Bangalore District Court
Smt. Sujaya Baliga @ Jayalakshmi vs Sri. Shashanka Baliga on 27 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT-VI, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
Dated : This the 27th day of February, 2016.
Present : Smt. LAVANYA H.N. B.Sc., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer of M.M.T.C-VI.
Petitioner : Smt. Sujaya Baliga @ Jayalakshmi,
W/o Shashanka Baliga,
Daughter of K.P. Damodhara Shenoy,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at Plot No.407,
No.315, 4th Phase,
Hindu Seva Prathistana,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 064.
(Rep by Sri. DRV Bhat Adv.)
V/s
Respondent : Sri. Shashanka Baliga,
Son of Late B.P. Baliga,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.6-1-5C,
Shashanka, Olakaadu Extension,
Udupi, Taluk and District.
(Rpd. By Sri. SVS Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
This Petitioner has filed petition U/Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 2 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 (hereinafter it is referred as Domestic Violence Act), seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under:
2. The petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 1.4.1998 as per the religious rites and customs prevailing in their community at Sri. Varadendra Kalyana Mandira, SLV Temple, Udupi. From the said wedlock the petitioner has given birth to one male child by name Vinayaka Baliga and one female child by name Vishak Baliga.
3. It is further case of the petitioner that the entire marriage expenses were borne by her parents. Her parents have also given dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- in the form of cash and gold jewels and household articles. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent started their marital life at Olakaadu house in Udupi. From the date of marriage the respondent was un-necessarily quarreling and suspecting the petitioner without any justifiable reasons or cause. The respondent was also raising heavy loans from his friends, colleagues and money lenders for spending the same towards gambling, drinking and other illegal activities. The respondent has also failed to provide basic necessities to the petitioner as well as her children. In the year 2007 the respondent started physical and mental torture, because he had developed illicit relationship with one lady colleague i.e., stenographer in 3 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 respondent's office. The petitioner made her best efforts to mend his attitude through the elders and close relatives, but her efforts went in vain. The respondent was harassing the petitioner at the instigation of her mother Meera Baliga, his brother Narasimha Baliga and sisters Maya Kamath and Bhagya Kini. The respondent used to tell her that he could not accept her as his wife and he was treating her as his slave. On one occasion the petitioner was admitted to in Kasturba Hospital, Manipal and had obtained a false medical record against the petitioner and finally on 29.3.2010 the petitioner's father has discharged her. Since then she has been residing in her parent's house. Because of adamant nature of the respondent and his family, she suffered physical and mental cruelty. The respondent never used to give her adequate food and she had to do all the household chores and eat the left over.
4. It is further stated that the respondent is government Income Tax Inspector and getting salary of more than Rs.31,000/- per month. He has movable and immovable properties. He has a site at Income Tax Layout, Mysore and has apartment at Manasa Apartment, Kalpana Theatre, Udupi.
Apart from that, he owns agricultural properties near Basarur, Kundapura Talk, Udupi District. In all he gets income of Rs.60,000/- per month. The petitioner with great difficulty has been giving education to her children. But, the respondent 4 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 illegally took away the male child from the custody of the petitioner. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter who is with the care and custody of the petitioner. Upon these grounds, it is prayed to restrain the respondent from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner and her two children; direct the respondent to provide alternative suitable accommodation to her as enjoyed in the shared household along with the fittings and fixtures; direct the respondent to return gold ornaments and other articles worth of Rs.5,00,000/-; direct the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner.
5. In pursuance of the notice the respondent caused his appearance through Advocate and has filed objections in detail by denying the entire allegations made against him as false, except admitting the marital relationship between the petitioner and himself and two children born to them from their wedlock. It is contended that the entire marriage expenses were taken care of by the respondent as he aware of the financial conditions of his in-laws. The petitioner had failed to perform her marital obligations. She never used to take care of his children and his aged mother. Her attitude and behavior was not normal, she was very suspicious and sometime she would be very violent and unnecessarily without any reason she used to fight with him and also assault him and children.
