Bangalore District Court
Cauvery. T vs K.G Shivakumar Swamy on 21 February, 2025
KABC080051312016
Presented on : 30-05-2016
Registered on : 30-05-2016
Decided on : 21-02-2025
Duration : 8 years, 8 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.98/2016
Petitioner : Smt.T. Cauvery
W/o K.G. Shivakumaraswamy,
Aged about 41 years
R/at No.483,
4th Cross, 2nd main Road,
Attur Layout,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Rep. By Sri/Smt.M.S.G. Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent No.1 : Sri. K.G. Shivakumaraswamy,
S/o Gundappa,
Working at Rail Wheel Factory,
2
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Technician Grade - 2,
Employee ID 0066763,
Doddaballapur Main Road,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore.
Respondent No.2 Sri.Muthuraj Y.C.
S/o Chikkamuthaiah,
Aged about 31 years.
Respondent No.3 Sri.Manjunatha Y.C
S/o Chikkamuthaiah,
Aged about 30 years.
Respondent No.2 and 3 at R/t:
No.547, 6th Main, 5th Cross,
Attur Layout, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Rep. By Sri/Smt.P.G. Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under; The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage solemnized on 22.06.1989 at Rajarajeshwari Kalyana Mantapa Yalahanka and from the wed lock two children were born to them. The parents of the petitioner have spent entire expenses of the 3 Crl.Misc.98/2016 marriage and provided dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent. After marriage the petitioner has started her marital life at the house of the respondents wherein, the parents of the respondent No.1 were also living together. The petitioner submit that, at the time of marriage respondent No.1 was unemployed and he used to roam in the streets and come to home at night and he used to torture the petitioner verbally as well as sexually. After her marriage she came to know that respondent No.1 had health issue of seizure convulsion which was not disclosed either by the respondent no.1 or his parents at the time of marriage. During her pregnancy respondent No.1 and his family did not look after her well. During her advanced stage of pregnancy the 1st respondent in an outburst had poured hot coffee on the petitioner due to which petitioner had sustained severe burn injuries and and was admitted to Wheel & Axle hospital. After her delivery respondent demanded that the parents of the petitioner that naming ceremony should be performed in large scale otherwise the petitioner and the child would not be brought back to the matrimonial house. Further she submitted that, in the year 1993 a big altercation took place between1st respondent and his parents and after that petitioner and respondent No.1 started living separately but after that also respondent No.1 never 4 Crl.Misc.98/2016 mended his ways. Further she submitted that, she had conceived again in the year 1994, even thereafter fights between the petitioner and 1 st respondent continued. After that, she came to know that respondent No.1 has got all bad vices like debauching, illegal affairs etc., and used to exchange so many calls and vulgar messages with the girls. After the marriage, respondent started to harass her both mentally and physically and because of the threat and physical assault at the hands of the respondent. Later the respondent No.1 got job in Wheel and Axle factory. The petitioner further stated that, seeing negligent attitude of the respondent the petitioner started doing Tupperware distribution business and later she started saree selling business and from the said business she has purchased a house at Attur Layout which was registered in her name and she also purchased a site at Attur layout. Further she submitted that, respondent No.1 often threatened petitioner to transfer the property to his name but the petitioner having refused to do the same on 27.06.2014 the 1 st respondent along with the other respondent had assaulted the petitioner during which petitioner had fracture on her hand.
5Crl.Misc.98/2016
3. Petitioner further submitted that, the respondent in the meantime started harassing the petitioner in several forms and he forced the petitioner to leave the house and currently she has taken shelter at Sumangali Seva Ashram, Hebbala. The petitioner further submitted that, the respondent No.1 is highly influential and he is threatening her with dire consequence. Hence, she sought assistance of the police. The respondent is working as technician Grade 2 at Rail Wheel Factory and drawing gross salary of Rs.45,280/-. In spite of having sufficient source of income he is not providing any maintenance to her. Hence, this application.
4. After the registration of the petition this Court has issued notice to the respondents and they appeared through their counsel and filed objection to the main petition. In the objection statement they have admits the marriage relationship of respondent No.1 and petitioner No.1 and from the wed lock they have two children and now they are major. Further they denied all the allegation made in the petition against them. Further they stated that they never caused domestic violence against the petitioner and they never demanded dowry. On all these grounds they prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
6Crl.Misc.98/2016
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 42. the respondent himself examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.13.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that they were subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents?
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 7 Crl.Misc.98/2016 between herself and respondent No.1, she was residing with the respondent No.1 in a shared household, the domestic violence was caused by the respondent No.1 upon her. The respondent No.1 has neglected the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent No.1 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 No.1 are in domestic relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing together till the date of separation. Hence, they have resided together in a shared household. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
11. Before analyzing the evidence in the present matter it has to be borne in mind that, as per Sec.102 of Indian Evidence Act the petitioner has to prove the allegations made by her in order to succeed in this matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shank Balaji V/s Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774 has held that, the proceedings under DV Act are civil in nature. Hence, the 8 Crl.Misc.98/2016 evidence has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
12. The Court also has to consider the definition of domestic violence in order to effectively adjudicate the matter. The United Nations has defined Domestic abuse, also called "domestic violence" or "intimate partner violence", as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone. Sec.3 of PWDV Act provides definition of domestic violence and it states that it includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. As per Sec.3 explanation II for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic violence U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. Hence, a holistic view of the facts and circumstances have to be considered and a myopic view cannot be adopted by taking into account incidents in an 9 Crl.Misc.98/2016 isolated manner. Before considering if the petitioner is able to prove domestic violence it must be borne in mind that domestic violence is a subjective matter and perception of each person may differ and there is no mathematical standard which is formulated to say that a particular behaviour constitutes domestic violence. It depends on each individual, their social, economic, educational status. However, the Court has to weigh the evidence on record as per the rules of evidence in an objective and circumspect manner.
