Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Indu Lata vs Harish Kumar on 4 January, 2014

                                        1


 IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (MAHILA 
                   COURT): SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

INDU LATA VS HARISH KUMAR
CC No.33/08
Smt. Indu Lata 
W/o Sh. Harish Kumar 
R/o B­1004, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi­110062.                                    ..... Complainant/Applicant

      Versus

1.    Harish Kumar
      S/o Sh. Teeka Ram

2.    Teeka Ram
      Father of Harish Kumar

3.    Mukesh Kumar
      Brother­in­law of Harish Kumar
      All R/o MCF­280, Prem Nagar,
      Yadav Colony, Mohna Road,
      Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad (Haryana)

4.    Amar Singh
      Uncle of Harish Kumar

5.    Budh Singh
      Brother­in­law of Harish Kumar
      Both R/o Prem Nagar, Yadav Colony,
      Mohna Road, Ballabgarh,
      Distt Faridabad (Haryana)                           ......... Respondents


                            Date on which case reserved for judgment : 04.01.2014
                                                    Date of judgment : 04.01.2014



CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar       Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar  Page No. 1 of 32
                                                  2

JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off an application u/s 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called act) filed by Smt. Indu Lata (hereinafter called the applicant/complainant) against Sh. Harish Kumar (hereinafter called the respondent no.1), Teeka Ram (hereinafter called the respondent no.2), Mukesh Kumar ((hereinafter called the respondent no.3), Amar Singh ((hereinafter called the respondent no.4) and Budh Singh ((hereinafter called the respondent no.5).

2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the applicant Indu Lata in her petition/application are : The marriage of applicant/complainant was solemnized with respondent no. 1 on 19.04.2007 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Sangam Vihar wherein sufficient dowry articles as per the wishes of respondent no.1, 2 and 3 given, a list of which has been filed on record, attached with the petition. It is alleged by the applicant that all the respondents started harassing and torturing her just after two months of her marriage for not bringing a car and for more cash in dowry and she was beaten up by the respondents when she refused to comply with their demands. Several instances in this respect have been quoted by the applicant in her petition and she was finally sent back to her parental home alongwith her father on 09.02.2008. Numerous efforts were made on her behalf by her parents and relations to settle the complainant at her matrimonial home but the persistent demands raised by the respondents specifically respondent no. 1 and 2, compelled Applicant to file this petition wherein she has sought a Residence Order u/s 19 of Act, Maintenance Order u/s 20 of Act, Compensation u/s 22 of Act.

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 2 of 32 3

3. Notice of the petition/application was issued to the respondents who appeared in pursuance to the service of the notice and filed the reply to the application wherein they denied the allegations/claims made by the applicant during her residence with them subsequent to her marriage and submitted that the respondent no. 1 developed a skin disease after his marriage because of which the complainant started avoiding him from the obligations of matrimonial life and thus filed this false complaint against the entire family members. It is further submitted as part of that reply that panchayat was convened by the respondent no. 1 with his family members on 28.09.2008 to sort out disputes amicably but to no avail. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 to 3 agreed to return all the stridhan articles of the applicant lying with them as per the admitted list filed by them in CAW Cell on 05.08.2008 but neither the complainant nor Investigation Officer or the Enquiry Officer asked them to do so.

4. Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the applicant wherein she affirmed and reiterated the averments made by her in the petition and denied the statement made by the respondents in their reply.

5. Respondent no. 1 was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/­ per month since the date of order till final disposal of the complaint on merits vide order dated 01.05.2009 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. The matter was then listed for evidence.

6. Smt. Indu Lata has examined herself as CW­1 and her father Sh. Gulab Singh as CW­2 as part of Applicant/Complainant Evidence.

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 3 of 32 4

7. CW­1 Smt. Indu Lata tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex. CW1/A bearing her signature at point A and B. She affirmed in her evidentiary affidavit about the solemnization of her marriage with respondent no. 1 on 19.04.2007 as per the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. It is further affirmed that dowry articles as per the instructions of the respondents were delivered at their house on 15.04.2007 on the eve of Shagun Ceremony. She further affirmed that the jewellery articles and CBZ Motorcycle were also given and handed over to the respondents on the date of marriage. A list of dowry articles handed over at the time of Shagun Ceremony and at the time of marriage has been attached by the applicant alongwith petition. She further affirmed that she was kept properly for two months after marriage but thereafter the respondents started torturing her for not bringing the car and for bringing some more cash and dowry. She further affirmed that she was beaten by her sister in law namely Nirmala and her mother in law namely Rajwati on 20.10.2007 whereas brother in law namely Mukesh instigated them to give physical beatings to her and she was rescued by other brother in law namely Sonu. Respondents namely Budh Singh and Amar Singh suggested the other respondents to send her back to her parental home in case her parents failed to comply with their demands of cash and car. Respondent no. 1 and 2 also were provoked in the evening of 20.10.2007 by her mother in law and sister in law. She further affirmed that she was forced to consume some Ayurvedic medicine by her mother in law so that she is unable to conceive. She further affirmed that her father and elder sister were misbehaved with when they visited her matrimonial home with lots of gifts on the eve of Karva Chauth and she was asked not to contact her parents and her mobile phone were also snatched from her. She was again directed on the occasion of Diwali on 04.11.2007 to talk to her father only through their phone and in their presence. She was sent alongwith her father and neighbour Firoz Ahmed from her matrimonial home on 09.02.2008 to her parental CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 4 of 32 5 home only with wearing suits or dresses refusing to return back the dowry and istridhan articles. She further affirmed that she gave a phone call to her husband on the occasion of Holi in 2008 and then her father visited her parental home on 27.04.2008 along with Vijender Singh who was the mediator of the marriage and again on 16.06.2008 both her parents jointly visited the matrimonial home but was clearly told by the respondents "yadi gaadi aur do lakh rupaye dene hai to ladki ko humare ghar chhod jaao, hum nahi aatey". She further affirmed that respondent no. 1 is employed as a teacher with Haryana Govt. School and drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/­ per month whereas respondent no. 2 is employed with Ministry of HR as Suptd. in Kendriya Vidya Sangathan earning more than Rs. 30,000/­ per month and respondents also ran a Grocery shop at their home earning Rs. 1000/­ per day. She further affirmed that a house of respondents is joint ancestral property wherein respondent no. 1 also have a share and that her dowry articles were lying in two rooms on the first floor besides the jewellery articles and motorcycle in possession of her mother in law, husband and father in law.

