Bangalore District Court
Uma Devi 9591245010 vs Gunandha Selvam on 18 February, 2025
KABC080011742019
Presented on : 11-02-2019
Registered on : 11-02-2019
Decided on : 18-02-2025
Duration : 6 years, 0 months, 7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.25/2019
Petitioner : Smt.Uma Devi
W/o S. Gunandha Selvam,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.29, Venkateshwara Nilaya,
1st Main, 2nd cross,
Cholurpalya,
Near mini Bride, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru - 560 023.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.V.K.N., Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent : Sri.S.G. Selvam
S/o. Shivalingham
Aged about 45 years,
2
Crl.Misc.25/2019
R/at No.71, 7th 'B' Main Road,
7th Cross, RPC Layout,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.M.B.R., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under;
3. The Petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 23.01.2005 at GBB kalyana Mahal, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and from the wedlock they have one daughter by name Kumari Yuktha S.G. Further she submitted that, marriage ceremony was performed in grand manner and all expenses borne by her parents. Respondent and his family members harassed and demanded dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from the first month of marriage. Respondent and his family members never liked the petitioner as she was not able to meet their dowry demand and she gave birth to a baby girl. Respondent 3 Crl.Misc.25/2019 and his family members physically and mentally harassed petitioner and on 08.05.2007 respondent threw the petitioner from the matrimonial house. In order to protect himself from the dowry harassment complaint the respondent has filed a divorce petition against her and the respondent has withdrawn the petition without letting the petitioner contest the matter. Further she submitted that, petitioner has filed petition U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC before Family Court which was disposed the respondent made a false promise to pay one time alimony and he has not paid any money till date. Further she submitted that, respondent is remarried now and he has 2 children from the said marriage. Further she submitted that, respondent is qualified Civil Engineer owning a business in the name of Eco Build Corp and earning not less than Rs.1,50,000/- per month and he also owns several properties in the Bangalore and receives rent of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioner and her minor daughter is residing with her parents and she has been suffering from depression and she is not having any source of income to maintain herself and her daughter. From the date of marriage she has been subjected to domestic violence from the hands of the respondent. On all these grounds she prays to allow her petition.
4Crl.Misc.25/2019
4. After service of notice, respondent appeared before this court through his counsel and filed statement of objection and in the statement of objection respondent has admitted his marriage relationship with the petitioner and admitted that they have a daughter from the wedlock. Further he denied all the other allegations against him and he stated that he never caused domestic violence against the petitioner and he never demanded dowry from the petitioner. On all these grounds he prays to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 4. The respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.R.1 to 9.
6. Heard on petitioner's side and respondent has filed written arguments.
7. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent?
5Crl.Misc.25/2019
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
8. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
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
9. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship between herself and respondent, she was residing with the respondent in a shared household, the domestic violence was caused by the respondent upon her. The respondent has neglected the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent is capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
10. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that the petitioner and the respondent are in domestic relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent resided together till the date of 6 Crl.Misc.25/2019 separation. Hence they have resided together in a shared household. It is also not disputed they have one daughter by name Yuktha. Hence, petitioner and the child were in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household. It is an admitted fact that the daughter of the petitioner and respondent has presently attained majority. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that, petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.142/2019 for maintenance against the respondent under sec.125 of Cr.PC before Hon'ble Family Court and the same is pending for consideration. It is an admitted fact that, respondent has filed MC No.2484/2021 against the petitioner for divorce before the Hon'ble Family Court.
11. In order to prove that, the respondent has committed domestic violence, the petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the contents of her petition. She has produced 4 documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to 4. In support of her petition she has got marked the certified copy of order sheet in MC No.2580/2007 filed by respondent against her U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of 7 Crl.Misc.25/2019 conjugal rights as Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.Misc No.559/2010 filed by petitioner and her child for maintenance U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC, Ex.P.3 and 4 are IT returns of the respondent.