13. In this case it is the allegation of the petitioner that, the after marriage it was revealed to her that the respondent No.1 was suffering from seizure convulsions and he had not disclosed it to her at the time of marriage. She has alleged that, respondent No.1 has taken dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and her parents have spent entire marriage expenses. Respondent no.1 has denied these contentions. Admittedly, petitioner and respondent No.1 got married in the year 22.06.1989 and petitioner has not produced any documents to show that her parents have spent the entire expenses or that respondent No.1 has taken dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that petitioner belonged to a poor family and her family did not have enough income to spend for the entire 10 Crl.Misc.98/2016 wedding expenses and give him dowry. It is also contended that, respondent No.1 never demanded dowry. In this regard in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that, her father is a retired police official and he retired before her marriage. Petitioner has admitted that, her father has given the lands owned by him to her sister. She has admitted that, her father had the responsibility of educating and conducting the marriage of 4 children. She has admitted that, respondent No.1 is her maternal aunt's son. She has admitted that, she does not know the exact marriage expenses incurred by her father. She has admitted that, respondent No.1 was given only customary gifts at the time of marriage. These admissions of the petitioner in her cross examination along with the fact that there are no documents regarding the marriage expenses prove that respondent No.1 has not taken dowry and petitioner's parents have not spent Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage expenses as they did not have the requisite financial capacity.
14. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent No.1 was suffering from seizure convulsions and this was not disclosed by him at the time of marriage. Respondent No.1 in his cross examination has admitted 11 Crl.Misc.98/2016 that, he was suffering from seizure convulsions and stated that he has informed about the same to the petitioner. He has admitted that, he has not disclosed his medical condition to his employer and stated that, he has passed the medical examination conducted by his employer. He has further stated that, he did not have seizure convulsions from 1989 to 2006 and he had one episode of seizure in 2006 and one episode in 2009. There is no evidence before the Court apart from petitioner's own testimony regarding this allegation. Hence, it is the say of the petitioner against the say of respondent No.1. But it is a fact that respondent No.1 is the son of paternal aunt of the petitioner. Therefore if he was suffering from any serious medical condition there is no way the petitioner and her family would not know about it. That apart, this Court cannot believe the uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is not proved.
15. It is alleged by the petitioner that, after marriage she was harassed by 1 st respondent and his family members and on one occasion during the advanced stage of her pregnancy respondent No.1 in an outburst poured hot coffee on her due to which she sustained severe burnt injury and she was admitted to 12 Crl.Misc.98/2016 Wheel and Axle hospital and respondent No.1 and his family members persuaded her not to reveal the same at the hospital. But respondent No.1 did not reform and continued to harass her. Respondent No.1 has denied the said allegation but in his cross examination he has admitted that, petitioner had suffered burn injury because her saree grazed the coffee cup and hot coffee fell on her back. He has admitted that, petitioner has availed treatment at Wheel and Axle hospital. It is not possible for coffee to fall on petitioner's back if her saree gazed the coffee cup and it fell. Hence, it is clear that respondent No.1 is giving a different version about the said incident. This admission of the respondent No.1 probabalizes that, he has thrown hot coffee on the petitioner as there is no other way it would have fallen on her back. This incident shows the treatment meted out to the petitioner in her matrimonial house.
16. It is further alleged by the petitioner that, respondent No.1 was not interested in taking up responsibility of the family and would never take care of her requirements even after the birth of her son on 13.07.1991. She has alleged that, he was in bad company and would come home late in a drunken stupor and assault her and manhandle her. Seeing the attitude 13 Crl.Misc.98/2016 of the respondent No.1 she has started doing petty jobs to earn sufficient sum for taking care of her requirements. She has stated that, in 1993 respondent No.1 had a big altercation with his parents and petitioner, respondent No.1 and their child were shut out of the matrimonial house and were compelled to take a rented house. Even after the said incident respondent No.1 did not take up any responsibility. Therefore, petitioner started doing saree business and other household works to meet ends and from the income she earned she has paid the rent and monthly expenses. She has further alleged that, she gave birth to a girl baby in the year 1994. She has stated that, she has purchased a house at Attur Layout and again purchased a site at Attur Layout. She has constructed a house at the said site by availing bank loan and also raising loans from friends and acquaintances. She has alleged that, during the said time respondent No.1 would take all her money kept in the cupboard without informing her and spent the same on his vices. She has alleged that, she has taken all the responsibility of the household including the educational expenses of her children. She has alleged that, she has also purchased another property in the same vicinity. But respondent No.1 would often threaten her to transfer the property to his name and in 14 Crl.Misc.98/2016 this regard on 27.06.2014 respondent No.1 along with respondent No.2 and 3 assaulted her and she suffered fracture. In this regard petitioner has submitted Ex.P.5 to 6 sale deed with respect to the properties purchased on 17.03.2007 and 19.06.2003 by her. She has submitted 4 receipts with respect to her saree business as Ex.P.13. She has submitted GPA dated 05.12.1996 executed in her favour as Ex.P.14 and lease deed dated 16.08.2000 executed in her favour by one Ashok Kumar. She has submitted tax paid receipt and EC with respect to Ex.P.5 and 6 properties as Ex.P.17, BWSSB water connection application for Ex.P.6 property as Ex.P.19. She has submitted rental agreement dated 23.02.2015 executed by her in favour of one K.Venkatesh as Ex.P.20. She has submitted tax paid receipts with respect to Ex.P.6 property as Ex.P.21. In order to show her income she has submitted her IT returns for the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 as Ex.P.8. In order to prove she was assaulted by respondent No.1 to 3 on 27.06.2024 petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 which is the discharge summary of Government hospital at Yalahanka. Respondent No.1 has denied these allegations and alleged that, petitioner was not a dutiful wife and she was not affectionate 15 Crl.Misc.98/2016 towards his family or him and he has stated that, he was taking care of the family and all the needs of the family.
