenance. The learned MMTC, Bengaluru has partly allowed the interim application filed by the petitioner and has directed the 1st respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till further orders. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned MMTC-1, the petitioner has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-
1. That the impugned interim order passed by learned MMTC suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, as the court 4 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 has failed to take note of the provision of Sec.23 of P.W.D.V. Act.
2. That trial court has erred in understanding the socio beneficial purpose of the Enactment and Act was put into force on 13.9.2005 to provide for more effective protection to the rights of the women guaranteed under Constitution of India, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
3. That in the body of the complaint filed u/s 12, the complainant has prima facie made out a case of Domestic Violence what she suffered at the hands of the respondents.
4. That the trial court order is against the probability of law and is far away from principles of natural justice.
5. That the matrimonial responsibility are not being discharged properly by the respondents and they have deliberately withdrawn themselves from their duties and responsiblities to protect their woman who after marriage, completely belongs to the family of the respondents.
This has caused serious injury to the basic essential rights of the appellant. By granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, the trial court has not 5 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 considered that persons who are below poverty line are earning more than the said maintenance granted by the trial court.
Accordingly, on all these grounds the appellant has prayed for modify the said impugned order dated 03.04.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.64/2024.
4. Pursuance to issuance of court notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and contested the appeal and filed objection to the memorandum of appeal stating that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
5. Further contending that the appellant and respondent No.1 marriage was an arranged marriage. During the course of talks of marriage, there was no any kind of demands including money from respondent's side. After marriage appellant and respondent No.1 planned for the honeymoon to Thailand and 1st respondent only bears 6 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 the cost for this trip. The appellant is having habit of consuming alcohol and party oriented person. Before marriage the bachelor party was arranged together at insistence of appellant as respondent No.1 did not want to have one. As far as professional help is concerned neither is respondent No.1 an addict nor was a party person but on the other hand appellant was both and one such incident was what happened on 22nd April 2023. After marriage, appellant was no doing any household work and not taking care of her husband and in laws and also she is not ready to discharge her duties as dutiful wife. The appellant is working in Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru as an Audiologist and is getting a handsome salary, during the stay at her matrimonial house she was not doing any household chores providing the reason of her profession and respondent No.3 did not force to help her in kitchen. She lived those four months howevder she wanted to live.
7
CRL.A. No.25142/2024
6. Further they have contended that the respondent No.1 is the only son to his parents and his parents to safeguard married life of respondent No.1, respondents No.2 & 3 adjusted a lot with appellant. Respondent No.1 was working in a private company at Arg Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd., as a journalist and he is having heavy work pressure in his office, in such situations also respondent tried to live happily with appellant who quarreled with the respondent No.1 for petty reasons on a daily basis. On 11.06.2023 appellant's father came to get her home for Ashada. From Ashada of 2023, appellant is living in her parents house. The respondents made several attempts to take back her to matrimonial home, but went in vein. The appellant refused to come back to matrimonial home and demanded for separate house. After three months; i.e., on 1.10.2023 1 st respondent along with his parents and relatives visited Mysore and had a lengthy discussion, but not even once they mentioned that they will send their daughter back to her 8 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 matrimonial house. Instead parents of appellant strongly demanded to made a separate house only then they will send their daughter. But, 1 st respondent refused the demand of appellant and her parents as he is the only son of his parents and it is his duty to take care of his parents. The respondent No.1 is ready and willing to take back the appellant lead a happy married life, provided that she correct her past mistakes and ensure that she will not repeat such mistakes in future. The 1st respondent filed petition in MC No.1032/2024 before Hon'ble Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru on 14.2.2024 and the same is pending. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
7. Heard arguments of both the appellant and the respondents and perused the entire materials placed on record.
9
CRL.A. No.25142/2024
8. The points that would arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the impugned interim order requires to be set aside?
2. What order?
9. My answer on the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
10. POINT No.1: There is no dispute regarding the facts that petitioner and 1st respondent are legally wedded husband and wife and they have no issues and further the records show that the petitioner who is the wife has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act before the MMTC-1 and also had filed an application under Section 23 of DV Act 10 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 seeking certain interim reliefs including the Monetary relief of Rs.60,000/- per month towards the monthly maintenance.
11. The trial court after hearing the parties has partly allowed the application and has 'directed the respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of petition till further orders'.
12. The order under challenge before this court is purely an interim order and further the interim order passed by the learned MMTC-1 would go to show that the trial court has observed in the order, which is a brief order stating that at the time of adjudication of the application, the petitioner has not established certain facts and documents have not been furnished and in order to decide the said reliefs, the evidence is required and a trial is required. By considering the fact that the petitioner and 1 st respondent is not having children and the domestic relationship is not in dispute, by 11 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 considering that it is necessary to grant some maintenance to the petitioner for her welfare and well-being.
13. The order would clearly reflect that no specific amount has been ordered to be paid except a direction has been passed. The said 'direction' has been challenged by the wife before this court.
14. The main ground on which the respondents have challenged the order is, the appellant and respondent No.1 marriage was an arranged marriage. During the course of talks of marriage, there was no any kind of demands including money from respondent's side. The appellant is having habit of consuming alcohol and party oriented person. As far as professional help is concerned neither is respondent No.1 an addict nor was a party person but on the other hand appellant was both and one such incident was what happened on 22nd April 2023. After marriage, appellant was no doing any household work and not taking 12 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 care of her husband and in laws and also she is not ready to discharge her duties as dutiful wife. The appellant is working in Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bengaluru as an Audiologist and is getting a handsome salary, during the stay at her matrimonial house she was not doing any household chores providing the reason of her profession and respondent No.3 did not force to help her in kitchen. She lived those four months howevder she wanted to live. The respondent No.1 is the only son to his parents and his parents to safeguard married life of respondent No.1, respondents No.2 & 3 adjusted a lot with appellant. Respondent No.1 was working in a private company at Arg Outlier Media Pvt. Ltd., as a journalist and he is having heavy work pressure in his office, in such situations also respondent tried to live happily with appellant who quarreled with the respondent No.1 for petty reasons on a daily basis. On 11.06.2023 appellant's father came to get her home for Ashada. From Ashada of 2023, appellant is living in her 13 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 parents house. The appellant refused to come back to matrimonial home and demanded for separate house. The respondent No.1 is ready and willing to take back the appellant lead a happy married life, provided that she correct her past mistakes and ensure that she will not repeat such mistakes in future. Thereby it has to be set aside no doubt.