12. The petitioner has alleged that, the respondent has demanded dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from the 1 st month of marriage and when she was unable to meet his demand and when she gave birth to a baby girl the respondent along with his family members physically and mentally harassed the petitioner and systematically threw her out of the matrimonial house on 08.05.2007. The respondent in order to protect himself from dowry harassment complaint he has filed a petition U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Hon'ble Family Court and later withdrew the said petition without letting the petitioner contest the matter. She has further alleged that, she has filed a petition before the Hon'ble Family Court under Sec.125 of Cr.PC for maintenance and the said petition was disposed since respondent made a false promise to pay one time alimony which he has not paid till date. She has further alleged that, respondent is now remarried and has 2 children from the 2nd marriage. In this regard respondent has filed his statement of objection and he has taken a preliminary objection 8 Crl.Misc.25/2019 stating that the petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC before Hon'ble 5th Addl. Prl. Family Judge, Bangalore on 25.10.2010 which was settled between the parties and petitioner even withdrew the said case on 27.09.2012. Hence, the present petition filed by the petitioner after 11 years of separation is not maintainable. He further denied demanding for dowry and he has stated that, petitioner has refused to join him in matrimonial life after the birth of his child and when he filed for restitution of conjugal rights petitioner demanded Rs.10 lakhs to give divorce and to give the child. He has further alleged that, petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 after dismissal of MC No.2580/2007 filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. He has stated that, on 02.12.2011 petitioner through her counsel informed the Court that there is a settlement on 06.01.2012 the matter was referred to mediation center and petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as permanent alimony and she demanded Rs.10 lakhs to be paid in cash. Accordingly the respondent has paid Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner by way of cash. In spite of payment petitioner continued to contest the maintenance case. When respondent informed the petitioner that he had no option but to file a criminal case against her she has withdrawn 9 Crl.Misc.25/2019 Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 on 27.09.2012. He has submitted that, the petitioner has suppressed the said facts and she has filed the present petition. He has further submitted that, the petitioner played fraud on him and informed him that she has remarried after obtaining exparte divorce from the respondent and told the respondent that he is free to go ahead with his life and even showed a copy of divorce decree to him. Accordingly, he got remarried and he has 2 children who are aged 6 years and 3 years from the 2 nd marriage. He has further submitted that, the petitioner is working lady and she is receiving salary of Rs.1.5 lakh per month.
13. In this regard respondent counsel has cross examined the petitioner and it is elicited in her cross examination that, she has had no contact with the respondent from 2007 to 2022. She has admitted that, she has not produced any document to prove that her father has incurred marriage expenses. She has admitted that, she has not filed any dowry complaint against the respondent till date. She has admitted that, respondent came from a financially settled family and respondent's father had a own house before her marriage and he was getting rental income from the said house. She has denied the suggestion that, since respondent's 10 Crl.Misc.25/2019 family was financially settled it was not necessary for them to demand dowry from the petitioner. In this case it is an admitted fact that, petitioner has not filed any dowry complaint against the respondent till date. Further petitioner has also not averred the date, time or the circumstances under which dowry of Rs.5 lakhs was demanded from her. She has also not stated as to who demanded dowry from her. Admittedly, petitioner and respondent have been separated from past 18 years and there was no impediment for the petitioner to file dowry complaint against him in all these years especially since she had filed a petition for maintenance before the Hon'ble Family Court earlier. Further she has also not provided any proof apart from her oral testimony regarding allegation of dowry. Moreover, respondent has submitted Ex.R.8 which is the copy of the sale deed dated 04.04.2005 standing in the name of the petitioner and the respondent. From the sale deed it is evident that Ex.R.8 property was purchased by the petitioner and respondent jointly on 04.04.2005 i.e., 3 months after marriage. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent has demanded dowry to purchase the said site. Further she has not contended that, she has contributed any amount for the purchase of the site. The very fact that, respondent and petitioner have purchased 11 Crl.Misc.25/2019 a site jointly 3 months after marriage also shows that there was no demand for dowry. Further petitioner in her cross examination has admitted that, she did not face any harassment from the parents of the respondent during her matrimonial life. This admission of the petitioner also buttresses the contention of the respondent that, he has not demanded for dowry. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is not proved.