17. From the cross examination of the petitioner conducted by the respondent's counsel it can be culled out that, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that petitioner started her saree business in the year 2001 and she did not have enough income to purchase Ex.P.5 and 6 properties. Respondent No.1 has contended that, the said properties were purchased out of the respondent No.1's funds and registered in the name of the petitioner. In this regard in the cross examination dated 14.12.2020 of the petitioner it is elicited that, she was depositing her income from her saree business, Tupperware business and money received from Bajaj Allianz to her Canara Bank account. She has stated that, she does not remember when she opened her Canara Bank account. Ex.P.30 is the Canara bank account pass book of the petitioner. She has admitted that, as per Ex.P.30 her account was opened on 01.09.2001. She has denied the suggestion that, she has not opened any bank account in 1990 since she did not have in independent income. She has stated that, she used to get profit of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- from her Tupperware business and she used to get commission of 16 Crl.Misc.98/2016 Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- from Bajaj Allianz which used to be credited to her bank account. She has stated that, she has started her business in 1991 after the birth of her 1st child. She has stated that, she has started saree business by pledging her gold chain and taking a loan of Rs.5,000/- from her mother. She has stated that, she does not remember the amount invested by her for the business. She has admitted that, she has not produced any document apart from Ex.P.13 to show that she was running saree business. She has denied the suggestion that, Ex.P.13 is created by her for the purpose of this case.
18. Perusal of Ex.P.30 Canara Bank account statement of the petitioner shows that she has received various amounts on various dates into her account and respondent No.1 and her son Y.S. Harish have withdrawn various amounts from her account. The said account is starting from 01.09.2001. Ex.P.5 and 6 properties were purchased in the year 2007 and 2003 respectively. Hence, Ex.P.30 proves that petitioner had the financial capacity to purchase the said properties. Further respondent No.1 himself has produced Ex.R.19 which is judgment passed in CC No.44247/2010 by Hon'ble 23 rd ACMM, Bangalore in a case between the petitioner and 17 Crl.Misc.98/2016 the one T.V. Shiva. The said case was filed U/Sec.138 of N.I. Act by the petitioner alleging that she had given loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused in the said case in December 2007. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Court has observed the petitioner was financially sound to give a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused therein. Hence, even Ex.R.19 proves that the petitioner had enough income to purchase Ex.P.5 and 6 properties. Further Ex.P.36 and 37 which are the bank account statements of the petitioner of Canara Bank and Bank of India from January 2001 to December 2011 also shows that, petitioner had constant in flow of income from various sources which probabalizes that she was running business and she had sufficient income. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that, he had purchased Ex.P.5 and 6 properties from his income in the name of the petitioner is not proved.
19. Here it is pertinent to note that, currently respondent No.1 along with his son is residing in Ex.P.5 property and Ex.P.6 property is adjacent to Ex.P.5 property and has a sheet house. This Court by order dated 10.03.2020 directed the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner to stay in the house property bearing No.483, 4th Cross, 2nd Main road, Attur Layout, 18 Crl.Misc.98/2016 Yelahanka, Bangalore. Respondent No.1 filed memo and matter was posted for objection and hearing on memo later another application was filed U/Sec.31 of PWDV Act and this Court by order dated 13.07.2020 rejected the said application on a conditional order that the same will be taken into consideration after diminishing of Covid-19 pandemic. Later respondent No.1 has filed for modification of the said order in view of his daughter's marriage and same was allowed. Even after conclusion of his daughter's marriage respondent No.1 did not provide residence to the petitioner in the said property and neither did he provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner is currently residing in a Ashram. Even after taking several adjournments for compliance of the said order respondent No.1 has not provided suitable alternate accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.35 photographs and CD containing video of the incident that took place on 12.03.2020 in the above mentioned address where respondent No.1 is residing. The counsel of the petitioner has submitted her certificate U/Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act since the said incident was recorded on her mobile phone. It is submitted by the petitioner that, respondent No.1 has locked the door and gate and did not allow her inside the 19 Crl.Misc.98/2016 house in spite of residence order passed by this Court. In this regard she has submitted photographs marked as Ex.P.33.
20. Respondent No.1 has been cross examined with respect to the said incident and he has denied violating the Court order. He has stated that, his mother was suffering from cancer at that time and hence he informed the petitioner to execute the order of the Court after 2 days but she has not come forward. He has admitted that, he was called to the police station on 10.03.2020 with respect to the execution of the Court order. He has submitted that, he has informed the police that he requires 2 days to comply with the Court order. He has admitted that, Ex.P.33/photographs were taken when the petitioner approached the house No.483, 4th Cross, 2nd Main road, Attur Layout, Yelahanka, Bangalore for compliance of the order of the Court dated 10.03.2020. He has admitted that, the gate of the said house was locked on that day. To the question that, respondent No.1 could have sent his son or daughter to open the lock respondent No.1 has stated that petitioner came with 10 people hence he did not send his children to open the gate. To the suggestion that, he could have filed a police complaint if the 20 Crl.Misc.98/2016 petitioner had come to his house with 10 people to execute order dated 10.03.2020, he has stated that, he went to the police station to lodge a complaint but police have not taken the complaint. He has stated that, petitioner, her advocate, 4 to 5 persons came along with her to enter the house and they left the house by themselves. He has stated that, petitioner insisted that 4 to 5 women from her Ashram would reside with her and when respondent No.1 refused for the same and told her that only she is allowed to stay as per the order of the Court she has gone back. He has admitted that, he is deposing about this for the first time. He has stated that, he has no objection to execute order dated 10.03.2020 even now.