8. CW­1/applicant Smt. Indu Lata was put to detailed cross examination by counsel for respondents. CW­1/applicant Smt. Indu Lata submitted that her ring ceremony was solemnized on 15.04.2007. She stated that she was not aware as to when phone call was made about delivery of articles. She further stated that her father in law had handed over a list of clothes which is Ex. CW1/B on record, admitting that the said list does not bear the signature of anyone. She further stated that the items mentioned in the list were purchased by the respondents through her father who made all the payments. She further stated that the motorcycle given in her marriage was registered in her name. She also further stated that she has not specifically mentioned as to which relative of the respondent, all the item of jewellery were given to. She further stated CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 5 of 32 6 that she was not allowed to talk to her family members and her mobile phone was snatched and thereafter she was not in a position to contact the police as well. She further stated that she was given Ayurvedic medicine by her mother in law as she had cough and fever. She admitted that her parents used to visit her in a month or two months voluntarily submitting that they used to visit only on special or ceremonial occasion. She further stated that she cannot specify any date as to when she was warned by her parents in law to talk to her parents only through their phone at a speaker phone. She further stated that she was sent forcefully alongwith her father and Firoz Ahmed on 09.02.2008 who had visited her when she was not allowed to talk to them. She further stated that she called respondent no. 1 several times after 09.02.2008 to ask him as to when he would come to take her back who told her "kya tera baap tujhe khila nahi sakta, kya tere baap ke ghar main anaaj nahi". She declined the suggestion that she has engaged herself in stitching clothes and embroidery. She stated that she is a graduate but was not mentally in a state of mind to search for a job. She further stated that property bearing No. 280, Prem Nagar, Yadav Colony, Ballabhgarh is in the name of her mother in law besides another plot. She admitted that she was taken to the house of respondents by police for the recovery of dowry articles after registration of FIR u/s 498­A/406 IPC. She denied that a panchayat was convened on 28.09.2008 to settle the disputes between her family and her in laws. She submitted that her parents made lot of efforts for reconciliation but the respondents had no intention to arrive at a settlement. She denied that the respondents had agreed to return the stridhan articles as per the list given on 05.08.2008 or that respondent no. 1 was disowned from the movable or immovable property by his father on 07.05.2008. She admitted that respondent no. 1 was employed as a temporary teacher when they resided together. She was shown bills of articles placed on record which were not signed by her or by her father and she admitted that those were not even given to the CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 6 of 32 7 police in case FIR registered u/s 498­A/406/34 IPC.

9. Sh. Gulab Singh, father of Smt. Indu Lata was produced in witness box as CW­2 who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex. CW2 bearing his signature at point A and B. He also relied upon the original documents already placed on record as Ex. CW2/1 to Ex. CW2/32.

● Ex. CW2/1 is the copy of mobile bill in the name of Anil Kumar dated 20.06.2008 and payment acknowledgment slip along with call details of mobile No. 9718377231.

● Ex. CW2/2 to Ex. CW2/28 are the purchase receipts of various items including clothes, motorcycle, watch, another shoes, electronic items and other miscellaneous articles.

● Ex. CW2/29 is the copy of order dated 13.10.2008 in case FIR No. 521/08 and ● Ex. CW2/30 is the copy of order dated 16.10.2008 in case FIR No. 521/08, PS Sangam Vihar.

● Ex. CW2/31 and Ex. CW2/32 are the copies of order dated 04.11.2008 in case FIR No. 521/08, PS Sangam Vihar and order dated 15.11.2008 in case FIR No. 521/08 PS Sangam Vihar whereby FDR of RS. 2 Lacs in the name of complainant Smt. Indu Lata was formed as per the undertaking given by the accused persons on 04.11.2008.