14. Petitioner has further alleged that, respondent has harassed her mentally and physically and thrown her out of the matrimonial house on 08.05.2007 because she gave birth to a girl child. Respondent has denied this allegations and he contended that, petitioner herself left the matrimonial home after the birth of the child. In this regard in the cross examination of the petitioner dated 07.10.2022 it is elicited that, she did not have a strained relationship with her in laws. She has admitted that, in the Family Court she has deposed that, she wanted to reside separately from her in in laws. She has further admitted that, respondent had even looked for a separate house. She has admitted that, she is aware that respondent has a physically challenged sister. She has denied the suggestion that, she did not want to live with the parents and sister of the respondent hence she 12 Crl.Misc.25/2019 demanded for a separate house. She has further admitted that, she used to work from Monday to Saturday and she used to go to her parents house on Sundays. She has admitted that, her parents house is one k.m. away from the respondent's house. She has stated that, she used to go her parents house on Sundays on 3 to 4 hours. She has further admitted that, respondent was engaged in construction work and he did not have leave on Sundays. She has denied the suggestion that, she did not take up the responsibility of the house since the respondent used to be busy with his work. She has admitted that, respondent has performed her baby shower ceremony in a grand manner and he has dropped her to her parents house after the ceremony. She has further admitted that, when the baby was 3 months old respondent and his family have come to her house and requested her to come back home by forgetting all the misunderstandings. She has admitted that, she went back to the matrimonial home 11 months after her delivery. She has denied the suggestion that, she did not have any trouble to stay in the matrimonial house except for her own wish to stay in a separate house. She has admitted that, she has not filed any complaint when she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. She has admitted that, she did not 13 Crl.Misc.25/2019 have any impediment to file a complaint at that time. She has admitted that, she has not given any complaint to the police against the respondent and his parents till date. Further in cross examination dated 19.07.2023 petitioner has denied that she demanded for a separate house before the Family Court and stated that, the respondent himself offered to set up a separate house and she has agreed. She has admitted that, respondent and herself have finalized a separate house. However, she has denied the suggestion that she wished that the respondent would set up a separate house. Further she has admitted that, respondent has availed LIC policy in her name and in her daughter's name. She has also admitted that, respondent and herself have jointly purchased a site worth more than Rs.10 lakhs in Nelamangala. She has further admitted that, she has filed this petition 12 years after separating from the respondent. She has denied the suggestion that, respondent has not subjected her to any domestic violence hence she did not file any complaint against him earlier. She has stated that, elders of her family were discussing about the marital issues with elders of respondent's family hence she has not filed any complaint against the respondent. She has admitted that, she has not filed any petition for resuming marital 14 Crl.Misc.25/2019 life with the respondent. She has denied the suggestion that, if she was interested to resolve the marital issues with the respondent she would have attempted to reunite with the respondent. She has admitted that, she has agreed to lead marital life with the respondent if he sets up a separate house.
15. From the perusal of the cross examination of the petitioner it is clear that, the petitioner has given varying versions about wanting a separate house. At first petitioner has admitted that, she did not face any harassment from the parents of the respondent and she wanted to live in a separate house. In a later date in the cross examination she has stated that, the respondent proposed that they should live in a separate house and she agreed. Therefore, it is seen that, petitioner has changed her version in the course of the cross examination and made an improvement to suit her case. However, from the cross examination it is clear that petitioner wanted the respondent set up a separate house after the birth of the baby. Further it is also clear that, the petitioner and respondent had even finalized a separate house. Further it is also clear from her own admission in cross examination dated 07.10.2022 that, she did not face any harassment from the parents of the 15 Crl.Misc.25/2019 respondent. From the cross examination it is clear that, respondent conducted the baby shower ceremony in a grand manner and he even visited the petitioner's house when the baby was 3 months old and requested her to come back to the matrimonial home. It is also proved that, the respondent has purchased LIC policy in petitioner's and his daughter's name. Further he has also purchased a site in Nelamangala in the year 2005 itself along with the petitioner. It is not the contention of the petitioner that, she has contributed anything towards the LIC policy or the site. Under such circumstances it is probabalized that the respondent did not throw out of the petitioner from the matrimonial home because she failed to bring dowry and she gave birth to a girl child. It is also probabalized that the petitioner wanted the respondent to set up a separate house after the birth of the child. Further it is also probabalized that, there was no harassment to the petitioner in the matrimonial home yet she wanted the respondent to set up a separate house. It is an admitted fact that, the respondent has aged parents and a physically disabled sister and he is the only care taker for all of them. It is proved from the evidence that, even under such circumstances the respondent had finalized a separate house. But the petitioner has refused to 16 Crl.Misc.25/2019 resume marital life with him. From the conduct of the petitioner it is clear that, she is not interested in resuming marital life with the respondent. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner has not filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. This conduct of the petitioner proves that, she is not interested in resuming the marital life. Therefore, it is not proved by the petitioner that, she was systematically thrown out of the matrimonial home on 08.05.2007 after the respondent and his family members physically and mentally harassed her.