21. In cross examination dated 04.03.2024 when respondent No.1 is asked if he is willing to give the house key to the petitioner he has refused and said it is unnecessary to give her the house key. He has stated that, he is ready to give house key of house No.435 and not of house No.483. He has admitted that, house No.483 where he is residing is a duplex house and house No.435 is a sheet house. Therefore, from the entire evidence especially photographs/Ex.P.33 and 36 and the answers given by respondent No.1 in the cross 21 Crl.Misc.98/2016 examination it is clear that respondent No.1 was unwilling to comply with order dated 10.03.2020 and allow the petitioner to reside in house No.483. He has specifically stated that, he is willing to give house key of house No.483 which is a sheet house and not a house No.435. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 has refused to allow her to reside in her own house. This conduct of the respondent No.1 definitely amounts to domestic violence.
22. To prove that petitioner was assaulted by respondent No.1 to 3 on 27.06.2014 petitioner has submitted Ex.P.7. Perusal of Ex.P.7 reveals that, petitioner has obtained treatment on 26.12.2014 with respect to an alleged assault. According to the petitioner the alleged incident of respondent No.1 to 3 assaulting her occurred on 27.06.2014 whereas Ex.P.7 pertaining to the incident that allegedly occurred on 26.12.2014. Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence before the Court with respect to the incident that allegedly occurred on 27.06.2014. Hence, petitioner has not proved the same. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, respondent No.1 with the instigation and support of respondent No.2 and 3 were forcing her to transfer Ex.P.5 and 6 property to the name of respondent No.1. The role of respondent 22 Crl.Misc.98/2016 No.2 and 3 is not proved by the petitioner. However, the conduct of respondent No.1 in ousting the petitioner from her own house and not allowing her to enter into her house in spite of Court order and claiming that he is the owner of the properties before this Court itself proves that he is forcing the petitioner to transfer Ex.P.5 and 6 properties in to his name.
23. It is alleged by the petitioner that, on 17.03.2017 she visited house No.483, 4 th cross, 2nd Main, Attur Layout, Yelahanka New Town along with her advocate and adviser of Sumangali Seva ashram Smt.Parvathi but respondent No.1 has not allowed her to enter the room in which all her property documents were kept and told her to secure an order from the Court to access her documents from the house. She has submitted photographs and CD containing video with respect to the said incident. She has also submitted complaint given by her to Yelahanka Upanagara police station on 17.03.2017 marked as Ex.P.25 and acknowledgment issued by the police in NCR No.68/2017 marked as Ex.P.26. In the said acknowledgment it is stated that, petitioner was not allowed to enter her house by the respondent No.1.
23Crl.Misc.98/2016
24. Respondent No.1 has denied these allegations. But he has not produced any evidence contrary to the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is successful in proving incident dated 17.03.2017. Therefore, from the conduct of the respondent No.1 it is proved that, he is unwilling to let the petitioner reside in the shared household. U/Sec.17 of PWDV Act the petitioner has a right to reside in the shared household. Moreover, in this case the shared household is the absolute property of the petitioner. The right of residence granted U/Sec.17 of PWDV Act can be enforced U/Sec.19 of PWDV Act. This Court by order dated 10.03.2020 directed the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner to reside in the shared household. As already discussed respondent No.1 has refused to comply with the said order and not allowed the petitioner to reside in shared household. Sec.3(iv)(c) of PWDV Act states that, economic abuse includes prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of domestic relationship including access to shared household. Therefore, the respondent No.1 by not allowing the petitioner to enter the shared household has committed economic abuse which amounts to domestic violence.
24Crl.Misc.98/2016
25. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, respondent No.1 was not taking up any responsibility of the house and the petitioner was shouldering all the responsibility and further respondent No.1 and her son would harass her for money and they were continuously taking money from her bank account. In this regard petitioner has submitted Ex.P.30 her Canara bank account statement, Ex.P.36 and 37 her Bank of India and Canara bank account statement. Perusal of these documents reveal that, respondent No.1 and petitioner's son Y.S. Harish have received various amounts from the petitioner by way of cheque continuously. In the cross examination respondent No.1 has admitted that, as per Ex.P.36 he has received Rs.35,000/- from the petitioner on 31.01.2006, Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner on 20.04.2006, Rs.8,000/- from the petitioner on 10.06.2006. He has explained these credits from the petitioner's account by stating that the petitioner would not personally visit her bank hence she would give him or his son cheques to withdraw money on her behalf. However, if that was the case petitioner could have written self cheques and withdrawn the amount. Further Ex.P.36 reveals that, the petitioner has on various occasions deposited cash in to her account which means to say that she is perfectly able to visit the bank and 25 Crl.Misc.98/2016 conduct all the necessary transactions. Respondent in his cross examination has stated that, himself and his son have actually deposited the cash and the banking rules at that time did not mention the name of the deposition of cash. However, he has not produced any banking rule to support his statement. Hence, the only inference that can be drawn statement. Hence, the only inference that can be drawn is that petitioner herself deposited the cash. Therefore, Ex.P.30, 36 and 37 prove that respondent No.1 and his son have taken various amounts from the petitioner continuously. Although, there is not direct evidence before the Court to show that respondent No.1 has harassed the petitioner and forced her to give him money, the fact that respondent No.1 has never credited even a single rupee to the bank account of the petitioner during their marital life but taken heavy amounts from her continuously itself probabalizes the contention of the petitioner. Further the contention of the respondent No.1 sans proof that Ex.P.5 and 6 property were purchased by him. His unsubstantiated contention that, depositors mentioned in Ex.P.30 are his friends and they owed him money go to show that respondent No.1 was harassing the petitioner for her money and he has an eye on her property. Here it is pertinent to note that, petitioner has contended that, she 26 Crl.Misc.98/2016 is unable to pay the property tax for Ex.P.5 and 6 properties and respondent No.1 in his cross examination has contended that, he has been paying property tax from 2014. But he has not produced any documents in this regard. This also indicates that respondent No.1 is not willing to take up any responsibility regarding the petitioner or the property but he wants to enjoy the property and deprive the petitioner of her legitimate rights to enjoy and reside in her own property.
