Delhi District Court
Complainant vs . on 1 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA;M.M.MAHILA COURT; THC; DELHI. CC No.185/1/12 PS Uttam Nagar U/s. 12 of PWDV Act In re: Ms. Amita W/o Sh. Satpal Sharma D/o Sh. Jai Dev Pal R/o T104/A, Baljit Nagar, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi8 .......................Complainant. Vs. 1. Sh. Satpal Sharma S/o Sh. Hari Chand Sharma 2. Sh. Hari Chand Sharma Both R/o A98/99, Jain Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59 ......................Respondents
FINAL ORDER (EXPARTE);
1. This is a petition U/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short "the Act") filed by the complainant.
2. In the petition, it has been mentioned by the complainant that marriage between the complainant and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 01.09.2001 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the said wedlock one male child namely Master Vinay was born. The complainant has stated that her parents had spent huge amount of money in the marriage. After Amita Vs Satpal Sharma & Ors. Page No.1of5 few days of marriage all the respondents started harassing, torturing the complainant for insufficient dowry. The respondent no.1 is a drunkard and he is not doing any work. She has further alleged that on 05.05.2002 she was thrown out of her matrimonial house but due to the intervention of the neighbour, respondents allowed the complainant to reside in her matrimonial house. It has been further alleged that on the instigation of respondent no.2 and family members, respondent no.1 beaten the complainant and thrown her out of her matrimonial house along with her child and then she came to her parental house. Thereafter, on the occasion of birthday of their son, respondent no.1 assured the complainant not to repeat the same in future and complainant along with the child returned back to her matrimonial house. But respondents did not mend their ways. Respondent no.1 kept on beating and torturing the complainant.
On 23.05.2012 respondent no.1 again thrown the complainant and the child from the matrimonial house in night and since then complainant has been residing at her parental house. Thereafter, she was admitted in the RML hospital as respondents had not cared to provide maintenance to her. Complainant stated that she was working as a Teacher in small preparatory school and earning an amount of Rs. 1500/ pm but respondent no.1 used to stole that amount for his drinking purpose.
3. It has been further averred that previously respondent no.1 was working in a Satyam Cinema as Supervisor and his income was Rs. 20,000/ pm and was also doing some private work and earning an amount of Rs. 5000/ pm. She further averred that now also he is working somewhere but she is not aware about the particulars of his job. He has no other liability except to maintain the complainant and the child. Complainant has stated herself to be a house wife having no source of income. It has been further stated that she is having no source of income and dependent upon her parents. Respondent no.1 is not paying any amount for her Amita Vs Satpal Sharma & Ors. Page No.2of5 maintenance though he is having no other liability except to maintain her.
4. Summons were issued to both the respondents and after their appearance matter was got settled in between the parties before the Mediation Cell. But the respondents did not comply with the terms of settlement. Thereafter, respondents stopped appearing in the present matter, hence, respondents were proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.01.2014.
10. Exparte evidence was lead by the complainant. Complainant examined herself as CW1 and affidavit Ex. CW1/A was filed. She relied upon the following documents; complaint DD no. 28B dated 30.07.2012 as Ex. CW1/1, Election ID Card as Ex. CW1/2, discharge report dated 24.05.2012 as Mark A, copy of ID Card of child Vinay Sharma as Mark B, Copy of ration card as Mark C and birth certificate as Mark D.
11. I have heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record carefully.
12. In the present petition, several reliefs have been prayed by the complainant but at the time of final arguments, Ld. counsel for complainant submits that he is pressing only for three reliefs, i.e the relief of maintenance, relief of alternate accommodation and for compensation.
13. It is the legal and moral responsibility of the respondent no.1 to maintain his wife as well as the children. It is alleged that respondent no.1 is having no other liability except to maintain her. Complainant has stated that at present she is not working anywhere and she is Amita Vs Satpal Sharma & Ors. Page No.3of5 having no source of income. The complainant has stated that respondent no.1 was earlier working in a Satyam Cinema as Supervisor and his income was Rs. 20,000/ pm and was doing some private work and earning an amount of Rs. 5000/ pm. She has further averred that he is still working somewhere but she is not aware about the particulars of his job. She could not file any documentary evidence qua income proof of the respondent no.1. She even failed to file any photograph / visiting card to prove her averments pertaining to the income of the respondent no.
1. The complainant has neither given the details of educational qualification of respondent no.1 nor of his professional qualification.
12. In the absence of documentary proof, the submission of complainant cannot be considered as gospel truth. Hence, the Court is having no option except the guess work. Considering the status of the parties and relying upon the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, I assess the monthly income of the respondent no.1 approximately to be Rs.7000/ to Rs. 8,000/ pm.
13. In Annurita Vohra Vs. Sandeep Vohra : 2004 (3) AD 252, it has been held that the family income should be divided equally between all the family members entitled to maintenance with one extra portion/share being allotted to the earning spouse since extra expenses would necessarily occur.
14. In view of the principal laid down in the above cited observation and considering the present facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent no.1 to pay monthly sum of Rs. 3500/ pm (Rs. 2000/ for the complainant and Rs. 1500/ for the child) to the complainant from the date of filing of petition till the time, they are legally entitled to Amita Vs Satpal Sharma & Ors. Page No.4of5 receive the same from the respondent no.1. This amount includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well. The respondent no.1 is further directed to make payment upto 10th of each English Calender month. The respondent no.1 is further directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within four months from the date of this order. The amount paid or payable by the respondent no.1 to the complainant either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly.
15. Lastly the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5 Lacs. Complainant has mentioned several acts of cruelties. She has also relied upon complaint Ex. CW1/1 and discharge report Mark A. Considering the above, I hereby direct the respondent no.1 to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/ as compensation to the complainant.
16. With the above directions the application U/s. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 filed by the complainant stands disposed of.
17. File be consigned to RR.
Announced in Open Court
On 01.08.2014 (Vandana)
MM:Mahila Court
West District:Delhi.
Amita Vs Satpal Sharma & Ors. Page No.5of5