16. Here it is pertinent to note that, it is an admitted fact that, respondent had filed MC No.2580/2007 before the the Hon'ble Family Court U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The order sheet of the said case is marked as Ex.P.1. It is also an admitted fact that, petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 before the Hon'ble Family Court U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC seeking maintenance for herself and her child. It is contention of the petitioner that, the respondent assured to pay her permanent alimony and hence the Crl.Misc. Petition filed by her was disposed. The order sheet of the said Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 is produced by the petitioner and marked as Ex.P.2. The respondent has contended that, 17 Crl.Misc.25/2019 the matter between himself and petitioner was referred to mediation center and he had agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhs before the mediation center as permanent alimony. The said amount was paid by way of cash to the petitioner in 1st week of June 2012 and 2nd week of September 2012. In spite of receipt of alimony petitioner did not withdraw the petition. Later when respondent told her that he would file a cheating case against her she has withdrawn the petition on 27.09.2012. Perusal of Ex.P.2 reveals that, the petitioner has indeed withdrawn the Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 on 27.09.2012. But reason for withdrawing the petition is not mentioned in the memo for withdrawal filed by the petitioner. However, even the respondent has failed to prove his contention that he has paid Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash to the petitioner as permanent alimony. Petitioner has taken the contention that, the respondent had assured that he would pay her permanent alimony hence the Crl.Mis.No.559/2010 was disposed. But the petitioner is unable to prove the said contention. She has not produced any evidence to show that the respondent had assured to pay her permanent alimony. Here it is pertinent to note that, respondent has withdrawn MC No.2580/2007 filed by him U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 04.06.2010. The memo for withdrawal filed by the respondent in MC No.2580/2007 18 Crl.Misc.25/2019 does not reveal any reason for the withdrawal of the petition. If at all there was any settlement between the parties surely they would have mentioned about the same in their respective memos for withdrawal. The fact that, no reason was mentioned in the memo of withdrawal filed by the both the parties in their respective memos leads to an inference that there was no settlement between them and they have withdrawn the petitions filed by them voluntarily. Further, the fact is that Crl.Misc.No.559/2010 filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter has been withdrawn by the petitioner on 27.09.2012. Hence, this Court has to draw an irresistible inference that, the petitioner was not in need of maintenance hence she has withdrawn the petition in 2012. Thereafter, petitioner has not filed any case against the respondent either for divorce or for restitution of conjugal rights. She filed the present petition and a petition before the Hon'ble Family Court for maintenance in 2019. Therefore, it is proved from evidence on record that, the petitioner was not interested in leading matrimonial life with the respondent and she was not in need of any financial assistance from the respondent till 2019. Petitioner has not explained the reason for withdrawing the earlier petition and filing the present petition either in her petition or in her 19 Crl.Misc.25/2019 evidence. Further the allegations of the petitioner regarding domestic violence caused by the respondent is also not proved.