26. It is the main contention of the respondent No.1 that, petitioner and one Mohan Krishna started having a relationship outside the marriage in 2016 and whenever he questioned the petitioner she told him that they were talking as friends. He has alleged that, petitioner left the house along with Mohan Krishna to Tirupati by taking the property documents and her jewels. He has alleged that, when he found out that petitioner and the said Mohan Krishna were staying in a hotel in Tirupati he went there along with his son and found out the petitioner and said Mohan Krishna were together and they have taken one single room and they were residing in the said room. He has alleged that, he went to the police station and petitioner and said Mohan Krishna also came to the police station. Further the 27 Crl.Misc.98/2016 police asked him to lodge a complaint at Bangalore. Hence, he lodged a complaint on 14.04.2016 at Yelahanka Upanagara police station.
27. Respondent No.1 has further stated that, petitioner's parents directed her to lead a life with him and the children but she refused and she has voluntarily deserted him and his children and she is leading a adulterous life. He has further submitted that, he has got his son to study B.E. and he has got married his son and daughter. He has further stated that, petitioner's parents have performed his son's and daughter's marriage as the petitioner refused to even attend the marriage ceremony. In support of his contentions he has produced photographs of the petitioner and the said Mohan Krishna at Tirupati as Ex.R.6 to 9. He has also produced his complaint dated 14.04.2016 lodged against Mohan Krishna before Yalahanka Upanagara police station marked as Ex.R.12, statement of the petitioner given before Yalahanka Upanagara police station marked as Ex.R.13, acknowledgment issued by the police to the petitioner on 14.04.2016. He has also produced photographs of his sons and daughters marriage marked as Ex.R.14. Respondent No.1 has examined his son 28 Crl.Misc.98/2016 Harish Y.S. as R.W.2 in support of his contentions. R.W.2 in his evidence affidavit has stated that;
"when this was the situation all the problems started when the petitioner without giving any information and also with out telling anyone in the family, she went to Tirupati in the month of April 2016, but when she was leaving the house my mother informed me in the morning that she was going to Mysore with neighbour and told that she will be returning back on the next day. I state that when respondent noticed on the next day and was shocked to notice that all the gold jewels and property paper were missing from the house, immediately my father called my mother mobile number but my mother didn't pick the call. I state that after detail enquiry it was found that the petitioner was in Tirupati with a person named Mohan Krishna. I was shocked to hear the same and immediately called my mother. After trying several time, she picked my call and admitted that she was in Tirupati with a person named Mohan Krishna.29
Crl.Misc.98/2016 I further state that she also admitted that, police were coming to take her to the police station with the help of hotel management staff. Soon I left to Tirupati along with my sister and my mother's sister. I further state that my mother refused to come to Bangalore with us and told that she will come by herself to Bangalore on the same day. Later, I tried to reach her phone several times but it was switched off and she did not return to home.
I state that next day my father went to
the Yelahanka police station to file a
complaint against her mother. But the
petitioner didn't turn back and stayed away from me and my sister. I stated that after some time my father received the summons from this Hon'ble Court. I further sate that my mother has not returned home since 2016 and when the elders of the family tried to convince her, my mother flatly refused. She has deserted her family and is leading the life, apart from the incident which happened in Tirupati my mother did not 30 Crl.Misc.98/2016 turn back nor she made any attempt to join the family and refused voluntarily to stay with family where in leaving the children alone".
28. R.W.2 has further stated that, petitioner has refused to perform the rituals in his marriage and his sisters marriage ceremony in spite of him inviting her. He has stated that, his grand parents, his mother's sisters and their husbands performed his marriage and his sister's marriage ceremony. He has stated that, several times his father and himself have requested the petitioner to attend the marriage ceremony but the petitioner has refused.
29. The petitioner has denied these allegations and she stated that, respondent No.1 is of suspicious character and he has portrayed her as a characterless person in front of the children and they have joined hands with respondent No.1 to compel her to transfer all the properties in the name of respondent No.1. She has stated that, on advice of family astrologer she had been to Tirupati to perform certain rituals during that time respondent No.1 along with other respondents and unruly elements of vicinity came to Tirupati and created 31 Crl.Misc.98/2016 big nuisance. She has stated that, respondent No.1 to 3 have threatened her with life threat if she does not transfer all her assets in the name of respondent No.1. She has stated that, respondent No.1 even filed a false complaint before the police and ever since then he has locked all the cupboards, retained all her belongings and articles. She has stated that, after coming back from Tirupati, respondent No.1 and the children went on humiliating her and she was forced to walk out of the house and reside at Sumangali Seva Ashrama. Petitioner in support of her contention has submitted her attendance register maintained in Sumangali Sevashram as Ex.P.2.
30. Petitioner has been cross examined and it is elicited from her that, she went to Tirupati on 12.04.2016 alone for well being of her family. She has denied the suggestion that, she was with Mohan Krishna at Tirupati ITC Fortune Hotel on 12.04.2016. She has stated that, she has not stayed at any Hotel and she traveled entire night. She has stated that, respondent No.1 came near the Kalyani in Tirupati where she was taking a holy dip and forced her to transfer the property to him and sign documents and when she refused respondent No.1 lodged a false complaint against her. She has admitted 32 Crl.Misc.98/2016 that, she made an attempt to give complaint against respondent No.1 before 07.03.2017 but police did not receive the complaint. She has stated that, respondent No.1 forced her to perform all the poojas. She has denied the suggestion that, due to Mohan Krishna, her sisters have abandoned her. She has denied the suggestion that, she has not approached her parents for mediation and advice since she committed a mistake.