10. In cross examination by counsel for respondents, CW2 Gulab Singh submitted that he has been employed in Govt. job since 04.03.2012 as a teacher. He further submitted that he received certificate dated 11.08.2009 regarding withdrawal of GPF for the purpose of marriage of his daughter as issued by Vice Principal of School which CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 7 of 32 8 he placed on record as Ex. CW2/R1 but admitted that he had not informed the department as to how he had spent that money on the marriage of his daughter. He further stated that he had handed over the list of articles delivered by him on 15.04.2007 at the house of respondents as Ex. CW2/R2 and Ex. CW2/R3, however, admitting that same do not bear his signature or of any person on the side of respondents. He further stated that the parents of respondent no. 1 had coerced him by raising the demand of dowry just one week before the marriage. He further stated that he went to matrimonial home of his daughter on 21.10.2007 at about 3 PM and had talked/communicated with all the family members on 21.07.2007 and asked them as to why his daughter was beaten. He further stated that he was communicated by his daughter that her mother in law had beaten her by holding her by her neck whereas sister in law had caught hold her hands and she was saved/rescued by her brother in law, however he chose not to lodge any compliant to the police as the respondents pleaded with him not to do so assuring that such act would not be repeated although he admitted that this reason was not mentioned by him in his evidentiary affidavit. He further stated that whenever he confronted with respondent no. 1 and his parents of what his daughter suffered at their hands, they used to respond "ye hamara ghar hai jaisa hum chahenge vaisa hum karenge", however, he admitted that these words were not mentioned by him in his evidentiary affidavit. He declined the suggestion that he regularly used to talk to his daughter. He admitted that the receipts, invoices or bills relied upon by him or his daughter do not bear his signature or that of his daughter. He further admitted that the list given by the respondent no. 2 do not bear the signature of respondent no. 1 or respondent no. 2. He further submitted that he had purchased all the articles at the instance of respondent no. 1 Harish Kumar, respondent no. 2 Teeka Ram, respondent no. 3 Mukesh, brother in law Sonu and Amar Singh. He further submitted that he was ill on 09.02.2008 and thus requested his neighbours Firoz CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 8 of 32 9 Ahmed who had a car to take him to the matrimonial home of his daughter, however, he admitted that he did not mention the factum of his illness in his evidentiary affidavit and also did not intimate the factum of bringing back to his daughter to parental home of any nearby PS on 09.02.2008. He further stated that hot words were exchanged and he had also abused respondent no. 2 while he was bringing his daughter back to her parental home, however, he admitted that he did not mention so in his evidentiary affidavit. He admitted that respondent no. 2 stated "yadi gadi or Rs. 2 Lacs dene hai to ladki ko humare ghar chhod jaao, hum nahi aatey.", however, he admitted that he did not specify these words having been spoken by respondent no. 2 in his evidentiary affidavit in Para 16. He further stated that the value of dowry articles was Rs. 6 Lacs which was concluded by them on the basis of various receipts and invoices. He admitted that he has not filed any document with regard to loan of Rs. 1,78,400/­ from M/s Vishnu Co­operative Urban Credit & Thrift Soceity. He declined the suggestion that his daughter Smt. Indu Lata was never tortured or harassed by the respondents and their family members.

11. Complainant Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for Respondents' Evidence. Respondent has produced four witnesses in support of this case.

12. RW1 is Harish Kumar who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.RW1 dated 10.01.2011, bearing his signatures at point A and B. He has affirmed in the affidavit about his marriage having been solemnized with Smt. Indu Lata on 19.04.2007, further affirming that the marriage was dowry less and only the customary items were given by father of the complainant having asserted that some customary items as per the version of Sh. Gulab Singh, father of the complainant had to be given at the time of daughter's marriage. He further affirmed that any dowry item was not delivered before or after the CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 9 of 32 10 marriage on 15.04.2007. He further affirmed that the complainant left the matrimonial home on 09.02.2008 or days before but the complaint was filed before CAW Cell, Sriniwaspuri on 23.06.2008 pointing out that the list of Istridhan articles was given on 25.07.2008. He also pointed out that he has submitted that admitted list on 05.08.2008 and asked the complainant to even take the customary items which were given by her father but those were not taken by her or by the IO. The list of Istridhan articles dated 25.07.2008 and 05.08.2008 have been placed on record as Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW1/B respectively. He further affirmed that he or his family members never physically or mentally harassed the complainant on account of any dowry demand till the complainant voluntarily left her matrimonial home. He also pointed out that the alleged incident dated 20.10.2007 have not even been narrated in the complaint which culminated into FIR No.521/08 dated 21.09.2008, P.S. Sangam Vihar. He pointed out that IO had seized certain articles from his house on 16.10.2008, the list of which he has placed on record as Ex.RW1/C. He further affirmed that all the dowry articles and Istridhan articles and as well as four sets of wearing clothes were taken by the complainant alongwith her father and their neighbour Firoz Ahmad. He further affirmed that he has been employed as teacher in Haryana Govt. School on temporary basis/daily wages basis on a contract basis at a salary of Rs.12,000/­ per month and as such his father Tika Ram is employed as Audit Assistant (since retired) and is drawing a pension.

13. RW1 Harish Kumar also specified that he has no concern with his father's source of income, further specifying that there is a small Grocery Shop run by his younger brother and mother jointly and as such he has no concern with their income. He further affirmed that the residential property is the self acquired property of his father and as such he has no share in the property as he and his wife Indu Lata was disowned by his CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 10 of 32 11 father on 07.05.2008 which was also published in a leading newspaper in Dainik Jagran Ex.RW1/D on record. He also specified that his father had taken loan from the Govt. Department against the property No.MCF­280, Prem Nagar (Yadav Colony), Mohana Road, Ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad which document is Ex.RW1/E.

14. RW1 Harish Kumar also further affirmed that the complainant herself is a graduate and has acquired professional qualification as Instructor General (POT) from NVTI, Noida and earns Rs.5000/­ per month and also Rs.2000/­ per month from tuitions at her house. The bio­data of the complainant has been placed on record as Ex.RW1/F.

15. RW1 Harish Kumar further affirmed that it was the complainant who started avoiding him when a skin disease developed after some duration of the marriage and a Panchayat in this respect was also conveyed on 28.09.2008 for the amicable dispute settlement but the complainant and her father remained adamant and ended up filing these false cases of dowry demands.

16. RW1 Harish Kumar also pointed out that he had filed a RTI application on 03.09.2008 before Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Range 45, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi seeking the status of income tax returns of the father of complainant and also had written about it to Director of Education, GNCTD, New Delhi and that he was ensured by both the Authorities in writing vide letter dated 03.09.2008, 04.09.2008, 12.09.2008 and 30.09.2008 that suitable action would be taken in due course in this respect and those letters have been placed on record and relied upon by RW1 which are Ex.RW1/H to Ex.RW1/K, further specifying that the complainant ended up with the registration of FIR on 21.09.2008 much later after he filed the said application and his CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 11 of 32 12 complaint. He also affirmed that his father who had already disowned and his wife on 07.05.2008 from all immovable and movable properties having severed all relationship with him vide a publication made in Dainik Jagran.