5 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010The petitioner never used to cook food at home. The respondent's mother used to get up early in the morning and she used to cook food for the entire family. Before going to office and after coming from the office the respondent used to help his mother in household works. Due to abnormal behavior of the petitioner the respondent's brother and sisters have stopped coming to his home. Her abnormal behavior and attitude was brought to the notice of her parent's. When the same has been brought to the knowledge of his father-in-law, his father-in-law has alleged that some black magic was done and for negating the same, he approached various manthrikas thanthras and also advised him in this regard. However, the respondent being educated felt that the petitioner needed some medical assistance and therefore he took her to their family doctor Sri. Surendra Kamath, who advised him to admit the petitioner and to consult psychiatrist at K.M.C Hospital, Manipal. Accordingly, he took the petitioner to Dr. Shripathy Bhat who is H.O.D of Psychiatrist Department at K.M.C Hospital, Manipal. As per the advice of the doctor the petitioner was admitted in the hospital, where she was treated for delusional disorder. The said delusional disorder is an illness which causes mental imbalance and as a result, false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary and these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the society. A person suffering from delusional disorder as the name suggests is 6 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 unable to conceive realistic rational ideas and the petitioner herself is figment of imagination. The petitioner was admitted to in the hospital on 14.3.2010 as inpatient. He was taking care of her in hospital. However, on 29.3.2010 the petitioner's father came to the hospital and gets her discharged against the medical advice, inspite of respondent's objection for it. After discharge the petitioner and her father came to the house of the respondent wherein the petitioner packed all her belongings inclusive of jewelry which the respondent had given her after the marriage. She left the house of the respondent along with her belongings with her father and at that time she took the daughter Vishak Baliga along with her. Since then, she has been staying in her father's house at Bangalore. As she was suffering from delusional disorder and it is progressive in nature, if not treated properly the petitioner mental condidtion is likely deteriorate and the same was informed to her father by the doctor. Inspite of it, she was discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, the respondent on number of occasions tried to bring back the petitioner and his daughter and also requested his father-in-law to co-operate with him. He has also brought to his knowledge that she needs to be treated for her mental condition, but his father-in-law argued. The attempts made by him to bring back his wife and child were went in vain. Ultimately, to enable his daughter to continue her education, the respondent got her transfer certificate from school at Udupi on 27.4.2010 and the same has been given to the petitioner to 7 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 enable her to admit in any good school at Bangalore. At that time, he had given Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner for educational expenses of his daughter. He has admitted that he is working in Income Tax Department as Income Tax Inspector and further stated that his take home salary is Rs.26,022/-. It is further contended that he has purchased a house in which he is presently staying at Okalaadu for this he raised the loan from Canara Bank Town Branch, Udupi, and for which he has to pay monthly EMI of Rs.10,292/- . The closure of the loan date is 27.2.2024. He also admitted that he owns a site at Income Tax Layout, Mysore, but he has contended that he is not earning any returns from the said site. He has also admitted that he owns apartment at Manasa Apartment, Kalpana Theatre, Udupi. But, he has stated that even from the said apartment he is not earning any rentals. He has further contended that in the said apartment his elder sister is staying with her family. Since, her financial condition is not very good, he has given the said apartment for residing. The said apartment was purchased by him with the financial aid from the Department. In this regard a sum of Rs.1,900/- has been deducted every month from his salary by the Department. Out of the earning amount he has been maintaining his family members and their needs and requirements. His son has been in the care and custody of him and he has been attending school continuously at Udupi.