31. Respondent No.1 in his cross examination has admitted that, he got acquainted with Mohan Krishna though his friend in 2012. He has admitted that, Mohan Krishna is an astrologer. He has admitted that, he used to talk to Mohan Krishna over the phone once in 6 month. He has admitted that, he has never sent the petitioner alone with Mohan Krishna. Respondent No.1 in his cross examination is questioned as to when he got to know that petitioner had gone to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna, he has answered that he has heard the petitioner discuss her travel plan to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna. In the cross examination when he is questioned about the reason for not stopping the petitioner from going to Tirupati he has answered that he was not in talking terms with the petitioner at that time. Hence, he has not stopped her from going to Tirupati.
33Crl.Misc.98/2016 He has stated that, he has not spoken to the petitioner since 2014. He has admitted that, he did not have any impediment to lodge a complaint against the petitioner as soon as he got to know about her leaving to Tirupati along with Mohan Krishna. Further it is elicited in the cross examination dated 04.03.2024 of respondent No.1 that "ನೀವು ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡದೆ ಇದ್ದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರು ತಿರುಪತಿಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ವಿಷಯ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಯದೆ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಅವರನ್ನು ಏತಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ತಿರುಪತಿಗೆ ಹುಡುಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ಆದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ನಾನು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ". He has admitted that, he went to Tirupati along 2 of his friends. He has stated that, on reaching Tirupati he immediately went to Fortune Kenses lodge and met the Manager. He has admitted that, there are CCTV cameras in the said hotel. He has stated that, he met the petitioner for the first time in the said lodge. He has admitted that, there was no impediment for him to take photographs of the petitioner and Mohan Krishna at the lodge. He has admitted that, Ex.R.6 to 11 photographs were taken in a Tirupati police station. He has stated that, he does not know the persons present along with Mohan Krishna and petitioner in Ex.R.10. He has denied the suggestion that, those persons in Ex.R.10 had also gone along with Mohan Krishna for performing pooja at Tirupati. R.W.2 34 Crl.Misc.98/2016 in his cross examination has stated that, petitioner had told him that she would be going to Mysore and she instead went to Tirupati one day prior to when she was supposed to leave. He has stated that, his father informed him at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. that his mother has left to Tirupati. He has admitted that, he knew his mother was not in the house on the previous day itself at 9.00 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that, he has not invited the petitioner to his marriage. He has denied receiving Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner on 21.10.2010 as per Ex.P.30. He has denied the suggestion that, he was leading a wayward life and he was harassing the petitioner for money. He has admitted that, Mohan Krishna is an astrologer and he has visited their house 3 times and petitioner was seeking his astrology advice. He has further stated that, he has called the petitioner 17 times on the day she went to Tirupati and he went along with his maternal aunt and sister at 2.30 p.m. to Tirupati.
32. This Court has perused Ex.R.6 to 11 photographs taken at Tirupati police station. Petitioner is not denying the entire incident that took place at Tirupati. It is her contention that, she does not have any relationship outside marriage with Mohan Krishna 35 Crl.Misc.98/2016 and she had been to Tirupati along with other persons to perform pooja. From the cross examination of the respondent No.1 it is very clear that, he was very much aware of the petitioner going to Tirupati along with Mohan Krishna on 12.04.2016. In spite of the same instead of stopping her he has gone to Tirupati along with his friends and intercepted the petitioner and caught her off-guard and created a scene by alleging that she has come to Tirupati along with her paramour. When respondent No.1 was very much aware that petitioner had plan to go to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna he could have stopped her or he could have even filed a complaint before going to Tirupati. But respondent No.1 has not chosen any of these courses of action but he has waited for the petitioner to go to Tirupati and then he has lodged a complaint. The very fact that, respondent No.1 over heard the conversation between the petitioner and Mohan Krishna where they planned to go to Tirupati shows that the said plan was not made secretly or clandestinely. Here it is pertinent to note that, R.W.2 in his cross examination has given a completely different version regarding the incident that occurred on 12.04.2016 by stating that, petitioner had informed him that she would be going to Mysore and she left to Tirupati. Respondent No.1 has nowhere stated that, 36 Crl.Misc.98/2016 petitioner had told that she would be going to Mysore. Respondent No.1 in his statement of objection has stated that, he went to Tirupati with his son i.e., R.W.2. But R.W.2 has given an unbelievable version that he got to know on 12.04.2016 in the evening that his mother was not in the house but he received a call from respondent No.1 on the next day morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. that his mother had gone to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna. R.W.2 went to Tirupati along with his maternal aunt and sister. Whereas, it is the evidence of respondent No.1 that he knew petitioner was going to Tirupati on 11.04.2016 itself and he went along with his son on 12.04.2016 to Tirupati. Therefore, there is no consistency between the evidence of respondent No.1 and R.W.2. This probabalizes the contention of the petitioner that, respondent No.1 has made false allegations against her. It is after this incident the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and take shelter at Sumangali Ashram. Respondent No.1 has denied that, petitioner is residing in the Ashram and contended that, she is residing with her paramour. Petitioner to prove that she is residing in the Ashram has produced attendance register of the ashram and certificate from the ashram as Ex.P.2 and 3. Counsel for the respondent No.1 has contended that, petitioner has created Ex.P.3 37 Crl.Misc.98/2016 by including her name in the register as the attendance register is filed till 01.10.2020 whereas her evidence affidavit is filed on 16.12.2016 and Ex.P.3 is filed on 05.09.2018. Perusal of Ex.P.3 reveals the last date of attendance is on 01.08.2017 and Ex.P.3 was produced before the Court on 17.05.2018. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.1 that Ex.P.3 is created document is not proved. R.W.2 has admitted that, petitioner is residing in the Ashram. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner due to the suspicious attitude of respondent No.1 and because respondent No.1 lodged false complaint against her she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house and take shelter in a Ashram. Whereas, respondent No.1 on the other hand has been residing in the shared household which is the absolute property of the petitioner and he has refused to allow the petitioner to enter the shared household.