17. RW1 Harish Kumar also specified that his brother­in­law who resides in Palwal and his other relatives (Mausa Ji Sh. Amar Singh) who resides in District Faridabad, 40 Kms away from his residence. Respondent no.4 is a distant relative and has nothing to do with his personal life. He relied upon the proof of residence of respondents no.3 to 5 which are Ex.RW1/N to Ex.RW1/P. He has also placed on record the order dated 04.11.2008 and 15.11.2008 passed by the respective courts in FIR No.521/08, PS. Sangam Vihar as Ex.RW1/L and Ex.RW1/M.

18. RW1 Harish Kumar was put to cross examination by counsel for the complainant. He submitted in such cross examination that he has been employed as a guest teacher on contract basis in Government High School, Fatehpur, Chandela, Haryana confirming his qualification to be BA, B.Ed and that he has started teaching the primary classes since the year 2006. He further specified that the word 'Customary' against the Istridhan articles as per his version meant bed, dressing table, T.V. Utensils etc. He also specified that two ceremonies took place prior to marriage, one at the house of complainant and other at his residence. He also specified that five persons had taken part in the ceremony which took place at the house of complainant from the side of complainant and there were 15 persons present from his side in the ceremony performed at his residence. He further specified that Rs.1101/­ were given from the side of complainant. He further deposed that he was earning Rs.225/­ per day as daily wage salary at the time of marriage and his present salary is Rs.12,000/­. He also further specified that he does not give any tuitions to any children apart from teaching CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 12 of 32 13 the school students. He also stated that his daily wage salary was raised to Rs.290/­ per day from Rs.225/­ per day on 01.11.2008.

19. RW1 Harish Kumar was shown the photographs placed on record as Ex.PW1/R1 to Ex.PW4/R1 in which the lucoderma patches were recorded on his hands shown in the photographs, further specifying that this disease was there prior to marriage also but the same became prominent after his marriage. Certain photographs were shown to him and he was asked to name the occasion to which the concerned photograph relate to and he answered correctly. He also pointed out as to who all were present in photographs to which he answered and the response was correctly recorded. He was also shown the list of various items allegedly given in the marriage and was asked as to whether he was present at the purchase of those items, to which he denied.

20. RW1 Harish Kumar also stated that he was not present at the house on 09.02.2008 when the articles were taken by the complainant from their home with her father and neighbour Firoz Ahmad, further stating that any complaint till that time was not got lodged by her or his family members in this respect. He further submitted that he is resident of H.No. MCF­280, Prem Nagar (Yadav Colony), Mohana Road, Ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad which house stands in the name of his father. He further admitted that his father, mother and his brother also reside in the same house specifying that he lives on the first floor of the said house and that he cooks his meals himself or have the same in a hotel. He declined the suggestion that he alongwith his mother, father, brother, sister and sister­in­law used to torture the complainant on account of bringing less dowry or that they used to demand a car and Rs. Two Lacs as a pre­condition. He further declined the suggestion that they all had misappropriated the Istridhan articles given to his wife by her parents and that as they committed a breach CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 13 of 32 14 of trust with respect to those articles when the police could not recover them from his house. He further declined the suggestion that the public notice disowning him issued by his parents is fake and manipulated. He stated that he was not in a position to name any school or institution where the complainant has been stated to be employed, declining the suggestion however that the complainant is unemployed and wholly dependent on her father.

21. RW2 is Teeka Ram who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.RW2/1. He affirmed as part of his affidavit that the marriage was dowry less except that certain customary items were given by father Sh. Gulab Singh to the complainant. He affirmed in his affidavit on the lines of deposition made by RW1 Harish Kumar in his affidavit Ex.RW1.

22. In cross examination by counsel for complainant, RW2 Teeka Ram admitted that a case u/s 498A/406/34 IPC is pending against him and his son Harish Kumar. Certain photographs Ex.RW1/C3 to Ex.RW1/C8 and CW1/C & CW1/C1 were shown to him and he was put question about the presence in those photographs and he responded correctly and thus reply was recorded by the Court. He was also asked to specify again to which the photographs Ex.RW1/C9 to Ex.RW1/C14 relate to. He admitted that the photographs Ex.RW1/C14 relate to the motorcycle given at the time of marriage. He declined that the list Ex.CW1/B has been written by him or is in his handwriting. He stated that he was not aware if the bills Ex.CW2/1 and Ex.CW2/28 are of the articles given by the complainant at the time of marriage. He stated that his son was employed as Guest Teacher earning Rs.295/­ per day at the time of marriage and now he is getting Rs.12,000/­ per month. He further stated that the police never visited his house for recovery of Istridhan articles of the complainant. He declined the suggestion that he CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 14 of 32 15 or his family members used to harass the complainant and ask her to bring more articles and money from her parents. He also stated about the educational qualification of his son as that of BA, B.Ed and employed as a primary teacher teaching all the subjects to students upto primary standard. He was shown the statement recorded before the court of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma DJ/Family Court Faridabad dated 02.09.2011 to which he admitted to be his statement, certified copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.RW2/C1. He admitted that the petition filed by his son was dismissed by Ld. Family Court, Faridabad vide order dated 18.04.2011, the certified copy of which was placed on record as Ex.RW2/C2. He declined the suggestion that the Istridhan Articles given to the complainant were retained by him and his family members and they tortured the applicant in respect of dowry articles and made demand of dowry from her and her parents.