8 Crl.Mis.No.6/20106. It is further contended that the petitioner voluntarily and out of her own will deserted the respondent and she has been residing in Bangalore with her parent's against the wish of the respondent. Even on this day he is ready and willing to maintain his wife and children. Even the respondent is also ready and willing to give all medical aid to the petitioner for her treatment in good hospital. He has not committed any act of domestic violence as alleged by the petitioner. Upon these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. The petitioner in order to prove her case, she got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined her father as PW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 whereas, the respondent in order to prove his defense he got himself examined as RW.1 and also examined doctor by name Sri. Shripathy M. Bhat as RW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.41
8. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record. The following points that would arise for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs' sought for ?
3. What order?9 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
9. The answers to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following ;
REASONS POINT No.1:-
10. In this case, it is admitted fact that the petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 01.04.1998. It is also admitted fact that from the said wedlock the petitioner has given birth to one male child and one female child. It is also admitted fact that from the date of marriage till 29.03.2010 the petitioner and respondent were residing together in a share household which belongs to the respondent. From these admitted facts, it could be said that there exists domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as defined U/Sec.2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act.
11. Mere proving of domestic relationship between the parties would not suffice to grant reliefs under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. In order to grant reliefs under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act the petitioner is required to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined U/Sec.3 of the Domestic Violence Act.
10 Crl.Mis.No.6/201012. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent has harassed her physically, mentally and also demanded dowry. It is further case of the petitioner that the respondent has suspected her character. She has further alleged that the respondent has illicit relationship with one Stenographer who is working in the respondent's office. It is further alleged that the respondent has failed to take care of the petitioner and her children by providing basic necessities to them. It is further alleged that, in order to obtain false documents the petitioner has been admitted to Manipal hospital, though she has not been suffering from any illness.
13. On the other hand, the respondent has denied the allegations made against him and his family members as false and he has taken up the specific contention that the petitioner has been suffering from delusional disorder, as such her behavior is abnormal. She used to suspect the respondent and she used to quarrel with him and his mother for silly reasons. It is further contended that the petitioner was not doing any household work and she was not helping his mother to prepare food also. Though his mother was aged, she has been doing household work and he has been helping his mother for doing household work. He has further contended that though the petitioner has been admitted in hospital for treatment, her father discharged her from the hospital against the medical advice. It is further contended that the petitioner on her own 11 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 left the matrimonial home with her belongings. As such, she is not entitled to any reliefs.
14. The petitioner in her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition. In support of her contention, she has relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 are the receipts for having paid the school fees of her daughter. Ex.P.21 is the rental agreement. Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23 are the loan sanction letters of Muthoot Finance wherein it could be seen that the petitioner has obtained loan of Rs.36,000/- and Rs.15,000/- by pledging gold jewels as more-fully mentioned in Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23.
15. In support of her case, she has also examined her father as PW.2. PW.2 in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in the petition and supported the case of the petitioner.
16. On the other hand, the respondent in his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has reiterated the averments made in his objection statement and in support of his defense has relied upon documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.41. Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 are the medical prescriptions of the petitioner. Ex.R.3 is the out patient card of the petitioner which is issued by Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.7 are the receipts for having paid the medical bills to the Kasturba 12 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 Hospital, Manipal. Ex.R.8 is the discharge summary dtd:
29.3.2010 of the petitioner, wherein it could be seen that the petitioner has been admitted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal on 14.03.2010 with the history of 'since the marriage she had occasional emotional outbursts for trivial issues started during the honeymoon period for minor issues. Such episodic emotional outbursts continued. Gradually over the period of time she neglected the household works when asked used to be verbally abusive and once physically abusive to the spouse and the son. Such behaviors occurred episodically. Over a period of time continued complaining that in laws and spouse are against her and her daughter, even reported the son to be involved with rest of the in laws. Gradually stopped doing household works and did not take care of children adequately.