33. Further, even if the contention of the respondent No.1 is accepted the said contention holds good when the petition is filed under Sec.125 of Cr.PC. The Subsection 4 of Sec.125 bars women who is living in adultery from claiming maintenance. The instant petition is filed under domestic violence Act and in the entire scheme of the Act there is no such bar. Even for 38 Crl.Misc.98/2016 argument sake the said contention was taken into consideration the respondent has filed complaint before police and concerned police has not initiated any case against the offender. This shows the respondent has not made out a prima-facie case. Currently the Honble Apex Court has held that adultery is not a criminal offence. Which means no criminal complaint can be lodged against the adulterer it can be used only as a ground for divorce and defence in Civil case.
34. The superior Courts has expressed opinions about adultery and whether it acts as a bar to claim maintenance has been discussed by the several High Courts of the country. What amounts to adultery is discussed in (Ramsaran v. Soman Wati)1964 (1) Cri. L.J. 483 (Punj). The said observation which are found at page 486 read thus:
"Living in adultery‟ is living together as husband and wife and exercising sexual rights and duties implied by such relation when legally created. Proof of occasional acts of illicit intercourse may fall short of what in intended by the expression "living in adultery". It suggests a man and the wife of another 39 Crl.Misc.98/2016 living continually as husband and wife. An adulterous intercourse is a condition contemplating repetition of extra marital relationship when opportunity offers itself. It is a condition of cohabitation in contradistinction to occasional acts. The wife forfeits her right to be maintained on proof of repeated adulterous meetings."
35. The question whether a single meeting amounts to adultery is discussed the the case of Ashok v. Anita, 2011 SCC OnLine MP 2249, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh interpreting the said provision and observed as reproduced:-
"8. A perusal of the provisions of section 125(4) of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that a stray act of adultery on the part of the wife does not amount to adultery within the meaning of section 125(4) and further does not disentitle the wife to maintenance., The expression "living in adultery" connotes a course of 40 Crl.Misc.98/2016 adulterous conduct more or less continuous and not occasional.
36. As per the interpretation of various High Courts it is settled law that "living in adultery" applies to a continuous adulterous conduct and not a single or occasional lapse from virtue. Solitary Act of adultery or isolated lapse of wife will not disentitle her from claiming maintenance. If that aspect is taken into consideration even adultery is considered as a bar the contention of the respondent is not tenable because respondent No.1 has failed to establish continuous acts and he is relying on one incident as discussed above i.e., Tirupathi incident as discussed above. Further the said single incident is taken into consideration it will not bar the wife from claiming maintenance. Furthermore, as discussed above the said incident is not proved by respondent No.1.
37. Respondent No.1 has contended that, petitioner has deserted him and his children and she has not performed marriage ceremony of her children even though himself and his children requested her. In the cross examination of the petitioner on 17.05.2023 it is elicited that, she does not know the name of the college where her daughter is studying. She has admitted that, 41 Crl.Misc.98/2016 she has not taken care of her children, their future and education after 2016. She has admitted that, respondent No.1 has paid their educational expenses after 2016. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner has not attended the marriage ceremony of her children and marriage was conducted by petitioner's parents and her sisters. It is the contention of respondent No.1 that, because petitioner has committed a mistake she has not taken part in the marriage ceremony of the children. He has further contended that, he has invited the petitioner but she refused to attend the marriage.
38. Per contra, petitioner has contended that, respondent No.1 and her children have never invited her to the marriage ceremony and respondent No.1 has instigated her children against her and he has portrayed her as a characterless person to the children.
39. From the evidence on record especially from the fact that, petitioner and respondent No.1's son Y.S. Harish examined himself as R.W.2 and given a completely different version from that of respondent No.1 goes to show that respondent No.1 has portrayed falsely about the petitioner to his children. This fact also 42 Crl.Misc.98/2016 probabalizes the reason for petitioner not attending the marriage ceremony of her children.
40. Petitioner has also filed petition against respondent No.2 and 3. However, respondent No.2 and 3 never resided along with the petitioner in the shared household and they do not have any domestic relationship with the petitioner as defined U/Sec.2(f) of PWDV Act. As already discussed petitioner is unable to prove about the involvement of respondent No.2 and 3 in the alleged incident dated 27.06.2014. Hence, petitioner has not proved that respondent No.2 and 3 have subjected her to domestic violence. Hence, petition against respondent No.2 and 3 is dismissed.
41. From over all scrutiny of evidence on record petitioner is able to probabalize that respondent No.1 has subjected her to domestic violence. Hence, point No.1 answered partly in the affirmative.
42. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself and she has sought for direction to the respondent No.1 to provide alternate accommodation to her. Both the parties to the petition have filed assets and liability 43 Crl.Misc.98/2016 statement. Respondent No.1 is working as Senior Technician in Rail Wheel Factory, Yalahanka and he is getting gross salary of Rs.1,19,107/- and he is getting take home salary of Rs.60,593/- and he has contended that he has the monthly expenditure of Rs.55,000/- per month and contended that out of Rs.1,19,107/- he has a total deduction of Rs.58,514/- and amount deducted towards VPF is Rs.30,000/ and income tax is Rs.23,154/-. The Court while awarding maintenance has to take into consideration the gross income of the party because usually the parties will borrow loans in order to avoid payment of maintenance to the petitioner. In the instant case the major portion of deduction is towards VPF and income tax. Income tax is usually deducted in the month of January and February. The pay slip furnished by the respondent No.1 is with regard to January 2023 hence the deduction will normally be more. As far as other loan transaction is concerned no document is placed before the Court.