23. RW3 is Mukesh Kumar who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.RW1/3 who affirmed that he or his wife never received any article before or after the marriage of Harish Kumar either by the complainant or her father Gulab Singh. He further affirmed that he or his wife never interfered with the life of Harish Kumar and the complainant and they both visited occasionally on the auspicious festival on invitation by them. He further affirmed that the complainant had insulted and abused them on two­three occasions after which they even stopped visiting their house. In cross examination by counsel for applicant, he was shown photographs already exhibited as Ex.RW1/C1 to Ex.RW1/C7, Ex.RW1/C8, Ex.RW1/C15 and Ex.RW1/C16 where he has been appearing at point A. He also pointed out that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 were present in certain photographs. He also stated that respondent no.1 has been employed as a Guest Teacher. He also specified that the respondent no.1 has been residing in H.No. 280, Prem Nagar, Yadav Colony, Mohana Road, Ballabhgarh on the first floor separately CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 15 of 32 16 whereas the mother and father of respondent no.1 have been living in the same building on the ground floor separately. He declined the suggestion that he or his wife used to interfere in the marriage of complainant and respondent no.1 and used to raise satires against the complainant regarding the dowry articles or that he has misappropriated the dowry articles of complainant.

24. RW4 is Sh. Budh Singh who tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.RW4/A bearing his signatures at point A and B on the said affidavit. He affirmed that he is related to respondent no.1 Harish Kumar as Mama and that he was invited in the marriage solemnized between respondent no.1 and complainant on 19.04.2007 and that he learnt that the said marriage was dowry less, although some customary articles on the insistence of father of complainant Sh. Gulab Singh were given in the marriage. He also specified that he has nothing to do with the personal life of respondent no.1 and complainant and as such he has never interfered in their matrimonial home. In cross examination by counsel for Applicant, he was shown photographs already exhibited as Ex.RW1/C1 to Ex.RW1/C7, Ex.RW1/C8, Ex.RW1/C15 and Ex.RW1/C16 where he is shown at point A. He also pointed out that respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 were present in certain photographs. He also stated that respondent no.1 has been employed as a Guest Teacher. He also specified that the respondent no.1 has been residing in H.No.280, Prem Nagar, Yadav Colony, Mohana Road, Ballabhgarh on the first floor separately whereas the mother and father of respondent no.1 have been living in the same building on the ground floor separately. He declined the suggestion that he or his wife used to interfere in the marriage of complainant and respondent no. 1 and used to raise satires against the complainant regarding the dowry articles or that he has misappropriated the dowry articles of complainant.

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 16 of 32 17

25. Respondent Evidence was closed by the statement given by the respondents.

26. Final arguments advanced. Counsel for the complainant specified that the marriage between the complainant and respondent no.1 is not disputed. He argued about the cruelty meted upon the complainant by all the respondents on account of non­conformity of dowry demand made by them and misappropriated Istridhan Articles given to the complainant at the time of marriage having retained the same despite demand made by the complainant. He also contended that the petition for divorce was filed in Faridabad which was dismissed as such complainant does not want to go back and join the company of respondent no.1 at his residence. He also called the publication issued by father of respondent no.1 disowning respondent no.1 from his immovable property as a fake. He pointed out that there are specific instances given as part of the petition qua the cruelty suffered by the complainant at the hands of all the respondents. He also pointed out that the salary of respondent no.1 is not disputed at Rs.12,000/­ as admitted by himself and also pressing that the respondent no.1 has been running a shop and same cannot be denied for want of knowledge. He also further pointed out that the applicant is unemployed. He concluded the arguments submitting that the response to the photographs shown in the cross examination of respondent no. 1 and respondent no.2 proves a great deal against the respondents and that complainant being an aggrieved person as proved by evidence adduced, is entitled to all the reliefs sought for.

27. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the report of Protection Officer filed by her is a prima facie violation of the Rule 4,8 and 10 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006. He also specified that it is ill­logical to state that respondent no.1 raised any demand prior to marriage else the CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 17 of 32 18 complainant or her father would have broken the ties. He also pointed out that any credible evidence with respect to content of invoices have not been placed on record. He also contended that Indu Lata was a graduate and as such duly qualified. He also pointed out that the onus to prove the photographs was upon the complainant if those were denied by the respondents in their testimony. He also pointed out that the loan amount taken by father of the complainant on GPF was taken for the purpose of house expenses and not for the marriage expenditure. He concluded the arguments by stating that the counsel for the complainant has not been able to prove the case against the respondents.

28. I have perused the case record carefully.

29. The central point of entire discussion is to assess whether applicant Heerawati is an aggrieved person within the definition and parameter laid down in Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The term "Aggrieved Person" is defined in Section 2 (a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is reproduced as under:

(a) "aggrieved person" means woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

The basic tenets which make up or constitute to prove one to be an Aggrieved person are applicant having suffered domestic violence while being in domestic relationship in Shared Household with the respondents. The term "Respondent" is defined in Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is reproduced as under:

"Respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 18 of 32 19 domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act. The term "Domestic Relationship" is defined in Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is reproduced as under:
"Domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons, who live or have, at any point of time, 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;
The term "Domestic Violence" is defined in Section 3 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is reproduced here as under: "Domestic Violence" ­ For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it ­
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well­being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

The term "Shared Household" is defined in Section 2(s) of Protection of CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 19 of 32 20 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is reproduced as under:

"Shared Household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, titled, or interest in the shared household.

30. Now, assessing the facts of the case to draw an inference as to whether applicant can be stated to have proved herself as an Aggrieved Person u/s 2 (a) of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

31. The case of Applicant CW1 Indu Lata revolves primarily around her ill treatment at the hands of respondents on account of her non­fulfillment of dowry demands made by Respondents. There are various occasions or instances notified by her in her petition, in complaints made by her to various Authorities she relied upon as part of her evidence and her Evidentiary Affidavit Ex.CW1/A. She also was put to cross examination by Ld. counsel for Respondents at length. She did not give way to any contradictions or inconsistency in her versions of the story. She infact repeated some significant allegations of harassment in her cross examination fortifying her case. Her father Gulab Singh who appeared as CW2 also deposed on her lines well supporting her case.