Kept on insisting to stay separately from the in-laws insisting that house belongs to mother-in-law. Threatened the son of harming him, suspecting him as he's a part of husband's plot. Suspicious towards husband's fidelity, followed the husband and checking of mobile. Frequent arguments with the in-laws. Since three weeks has worsening of all symptoms, leading to sleep disturbance. Was on treatment from psychiatrist on which there was minimal improvement later there was worsening of the symptoms and needed in patient care at a nursing home, there had increased anger outbursts, suicidal threats and worsening of infidelity delusion. With all the complaints she was brought to the causality by her husband.' 13 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
17. Ex.R.9 and Ex.R.10 are the study certificates of the petitioner's son. Ex.R.11 is the salary certificate of the respondent for the month of August 2010. Ex.R.12 is the letter issued by the Canara Bank Town Branch, Udupi, wherein it could be seen that the respondent herein has availed loan on 27.2.2009 and he has been paying EMI of Rs.10,292/-. Ex.R.13 is the legal notice dtd: 27.10.2010 issued by the respondent through advocate to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to co-operate with the respondent for a divorce by mutual consent immediately and do not force the respondent to get the same by consent before the court of law under several legal valid grounds available to him and further, called upon the petitioner to handover the custody of his minor daughter Vishaka Baliga to him. Ex.R.14 is the certified copy of the RPAD receipt and acknowledgement for having sent the notice to the petitioner and having receipt of notice by the petitioner. Ex.R.15 is the birth certificate of petitioner's daughter. Ex.R.16 is the salary certificate of the respondent for the month of July 2015 wherein it could be seen that the gross salary of the respondent is of Rs.57,057/- and his net salary is of Rs.31,365/-. Ex.R.17 to Ex.R.21 are the medical prescriptions of respondent's mother by name Meera Baliga. Ex.R.22 to Ex.R.24 are the receipts for having paid the amount towards purchase of medicine. Ex.R.25 to Ex.R.33 are the receipts for having paid school fees to respondent's son who is 14 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 with the custody of the respondent. Ex.R.34 is the certified copy of the sale deed Dtd: 29.01.2014, wherein it could be seen that the respondent herein has sold the property to one Jyothi and Ashok Shettigar for Rs.21,50,000/-, which is the shared household where the petitioner and the respondent were residing together. Ex.R.35 and Ex.R.36 are the statements of account of respondent. Ex.R.37 is the certificate issued by the Canara Bank Credit Co-operative Society wherein it could be seen that the respondent herein stood as a co-obligate to his brother Mr. Narasimha Baliga. Ex.R.38 is the overdraft loan account ledger with regard to credit of loan to the account of respondent's brother when he availed loan from Canara Bank Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Ex.R.39 is the loan sanction letter dtd: 19.10.2015, wherein it could be seen that the respondent has availed loan of Rs.3,45,000/- for the purpose of repaying the loan. Ex.R.40 is the certified copy of gift deed dtd: 10.11.2010, wherein it could be seen that the respondent herein has gifted the property which was situated at Income Tax Layout, Mysore, to his brother. Ex.R.41 is the certified copy of the gift deed dtd: 15.10.2011 wherein it could be seen that the respondent herein has gifter apartment situated at Manasa Apartment, Kalpana Theatre, Udupi, to his sister Prabha Kamath.
18. Respondent has also examined one Dr.Sripathy M. Bhat as RW.2. RW.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed 15 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 that he has been working as Senior Doctor in K.M.C Manipal Hospital in Psychiatric Department since 2003. He has further deposed that in the year 2010 respondent's wife has been brought to his hospital. He has given treatment to respondent's wife as per Ex.R.1. He has further deposed that the tablets whichever referred in Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were given to the patient who was suffering from mental disorder. He has further deposed that the medicine which were mentioned at Ex.R.2 has to be given to the patient who was suffering from serious mental disorder. He has further deposed that, if the medicines prescribed under Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were given to normal person, then it would affect adversely to them. He has further deposed that, as per his opinion, the petitioner has been suffering from delusional disorder, which is more-fully mentioned at Ex.R.8, discharge summary. He has further deposed that petitioner has been discharged from the hospital by her father against medical advice. He has further deposed that the normal man cannot identify the illness of petitioner.