43. The respondent in his assets and liability affidavit has stated that, his mother is dependent on him. However, during the trial his mother has passed away and both the children have attained majority. In the cross examination of respondent No.1 it is elicited that, 44 Crl.Misc.98/2016 he has no dependents on him. He has further admitted that, he has no impediment to provide maintenance to the petitioner. He has further admitted that, he has rental income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month from his parents house. Respondent No.1 has not disclosed regarding the said rental income in his assets and liability affidavit.
44. Per contra the petitioner contended that her income is nil and she has an expenditure to the tune of Rs.90,000/- per month. In her cross examination she has stated that her food and shelter is taken care by the Ashram but she has to work in the Ashram.
45. It is proved from the evidence on record that respondent No.1 had salary of Rs.1,19,107/- and he also has rental income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Respondent No.1 has stated that, he has expenditure of Rs.55,000/- per month. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is residing in the house belonging to the petitioner hence, he is not paying any rent. Further it is proved that, he has no dependents on him. Therefore, it is not clear the reason for respondent No.1 requiring Rs.55,000/- per month for his own expenses. Respondent No.1 has not provided a break up of his expenses and he has also not 45 Crl.Misc.98/2016 provided any documents to prove his expenses. Under such circumstances it is proved that, respondent No.1 has exaggerated his expenses. On the other hand even the petitioner has claimed expenses of Rs.90,000/- per month. She has not given a break up of her expenses or document supporting her expenses. Therefore, it appears that she has exaggerated her expenses as well.
46. Respondent No.1 has contended that, petitioner has capacity to maintain herself. Hence, he need not maintain her. Although from the discussion made in point No.1 it is apparent that, petitioner was running a saree business and Tupperware business and also getting income as a insurance agent from Bajaj Allianz between 1991 to 2017 there is no evidence before the Court that, she is earning after 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shylaja V/s Khobanna has held that, there is difference between capability of earning and actually earning and has held that merely because the wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded to the wife. Further, in the cross examination respondent No.1 himself has admitted that, he has no impediment to provide maintenance to the petitioner and he has also admitted that, he has no other dependents on him apart from the 46 Crl.Misc.98/2016 petitioner. It is an accepted principal of law the husband has the obligation to maintain his wife. Hence, petitioner is entitled for maintenance.
47. Currently, respondent No.1 is about 53 years old and as already discussed he has sufficient income to maintain the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.1 cannot escape his liability to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
48. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 held that "the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, 47 Crl.Misc.98/2016 it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds. In this case respondent No.1 has not made out any such legally permissible grounds.
49. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajanesh V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, 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 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.
48Crl.Misc.98/2016 Considering all the above factors petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and rent of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent No.1 for her alternate accommodation.
50. The petitioner has sought protection order. But petitioner and respondent No.1 are not living under the same roof and there is no evidence before this Court to show that the respondent No.1 has disturbed the petitioner after separation. Hence, it is not necessary to grant protection order.
51. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent to pay compensation and damages of Rs.20,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture suffered at the hands of the respondent No.1. 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 violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in point No.1 it is proved that the respondent No.1 has subjected the petitioner to domestic violence and she has incurred litigation expenses as well. Hence, U/Sec.22 49 Crl.Misc.98/2016 of PWDV Act, she is entitled for compensation. Hence, respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation. Hence, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
52. Point No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby allowed in part.
Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month towards maintenance and Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) per month towards rent to the petitioner from the date of petition till her life time or till she gets re-married whichever is earlier.
50Crl.Misc.98/2016 Further, respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation within 3 months from 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 21st day of February 2025).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW.1 : T. Cauvery DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Invitation card
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Sumangala Seva Ashrama letter
dated 24.08.2017 & attendance
register
Ex.P.4 : Complaint dated 17.03.2017 NCR
68/2017
51
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Ex.P.5-6 Sale deed
Ex.P.7 : OPD bill
Ex.P.8 : IT returns
Ex.P.9 : Voter ID
Ex.P.10 : CD
Ex.P.11 & 12 : RTI Document and information
Ex.P.13 : Saree business Bills 4
Ex.P.14 : Site No.483 E.C.
Ex.P.15 : Lease agreement
Ex.P.16 :
Ex.P.17 & 18 : BBMP document
Ex.P.19 : Water connection report
Ex.P.20 : Rental agreement
Ex.P.21 : Tax receipt
Ex.P.22 : RTI document acknowledgment
Ex.P.23 : Ladies club ID card
Ex.P.24 : Copy of complaint dated 14.04.2016
Ex.P.25 : Copy of complaint dated 17.03.2017
Ex.P.26 to 28 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.29 to 31 3 CD
Ex.P.32 2 Marriage photo
Ex.P.33 Photos along with certificate
U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.34 Planet Cyber cafe bill
Ex.P.35 6 Photos
Ex.P.36-37 Bank of India and Canara bank
account statement
Ex.P.38 & 39 Property tax receipt
Ex.P.40 Railway services conduct rules
Ex.P.41 & 42 Gold bills
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 K.G. Shivakumarswamy
RW.2 Harish Y.S.
52
Crl.Misc.98/2016
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 : Attendance register
Ex.R.2 to 11 : Photos
Ex.R.12 : Complaint dated 14.04.2016
Ex.R.13 : Statement of petitioner
Ex.R.14 : Marriage invitation card
Ex.R.15 to 17 : 3 Photos and CD
Ex.R.18 : Bank statement
Ex.R.19 : Certified copy of Judgment in CC
No.44247/2010
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.