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 20 of 32 21

32. RW1 Harish in his reply and also in his affidavit instead of actually replying to allegations of dowry demands or any harassment focused on the aspect of receipt or return of Istridhan articles, on non involvement of other Respondents in their affair, on the aspect of his earnings and ownership of property by him or his family members. There is only one reason he projected for the tussle with applicant of his having contracted Leucoderma after marriage which developed a strong resistance and inhibition with applicant to have any sort of relationship with him. RW1 Harish Kumar in his evidence has not presented his version or explanation of instances highlighted by complainant about being harassed for not bringing a car and Rs.2 Lac and later thwarting the efforts made by her and her family members for any possible settlement.

33. It is significant to point out at this stage itself that this aspect of Respondent no.1 having Leucoderma does not even find any mention in the evidence led by Applicant. It is only in the Domestic Incident Report that she mentioned about non­fulfillment of any marital obligation by respondent no.1 towards her which also she did not affirm in her evidence Ex.CW1/A. Further, Ld. Counsel for respondents has chosen not to have put this as a suggestion to the Applicant CW1 Indu Lata for her to deny or explain or clarify so as to let respondents build up their case on this premise. Not even a single question has been put to Applicant CW1 Indu Lata on this aspect which waters down to a significant extent the credibility of its assertion in its own self by Respondents. Further, there is no medical evidence as such relied upon by Respondent no.1 to substantiate that. Moreso, Respondent no.1 Harish Kumar without disputing/objecting to authenticity of photographs put to him in his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for complainant Ex.PW1/R1 to Ex.PW4/R1 in which he admitted himself to be reflected and that those photographs pertain to pre­ceremonies of his marriage admitted Leucoderma patches specially on his hands and fingers which are quite visible in the CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 21 of 32 22 photographs. Thus, the assertion that it developed or flared suddenly giving abhorrence to complainant who would indeed have seen these prior to marriage during ceremonies has no significance at all.

34. RW1 Harish Kumar in his Evidentiary Affidavit affirmed that applicant had taken away all her Istridhan and dowry articles with her when she left with her father and Firoz Ahmed. However, in the same affidavit, he later stated about Admitted List of Istridhan Articles given by him in CAW Cell and his grievance of IO having not collected that or having not asked him to return that despite his willingness. This gets further contradicted with the admitted recovery of some Istridhan Articles by the IO from matrimonial house of Applicant Smt. Indu Lata much later. This highlights the apparent contradictions in various assertions made by RW1 Harish Kumar in his testimony without any explanation whatsoever. Moreso later, he was granted interim bail for return of Jewellery Articles to complainant and later had to deposit FDR of Rs.2 Lacs for those Jewellery Articles as per directions of Court.

35. The marriage in this case is not disputed. That there was exchange of articles/giving of articles in marriage is also not disputed although there may be and are variations in its detailing. There are categorical affirmations of demands put by Respondent no.1 and Respondent no.2 of a Car and Rs.2 Lacs for non­fulfillment of which, she was put to harassment, beatings, was disallowed being in contact with her father forcibly snatching away her mobile phone, was rebuked, abused, taunted and compelled to leave the matrimonial house. Her father CW2 Gulab Singh affirmed that her daughter Indu Lata used to almost everyday, prior to blocking her communication with him by Respondent no.1 and 2 tell and complain to him of her daily ill­treatment at their hands. He has given specific mobile numbers to that effect and fortified his CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 22 of 32 23 assertion by placing on record the telephone bills. He has also faced detailed cross examination but has toed a consistent stand. He asserted that he took loan for her daughter's marriage and placed documents in support of that.

36. Ld. Counsel for Respondents have argued that Protection Officer has violated Rule 4, 8 and 10 by filing Domestic Incident Report in Form I. Rule 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 deal with the process to be followed by Protection Officer in case she first receive the information about an act of Domestic Violence. Rule 8 and 10 deal with various duties of Protection Officer. Ld. Counsel has not clarified as to which duty of Protection Officer stand violated in this case. Further, applicant herself approached the Court with a drafted complaint alongwith legal assistance and thus DIR was filed by Protection Officer with the direction of Court.

37. Ld. Counsel for Respondents also contended that applicant would have snapped the relationship had demands been raised prior to marriage. Applicant in her affidavit has detailed circumstance in which she and her father did what they were asked to in order to save their reputation thinking that things would fall in place after marriage. The third contention was with respect to invoices of various Istridhan articles placed on record. As such, these form part of investigation in State case also, the verifications in this case of specific invoices is not occasioned. Nonetheless, there are originals placed on record with items appearing in the list of Istridhan articles, there is no reason probabilising to doubt the genuineness of these documents.

38. Another contention raised by Ld. Counsel for respondent is about CW1 Indu Lata well qualified to remember specific dates of incidents when asked. The incidents when happen are not noted down in routine like with the knowledge that she would be asked CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 23 of 32 24 those questions in cross examination. The merit and contents however have been put across. Further, the incidents of her beatings and other allegations of significance bear reasonable specification such as proximity to various festivals or occasions. There are specific dates and detailing affirmed for various settlement efforts also. Thus, the contention of Ld. Counsel for Respondents do not thwart the case or credibility of complainant.

39. The next contention raised by Ld. Counsel for Respondents is about non­ preparation of any safety plan in terms of Rule 8 Sub Rule 4 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rule, 2006. The same was otherwise never directed. As such, the lady was residing separately with her parents and there was no threat perception subsequent to filing of case projected warranting any such direction or requirement for a safety plan.