17. However, the fact is that the respondent himself admitted that he has remarried and he has 2 children from his 2nd marriage. The respondent has taken the contention that, the petitioner informed him that she has obtained exparte divorce from him and she has remarried. He has contended that, she showed him copy of the divorce decree and told him that he is free to go ahead with his life and she will go ahead with her life. Hence, he got married and he has 2 children from the 2 nd marriage. Interestingly, respondent in his examination in chief has not stated anything about the 2 nd marriage. In his cross examination he has stated that, he is in a 'live in relationship' and he has 2 children from the said relationship. He has stated that, he came into contact with the lady with whom he has live in relationship in 2012. He has stated that, his 1st child from the live in relationship is aged 10 years. These admissions of the respondent in his statement of objection and in his cross examination proves that, the respondent has entered into 2nd marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner and he has deposed he is in a 'live in 20 Crl.Misc.25/2019 relationship' to avoid legal consequences. Therefore, the question before the Court is if the 2 nd marriage entered by the respondent although is during the subsistence of the 1st marriage would be domestic violence as against the petitioner since petitioner herself voluntarily left the matrimonial home. As per Sec.2(f) of PWDV Act domestic relationship means "a relationship between two persons who live or lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family". Sec.3 of PWDV Act presupposes domestic relationship for domestic violence to take place. In this case admittedly, parties have been separate since 2007. It is proved by the respondent that, the petitioner has voluntarily left his company. The conduct of the petitioner as discussed above proves that, she was not interested in resuming marital life with the respondent. Petitioner in her petition has stated that, respondent has withdrawn M.C No.258/2007 filed by him U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act without giving her an opportunity to contest the matter. If at all the petitioner wanted to contest the matter with the respondent she could have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights or for divorce. This conduct of the petitioner leads to an 21 Crl.Misc.25/2019 inference that she was not interested in leading a marital life with the respondent. Further the petitioner in her petition and in her evidence affidavit has not averred that, the respondent entering into 2nd marriage has caused her any harassment. She has only stated that, respondent is married and he has 2 children. She has not stated how that has effected her. Hence, the respondent entering 2nd marriage in 2012 during the subsistence of 1st marriage cannot be termed as domestic violence against the petitioner since the petitioner was not in a domestic relationship with the respondent at that time. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent live very close by to each other hence, it is not possible that petitioner did no know about the 2nd marriage till 2019. It is pertinent to note that, the petitioner conspicuously does not state when she came to know about respondent's 2nd marriage. Petitioner has filed this petition 6 to 7 years after the respondent entered into 2nd marriage. Petitioner has not filed any complaint U/Sec.494 of IPC against the respondent till date. In ultimate analysis of the entire evidence it is seen that petitioner has filed this petition 12 years after separation and she has not explained either in her petition or in her evidence affidavit the reason for such a massive delay. In the cross examination she has stated that, elders of 22 Crl.Misc.25/2019 her family were trying to resolve the marital issues hence, she did not file any petition but she has not produced any evidence to this effect. Hence, this explanation given by the petitioner is not acceptable. Therefore, even though there is no limitation to file a petition under PWDV Act the delay of 12 years in filing the present petition renders the petition is hit by latches.
18. Although, it is proved petitioner has left the matrimonial house voluntarily it is a fact that there is a child from the wed lock and the respondent being the father has not maintained the child. The respondent in his cross examination has admitted the same. He has admitted that, his father in law has maintained his daughter. He has admitted that, apart from LIC policy in the name of the petitioner and the child he has not made any investment in their name. He has submitted that, he has paid premium every year for the said LIC policy. He has further admitted that, he has filed a petition under G & WC Act for the custody of the child in 2023. From these admissions it is proved that, the respondent has not bothered to pay for the maintenance of the child or even attempted to visit the child till 2023. He has explained the delay in filing G & WC petition by stating that he tried to meet the child but the petitioner 23 Crl.Misc.25/2019 has not cooperated and even the Court has directed the petitioner to cooperate for visitation to the petitioner but she has not cooperated hence, he filed petition for custody in 2023. Respondent has submitted the LIC policy made by him in the name of the petitioner and the child as Ex.R.5. The LIC policy in the name of the child is for Rs.1 lakh and premium payable is Rs.2,709/- per annum. The LIC policy in the name of the petitioner and respondent is marked as Ex.R.7 is for Rs.1 lakh. Although respondent has produced the LIC policy he has not produced documents to show that he is paying the premium regularly. The respondent has submitted Ex.R.8 which is the sale deed pertaining to a site measuring 30*40 sq.ft at Yashwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North taluk standing in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent. It is an admitted fact that, the said site is currently intact. Although, respondent has invested in LIC policy and purchased a site in the name of the petitioner the fact is that he has not maintained his daughter Yuktha. The entire burden of maintaining the child has been on the petitioner physically, financially and emotionally. Just because petitioner left the matrimonial home voluntarily the respondent cannot waive off his responsibility from maintaining his child. Hence, this conduct of the 24 Crl.Misc.25/2019 respondent amounts to economic abuse as contemplated U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act. Hence, point No.1 answered Partly in the affirmative.
19. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself and the child. Admittedly, the child has currently attained majority. However, when the petition was filed the child was minor. The respondent has filed his assets and liability affidavit. He has stated that, he has studied B.E. M.Tech and he is Civil Engineer by profession and he has a firm/company by name Eco Build Corp., Pvt. Ltd., and he is getting income of Rs.25,000/- per month. He has submitted that, he is spending Rs.41,163/- per month towards his monthly expenditure. He has stated that, he has hand loan of Rs.23 lakhs. He has stated that, he is residing with his mother. He has submitted his ICICI bank account statement from 01.04.2022 to 27.04.2024. He has submitted his SBI bank account statement from 01.04.2021 to 19.06.2024. He has submitted his IT returns for the assessment year 2022-23 and 2023-24 which is marked as Ex.P.3 and 4. He has submitted medical documents of his mother to prove the medical expenses incurred by him. He has submitted the allotment letter issued by BDA with respect to a site 25 Crl.Misc.25/2019 measuring 9*12 meters at Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout. He has submitted his vehicle insurance document and health insurance document along with his Assets and liabilities affidavit.
20. The petitioner has filed her Assets and liabilities affidavit and stated that, she is a B.Com graduate and she is working as a Specialist in Customer service and she is getting income of Rs.30,550/- per month. She has stated that, she is incurring monthly expenditure of Rs.55,000/-. She has submitted that, she has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs towards child's education. She has stated that, the college fees of the child is Rs.1,94,899/- and she is incurring Rs.12,000/- towards pocket money for the child and Rs.1,000/- towards other activity of the child. She has stated that, she is paying rent of Rs.20,000/- and she requires Rs.80,000/- every month for her expenses. She has stated that, she has availed gold loan from SBI bank for Rs.5 lakhs and she has not repaid the same. She has submitted her pay slip for March 2024, her SBI bank statement from 01.07.2021 to 29.02.2024. She has submitted her loan account statement.
26Crl.Misc.25/2019
21. The IT returns filed by the respondent as per Ex.P.3 and 4 reveals that, he has annual income approximately of Rs.9 lakhs in assessment year 2023-24 and Rs.10 lakhs for the assessment year 2022-23. In the cross examination respondent has admitted that, he has an other proprietorship by name Eco Build Pvt. Ltd., and he has not disclosed about the same in his Assets and liabilities affidavit since there are no transactions in the said proprietorship. He has denied the suggestion that, he has purposely not disclosed Eco Build Corp. Proprietorship in order to conceal his true income. He has denied the suggestion that, he is transferring from his 1st firm to his 2nd firm. He has admitted that, he has not explained the source for obtaining hand loan of Rs.23 lakhs. He has admitted that, his family has 2 properties at RPC Layout, Vijaya Nagar and a site at Banashankari, Hennuru. He has admitted that, the rent derived from the Vijaya Nagar property is sufficient to maintain his mother. Respondent in his cross examination dated 03.08.2024 has stated that, " ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೈಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ನ ಖಾತೆ ಐಸಿಐಸಿಐ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್, ಯುಾನಿಯನ್ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೈಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ನ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಲೆಕ್ಕಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಆದಾಯ ವ್ಯಯ ಪತ್ರದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಇಕೋ ಬಿಲ್ಡ ಕಾರ್ಫ್ ಪ್ರೈ. ಲಿ. ಕಂಪನಿಯಿಂದ ಬಂದ ಆದಾಯವನ್ನು ಇಕೋ ಬಿಲ್ಡ್ ಕಾರ್ಫ್ ಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೈಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರೊಪ್ರೈಟರ್ ಶಿಪ್ ನ ಲೆಕ್ಕ 27 Crl.Misc.25/2019 ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸದೇ ನನ್ನ ನಿಜವಾದ ಆದಾಯವನ್ನು ಮರೆಮಾಚುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ". From the cross examination of the respondent it is clear that, he has not disclosed his true income and he also not submitted his ICICI bank and Union Bank statements. Further he has exaggerated about his liabilities by stating that he has availed hand loan of Rs.25 lakhs without submitting any proof for the same. He has admitted that, his mother can maintain herself from the rental income. However, since the respondent has married for the 2nd time, his 2nd wife, 2 children from 2nd marriage and his physically disabled sister are dependent on him. He has stated that, he is incurring expenses of Rs.41,163/- per month. But he has not given break up for the same. The petitioner has not filed her IT returns. Further petitioner in her cross examination has admitted that, she is residing in her father's house but in her Assets and liabilities affidavit she has stated that, she is residing in rented house and paying rent of Rs.25,000/- per month. She has not submitted any rent agreement to support her claim. She has further given a break up of the expenses incurred by her every month and stated that, she has expenditure of Rs.80,000/- every month. However, she has not submitted any document with respect to the said 28 Crl.Misc.25/2019 expenditure. She has also not submitted fee receipt or fee structure of her daughter's school and college. Hence, it appears that the petitioner has inflated her expenses. Be that as it may, the fact is that the petitioner has borne the entire education, day to day and other expenses of the child since the birth of the child.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajanesh V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 it is held that, when both spouses are earning sufficiently they have to contribute equally towards the expenses of the child. The respondent is duty bound to maintain the child. Even though, the petitioner is earning it is less than the respondent. Since, petitioner is not able to prove domestic violence as against herself and since she is working she is not entitled to monthly maintenance.
23. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case the Court has to consider the status of the parties, earning capacity of the parties, needs and expenses of the petitioner, number of dependents on the respondent, expenses of the respondent, educational qualification of the parties, whether the petitioner has independent source and whether the same is sufficient to enable her to maintain 29 Crl.Misc.25/2019 herself, standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether she was working before marriage, cost of litigation for a non working wife etc., while ordering for maintenance. The maintenance awarded should not be in form of a penalty to the respondent. This petition was filed when the child was 13 years old and she has attained majority during the pendency of the petition in 2024. However, U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act she is entitled for maintenance from the date of petition till she attained majority. Considering all the above factors petitioner's child by name Kum.Yuktha S.G. is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month for day today expenses like food, clothing, shelter and education from the date of petition till she attained majority on 22.02.2024.
24. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent to pay compensation and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture suffered at the hands of the respondent. Sec.22 of PWDV Act states, Magistrate may grant compensation in addition to the other reliefs that may be granted under this Act and direct the respondent to pay compensation and damages for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic 30 Crl.Misc.25/2019 violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in point No.1 it is proved that the respondent has subjected the petitioner's child to domestic violence and she has incurred litigation expenses as well. The respondent has not maintained the child after the separation. The child is growing up without the presence of her father i.e., the respondent. The respondent has not made any attempt to even visit the child till now. Hence, U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, petitioner's child is entitled for compensation. Hence, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner's child by name Kum.Yuktha S.G. towards compensation.
25. Petitioner has also sought for residence order u/Sec.19 of PWDV Act. Petitioner has sought for same level of alternate accommodation or sought for direction to the respondent to pay rent for alternative accommodation. In point No.1 it is proved that, petitioner has not been subjected to domestic violence by respondent. In the cross examination of the petitioner it is elicited from her that she is residing in her parents house along with her daughter. Petitioner has stated in her Assets and liabilities affidavit that she is residing in a rented house but she has not produced any rental agreement. This proves that, petitioner along with her 31 Crl.Misc.25/2019 daughter is residing in her father's house and she is not in need of residence order. Hence, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
26. POINT No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as against respondent is allowed in part.
Respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month to the petitioner's child by name Kum.Yuktha S.G. towards maintenance from the date of petition till she attained majority on 22.02.2024.
Further, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner's child by 32 Crl.Misc.25/2019 name Kum.Yuktha S.G. towards compensation within 3 months from the date of this order.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of February 2025).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 : Uma Devi LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of order sheet in M.C. No.2580/2007 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of order sheet in Crl.Misc.559/2010 Ex.P.3-4 : ITR LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
R.W.1 : S. Gunandha Selvam
33
Crl.Misc.25/2019
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of petition in MC No.2580/2007 Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of petition in Crl.Misc.142/2019 Ex.R.3 & 4 : Certified copy of order sheet and petition in MC No.2484/2021 Ex.R.5 to 7 : 3 LIC bonds Ex.R.8 : Sale deed dated 04.04.2005 Ex.R.9 : Certified copy of petition in MC No.2484/2021 (Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.