15. The facts remains that the 1st respondent is the husband and he is duty bound to pay the maintenance and more over, the trial court has not directed the 1 st respondent to pay certain specific amount monthly towards the maintenance. The court is not barred from issuing directions in the facts and circumstances of the case.
16. It is the contention of the 1 st respondent that parallel proceedings have been initiated by the 1 st respondent before the Family Court. Wherein the matter is adjudicating in the said proceedings and the order passed in this case will be overlapping with the order passing by the 14 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 Family Court. The 1st respondent has stated in the objection statement that after receival of notice in the Family Court proceedings the appellant filed this appeal. If that stage is looked into it can be very well said that the direction given by the MMTC Court will not overlap the order passing by the Family Court.
17. On perusal of the material available on record, it goes to show that petitioner filed application u/S 12 of P.W.D.V. Act by seeking various reliefs. Petitioner was subjected to domestic violence. From ashada of 2023, petitioner is living in her parents house. The respondents have forcefully deserted the petitioner threatening her with dire consequences. In her assets and liabilities petitioner submitted that she is qualified as M.Sc. Audiology and she is owrking at Amplifon India Pvt. Ltd., as Audiologist and drawing monthly salary of Rs.56,000/- p.m. take home. Petitioner also submitted that respondent is qualified as 15 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 M.Sc. Electronic media, gold medalist, Bengaluru University and earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.m., take home. Petitioner not mentioned the occupation of the respondent.
18. Perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that petitioner is working and she has mentioned that she is drawing a salary of Rs.56,000/- p.m. Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v/s Neha has held that even a working woman is entitled for supportive maintenance. At this juncture, the records reveals that the petitioner is earning sufficiently to support her life. It is bounden duty of the respondent No.1 to maintain his wife. Respondent No.1 being husband is duty bound to maintenance his wife. U/S 23 of D.V.Act itself provides discretionary power to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief considering the over all facts and circumstances and exigency. The discretionary power has to be exercised with sound judicious manner and not casually. 16
CRL.A. No.25142/2024
19. In this appeal the advocate for the respondents has filed memo with the following documents:-
1. Copy of the discharge summary.
2. Copy of objection filed by respondents in Crl.Misc. No.64/2024.
3. Assets and liabilities and documents filed by respondents in Crl.Misc. No.64/2024.
4. IT Returns for the year 2020-2021 to 2023-
2024 of R1, Bills of marriage expenses born by respondents, Tickets of Thailand trip & copy of the tickets.
5. Application u/S 23 of DV Act filed by appellant in Crl.Misc.No.64/2024.
6. Salary slip of appellant for the year July 2022.
7. Travel tickets of appellant.
8. Account statements of respondent No.1 for 3 years.
9. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl.R.P.1082/2023, Crl.M.A.27842/2023 and Crl.M.A.27843/2023.
Perused these documents. These documents shows that the respondents based on these documents submitted that the 17 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 trial court order may be set aside. But, based on these documents trial court order cannot be set aside. Because, it is bounded duty of the husband to look his wife. In this case the appellant counsel furnished citation reported in Crl.R.P. No.498/2023, Crl.M.A.11777/2023 & Crl.M.A.34828/2023 between Manish v/s State of NCT of Delhi & another. On the other hand the respondents counsel furnished citation reported in Crl.Rev.P.1083/2023, Crl.M.A.27842/2023 and Crl.M.A.27843/2023.
20. Perusal of the papers and considering the nature of the case and the position of the petitioner and respondents, the order passed by the trial court is a proper and just and more over, the interim relief granted by the trial court is interim relief and considering the nature of the case and qualification of the both parties and status of both the parties in the society it is just and proper confirm the trial court order.
18
CRL.A. No.25142/2024
21. The trial court granted interim maintenance to pay Rs.5,000/- and more over u/S 23 of the DV Act itself provides that discretion power given to Magistrate to grant exparte interim relief and trial court considering over all facts and circumstances of the case granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner as interim maintenance. Herein this case the appellant wants to modify the said order. So looking to the facts and circumstances of the casse and material available on record, trial court is properly granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- and I have perused the citations produced by the respondent are clearly goes to show that the maintenance is given with the object is to prevent the vagrancy and destitution. It is leading life to the petitioner. Thereby I hold neither there are any merits in the case nor the appellant has made out any grounds for setting aside the order. The jurisdiction of the court is not limited when a petition is filed under DV Act before the Magistrate. The Magistrate is having ample power to 19 CRL.A. No.25142/2024 adjudicate the application and grant necessary reliefs as deems fit in fact and circumstances of the case. The impugned order is one such order, interference of this court in the order passed by the learned Magistrate will not arise. Accordingly, I answer point for consideration No.1 in Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Send the copy of this order to the trial court.
No order as to costs.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of November, 2024].
[PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT] LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.20
CRL.A. No.25142/2024 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment).
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.
Send the copy of this order to the trial court.
No order as to costs.
(PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 21 CRL.A. No.25142/2024