40. Ld. Counsel for Respondents further contended that complainant has not been able to prove the photographs relied upon by her as part of her evidence. Applicant CW1 Indu Lata has relied only upon her affidavit, however, she has not relied upon them or proved them as part of evidence. The photographs have been put to witnesses in their cross examination where they have not termed the photographs as fake or so and have appropriately responded to its contents and thus, as those put in cross examination have not been specifically refuted need not be exclusively proved by distinct evidence.

41. Applicant resided with Respondent no.1 and 2 after her marriage with Respondent no.1 since the date of her marriage on 19.04.2007 till 09.02.2008 when she was sent alongwith her father and other neighbour. Respondent no.1 has affirmed CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 24 of 32 25 that applicant left of her own will to attend the marriage of her cousin against his wish and later did not return back. He has not responded to the affirmation about efforts for settlement made by Applicant which waters down his version that she left of her own. Further, this was not ever suggested to her in her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondents.

42. Concluding, applicant has been able to underline by way of cogent plausible natural consistent testimony of hers having been put to ill­treatment by taunting, beating, rebutting, ensuing her, not allowing to return to her to matrimonial home, by retaining her Istridhan articles while she resided with respondent no.1 and 2 after her marriage in her matrimonial home.

43. As far as other Respondents are concerned, respondent no.3 Mukesh is her brother­in­law who has a separate residence and did not use to reside alongwith complainant at her matrimonial home. Applicant has affirmed that he instigated her mother­in­law to beat her. That is the only allegation against him in the entire petition. This solitary instance with no direct allegations on him with no domesticity whatsoever with the complaint cannot be held against him for any liability.

44. Other Respondent No.4 Amar Singh and Respondent no.5 Budh Singh are relatives of Respondent no.1 Harish Kumar and as such reside separately. The only allegation against them is that they asked the Respondent no.1 and 2 to send Applicant back to her parents to compel her to fulfill demands raised by Respondent no.1 and 2. They neither have had any common residence with Applicant nor have had any direct allegation of any ill­treatment against Applicant. As such, Respondent no.4 Amar Singh and Respondent no.5 Budh Singh also cannot thus be burdened with any liability of CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 25 of 32 26 having put Applicant to Domestic Violence.

45. Respondent no.3 Mukesh Kumar, Respondent no.4 Amar Singh and Respondent no.5 Budh Singh are thus discharged at this stage as any substantive allegations and basic legalities required for imputing liability under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are not met.

46. Applicant resided with Respondent no.1 and 2 in domesticity as a family member being spouse of Respondent no.1 and daughter­in­law of Respondent no.2 where she was put dowry demands of a car and Rs.2 Lacs and was put to ill treatment in the form of violence upon her inability and refusal to do during her residence at the shared household. Domestic Incident Report also notes that the respondents used filthy language with her and did not allow her to talk on phone with her parents and that the husband did not fulfill marital obligations towards her and that she was put to dowry related harassment as well as pushed, abused, ridiculed and threatened to be killed by the respondents. She was also not allowed to use the articles given in her marriage as the possession of the Istridhan articles was with the respondents. She also alleged that the dowry demand of Rs.2 Lacs and car was made for and she was harassed for not been able to fulfill the same. Thus, Domestic Incident Report also corroborates the version given by her in her evidence. Applicant Indu Lata thus has been able to convincingly prove herself as an aggrieved person u/s 2(a) of the Act.

47. Let us now assess the relief which has been sought for by way of this petition by the applicant. Applicant in her petition has prayed to grant her monetary relief by way of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/­ per month from the Respondent no.1, to pass necessary orders restraining the respondents from damaging, transferring or CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 26 of 32 27 misappropriating the dowry articles lying in the two rooms on the first floor of matrimonial house of complainant and restraining order in her favour to restrain the respondents from stopping, obstructing, hindering and impeding the entry of the complainant into the said portion of the house. She has also prayed for grant of compensation directing the respondents towards the losses suffered by her because of the acts of domestic violence, causing her mental agony, emotional distress and physical pain besides the non returning of the Istridhan articles, jewellery and motor cycle registered in her name.

48. Counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments mentioned before the Court that the relief of Residence Order is not being pressed for by the complainant because of change in circumstances as the Respondent no.1 already filed a divorce case against her which was dismissed by Ld. Family Court, Faridabad. Thus, considering that respondent no.1 did not want to live with the Applicant for which she made several efforts, she did not find it reasonable to press for the Residence Order to allow her and go back and reside in the matrimonial home. As far as relief of restraining the respondents from tempering, transferring or misappropriating the dowry articles is concerned, some of the dowry articles/Istridhan articles were recovered in the connected State case vide a Seizure Memo, as per the submissions made by both the parties and Rs.2 Lacs at the time of bail was given by Respondent no.1 against Jewellery articles by way of an FDR as per the directions of the Court in the said connected State case. Thus, any direction qua this relief sought in the petition is not warranted as this remains the subject matter of investigation and trial in the connected State case and the necessary relief atleast to an extent has already been granted in the favour of the complainant in the said connected matter. Similarly, the relief sought to restrain the respondents from stopping, obstructing, hindering and impeding the CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 27 of 32 28 complainant's entry into the portion of the house partially stands nullified in view of the observations made above and also not pressed for at this stage by counsel for the complainant. So the other reliefs remain the grant of monetary relief at the tune of Rs. 10,000/­ per month and the compensatory arrears to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/­.

49. Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide Order dated 01.05.2009 had directed the respondent no.1 to pay monetary maintenance of Rs.2,000/­ to the complainant from the date of arrear till final disposal of the case on merits to be paid by 7 th of each month. The complainant in this case has proved herself to be an aggrieved person u/s 2(a) of the Act and thus entitled to grant of relief in her favour. RW1 Harish Kumar in his cross examination testified that he has the qualification of BA/B.Ed and has been employed as a Guest Teacher with Government High School, Fatehpur, Chandela, Harayana on contract basis. He also testified that his salary is Rs.12,000/­ per month. He also mentioned that his daily wage salary was raised to Rs.295/­ per day on 01.11.2008 from Rs.225/­ per day. In this respect a copy of order/commission issued by Suptd. Coordination for Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh has also been filed wherein the revised rates of remuneration for teachers employed on guest faculty on period basis is noted to be Rs.295/­ per day. There is a copy of certificate issued by Head Master, Govt, Pre­school, Alampur, Faridabad also on record wherein amount of Rs.295/­ per day has been notified alongwith the working days also certifying that the Respondent no.1 is employed as a JBT Guest Faculty on daily wage basis in the Govt. Primary School, Alampur, Faridabad. In another communication, the composite salary for the month of January­February 2008 is noted to be Rs.12095/­, for the month of March & April 2008 is noted to be Rs. 9785/­ and that of May 2008 is Rs.7375/­ and so on. The applicant in her affidavit Ex.CW1/A has submitted that the respondent no.1 has been drawing Rs.15,000/­ per CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 28 of 32 29 month. Thus, the income as admitted by Respondent no.1 considering the documents which have been filed by him also from his employment as a Guest Faculty is taken to be Rs.12,000/­ per month approximately.

50. The applicant has also affirmed that the respondent no.1 has a shop of grocery in his own house, as such runs by his mother till noon after which he also sits at the shop. Respondent no.1, on the other hand, as such has denied the same for want of knowledge in his written statement who affirmed in his affidavit that the Grocery Shop is run by his younger brother Deepak and his mother jointly and as such the income of that shop is not shared by him. Thus, the shop being run in the premises of the house where the Respondent no.1 has been residing at the matrimonial house of the complainant is conceded. The affirmation of applicant that the shop is run by the mother of the respondent no.1 is also conceded to an extent. There is a grocery shop run from the house and as per the affirmations of the Applicant, Respondent no.1 also contributes to the said shop and thus is partisan to some of its earnings as well.

51. All the respondents in their deposition have mentioned that Respondent no.1 have been disowned by Respondent no.2, residing separately at the first floor of the premises claiming that the property is self­acquired property of the father. It is astonishing to note that Respondent no.1 even after being disowned is being kept by the father in his self­acquired property for which he had also taken loan from his department and asking the respondent no.1 their son to cook his own food there, on talking terms with each other, they came to the Court together which is admitted to by various respondents who appeared as witness in the witness box. Thus, the claim of Respondent no.1 that he has nothing to do with the family or its source of income is a farce and cannot be accepted. The defence taken by way of publication of a disowning CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 29 of 32 30 notice is a complete sham only to defeat the rights of the applicant and to diffuse the liabilities by the respondents. Respondent no.2 as such is a Govt. Teacher himself and is not dependent by way means by the earnings of respondent no.1.

52. Respondent no.1 being the husband is under a legal and moral obligation to give maintenance to the applicant. Applicant has claimed herself to be unemployed and totally dependent upon her parents for her. Respondent no.1 has pointed out that applicant herself earns Rs.5000/­ per month by giving private tuitions and also by teaching in a school. However, any particulars to that effect or any document to substantiate that assertion have not been filed and thus his assertion cannot be accepted to counter down the claim of maintenance made by the applicant. Assessing the income of Respondent no.1 minimally from the composite sources to be Rs. 20,000/­ per month, Respondent no.1 is directed to make payment of Rs.6000/­ per month to the applicant by 10th of every month to be deposited in the bank account of complainant since date of filing of application till further orders. Arrears may be paid by respondent within four months from the date of order.

53. The details of the bank account be provided by the Complainant/Applicant to the respondent through Protection Officer for positive compliance. The arrears be paid within 4 months of the date of this order. Noting stated herein be taken to be observation on merits of this case.

Any default in making payment of maintenance shall be viewed and acted upon in terms of the directions laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as :

"Gaurav Sodhi Vs Divya Sodhi 120 DLT (2005) 426".

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 30 of 32 31

54. As far as the compensation is concerned, as the Applicant happened to reside with the Respondent no.1 only for around 10 months and later was compelled to leave with all her compromise efforts thwarted spoiling her life causing her great mental agony and emotional discomfort with all sort of sufferings she suffered with no fault of hers at the hands of respondents shattering her dreams and aspirations which she carried in her matrimonial life, she is hereby granted a compensation which is otherwise a discretionary relief to the tune of Rs.1 Lac to be paid by Respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally within four months of the date of this Order by way of an FDR in her name and favour. She has been pushed into all sorts of legal battle by the respondents to claim which was the rightfully hers and was denied to her without any fault of hers.

55. Any other relief has not been sought for and is not warranted in view of the circumstances of this case as the complainant has been herself residing separately and there has not been any sort of apprehension raised by the applicant qua her safety or any threat at the hands of the respondents and thus has not pleaded for any protection in her favour. Any such order is not occasioned.

56. Application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by Applicant Indu Lata against Respondent no.1 Harish Kumar, respondent no.2 Teeka Ram, Respondent no.3 Mukesh Kumar, Respondent no.4 Amar Singh and Respondent no.5 Budh Singh is thus disposed off in the above mentioned terms. Ordered accordingly.

CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar Page No. 31 of 32 32

57. Copy of the order be given dasti to applicant as well as the respondents. Copy of the Order be also sent to the Protection Officer for information. 

 Announced in the open court on                    (SHELLY ARORA)
04.01.2014                                         MM (Mahila Court) /SED
                                                   Saket Court, New Delhi




CC No. 33/08 PS: Sangam Vehar       Indu Lata Vs Harish Kumar  Page No. 32 of 32