19. On going through the entire evidence placed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, it is specific case of the petitioner that though the petitioner is normal, the respondent in order to create false story against her, has admitted the petitioner in Manipal hospital by alleging that she has abnormal character. RW-2 who is none other than friend of the respondent has issued the false certificate at the instance 16 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 of the respondent stating that the petitioner is mentally disorder. On going through the Ex.R-8 it could be seen that the petitioner has been discharged from Kasthurba Manipal Hospital on 29.03.2010 against the medical advice. The Doctor has certified that the petitioner has been suffering from mental disorder and she requires further treatment. It is specific assertion of the petitioner that she has not been suffering from any mental disorder as stated by the Doctor and even as alleged by the respondent.
20. PW-2 who is father of the petitioner has deposed that after getting discharge from the Hospital the petitioner has been treated by the Doctor of JSS College, Mysore and it is also deposed that the said Doctor has expressed his view that she is normal and she has no mental disorder as stated by the Kasturba Doctor. But, in this regard no document has been placed before the Court to show that the petitioner has not been suffering from mental disorder as stated by the Doctor of the Kasthurba Medical College, Mangalore. When the petitioner is with the care and custody of her father then he could have given documents to show that she is normal and the Doctors of the Kasthurba Medical College have given shock treatment though she is not suffering from any disease as alleged by the Doctors and respondent. Further there is no hurdle for the petitioner to disprove the allegation made against her by her husband as well as Doctor. As there is no contrary evidence 17 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 placed to disprove the evidence of RW-2 and discharge summary at Ex.R-8, it could be said that the petitioner has been suffering from mental disorder as morefully stated in the discharge summary at Ex.R-8.
21. In this case admittedly the petitioner is with the care and custody of her father. She has no source of income to maintain her self. The respondent being a husband has not taken any steps to rejoin with her and he has not made any efforts to take back her to his home. If really the respondent has taken care of her and, he could have taken steps to rejoin with her. Admittedly, in this case no such steps have been taken by the respondent. From, this it could be said that the respondent has no interest to lead life with the petitioner. Hence, it can be said that the respondent has subjected the petitioner to emotional abuse.
22. It is no doubt that daughter of the petitioner is with the care and custody of the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that presently the daughter of petitioner has been studying in residential school. It is also admitted fact presently the petitioner has not been paying any fees and any rent to the hostel as it is a free education institution and lodging and boarding also free.
18 Crl.Mis.No.6/201023. On going through the entire case on record it could be seen that the respondent has been paying monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to the petitioner and her daughter as per the order of the court. Till passing Order, the respondent has not paid any maintenance to the petitioner as well as her daughter. From this it could be said that the respondent has subjected the petitioner to economic abuse.
24. So far as physical abuse is concerned, the evidence placed before the Court by the petitioner is insufficient to hold that the petitioner has been subjected to physical abuse by the respondent.
25. It is alleged that the respondent has demanded dowry and it is also alleged that as per the demand of the respondent the parents of the petitioner have given dowry at the time of the marriage. During cross-examination by the defense father of the petitioner has admitted that there was no demand of dowry. He has further deposed that as a custom gold has been given to his daughter. From this fact it could be said that there was no demand of dowry from the respondent and his mother. So far as dowry harassment is also concerned, the evidence placed by the petitioner is insufficient to hold that the respondent has harassed the petitioner by demanding dowry.
19 Crl.Mis.No.6/201026. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is held that the petitioner has been subjected to Domestic Violence of emotional and economic abuse. Hence, Point No.1 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
POINT No.2 :
27. The petitioner has claimed relief under section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act restrain the respondent from committing any sort of Domestic Violence against the petitioner and her children. Admittedly the petitioner and respondent have been residing separately for last 5 years. There is no allegation against the respondent that though they were residing separately the respondent has been committing any acts of Domestic Violence and he has been defaming the character of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the aforesaid relief.
28. The petitioner has claimed return of gold ornaments and other articles worth of Rs.Five lakhs which are stated to be in the custody of the respondent. The petitioner has not produced any documents to show that her gold ornaments and other article are with the custody of the respondent. Apart from that nothing has been elicited from the respondent that her gold ornaments and other articles worth of Rs.Five lakhs are with the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the aforesaid relief also.
20 Crl.Mis.No.6/201029. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent. The petitioner has not produced any documents to show that she suffered loss due to the acts of the respondent and she incurred expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation as claimed by her.
30. The petitioner has claimed alternative accommodation. In this case admittedly the respondent has been paying maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month to the petitioner. On going through the salary slips of the respondent it could be seen that the respondent is getting salary of Rs.57,000/- per month. Apart from that on going through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it could be seen that after filing of this case the respondent has transferred apartment and site in the name of his sister and brother respectively. Further, it could be seen that during the pendency of this petition itself the respondent has sold the house wherein he was residing along with the petitioner. It is no doubt that during cross-examination he has stated that his sister was paying installment for the apartment as such he has transferred the same in her name. But, in this regard no document has been placed by the respondent. Further, the respondent has stated that in family partition as per the mutual understanding the property which was situated in Mysore has been given to his brother. In this regard also the 21 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010 respondent has not produced any documents. From these facts it could be gathered that the respondent has intentionally transferred his properties to his brother and sister.
31. Having been considering the financial status of the respondent and also considering the fact that his son is under his care, this Court is of the view it is just and proper to award maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner from 01.03.2016 till her life time. Further, it is just and proper to award maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of petitioner's daughter from 01.03.2016 till her marriage. As the respondent has been paying Interim Maintenance of Rs.9,000/- per month towards maintenance of petitioner and her daughter from the date of petition till this date, there is no need to enhance the maintenance from the date of petition till disposal of the present case. Inview of the aforesaid discussion it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the maintenance as observed supra. Hence, Point No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
POINT No.3 :
32. In view of the findings on Point No.1 and 2, this Court proceeds to pass the following:22 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is allowed in part.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.Nine Thousand only) per month to the petitioner from the date of petition till 29.02.2016.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- (Rs.Seven Thousand only) per month to the petitioner from 01.03.2016 till her life time.
The respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand only) per month to the petitioner towards maintenance of her daughter by name Vishaka Baliga from 01.03.2016 till her marriage.
The respondent is also directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rs.Four Thousand) to the petitioner towards cost of litigation. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of February, 2016) (Smt. LAVANYA.H.N.) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.23 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW-1 : Smt. Sujay Baliga.
PW-2 : Sri. Damodhar Shenoy.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 to 20 : School receipts.
Ex.P.21 : Rental agreement.
Ex.P.22 & 23 : Muthoot Finance loan sanction letters.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
RW.1 : Sri.Shashank Baliga.
RW.2 : Dr. Shripathy M. Bhat.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 & 2 : Prescriptions.
Ex.R.3 : Outpatient Card.
Ex.R.4 to 7 : Receipts.
Ex.R.8 : Discharge summary.
Ex.R.9 &10 : School certificates.
Ex.R.11 : Salary slip.
Ex.R.12 : Loan certificate.
Ex.R.13 : Legal notice.
Ex.R.14 : Acknowledgement, receipt of post.
Ex.R.15 : Birth certificate of daughter.
Ex.R.16 : Salary slip.
Ex.R.17 to 20 : Medical prescriptions.
Ex.R.21 to 24 : Bills.
Ex.R.25 to 33 : School bills.
Ex.R.34 : Certified copy of Sale deed.
Ex.R.35 : Statement of passbook.
24 Crl.Mis.No.6/2010
Ex.R.36 : Statement of Canara Bank Housing
loan.
Ex.R.37 : Loan application.
Ex.R.38 : Overdraft loan account ledger.
Ex.R.39 : Sanction letter.
Ex.R.40 : Gift deed.
Ex.R.41 : Gift deed.
P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.