Bangalore District Court
Authored Sikkim India vs Who Was In His Official Capacity As ... on 30 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT-II, BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M. Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015.
CRL. MISC. No. 139/2015
Aggrieved Smt. Neelam Manmohan W/o Manmohan
Persons/petitioners: Attavar, aged; 58 yrs, R/at. Park, opp. to
residence No. 38/1, 30th Cross, 3rd Main,
7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-82.
(Party in person)
V/s
Respondents: Manmohan Attavar S/o Mutthappa
Attavar, aged; 80 yrs, R/at. No. 38/1, 30th
Cross, 3rd Main, 7th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-82.
Represented by: Sri. SS & AKS, Adv
ORDER
This is a Petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 praying this court to pass protection order, residence order, monetary relief of Rs. 1 crore (directing the respondent to pay loss towards physical 2 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 and mental injury), monetary relief of Rs. 1.50 lakhs per month (towards food, clothes, medication, household expenses and other basic necessities) and compensation of Rs. 5 crores and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is a post graduate in Botany with research in stress physiology and trained in media studies at the Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan and the Indian Institute of Mass Communication and is the recipient of National Award for ICAR NOW AND AHEAD in 1996. That the petitioner was on the International Editorial Advisory Boards till 1996. That, in the year 2008, the petitioner authored Sikkim India, Sanctuary to Horticulture Estate for the Govt. of Sikkim. That the respondent is Founder Chairman of Indo-American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt., Ltd., and 'Padmashree' award recipient from the Govt. of India in 1998.
3. The petitioner further submits that the she has got acquainted with the respondent during her official life in the year 1986 while she was working for ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) at New Delhi. That the respondent who was in his official capacity as Founder 3 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Chairman of Indo-American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt., Ltd., comes in to regular touch with the petitioner. That their acquaintance gradually developed into strong personal bond between the parties as the parties had spent time together publically, weekly visits petitioner's working place, residence and frequent calls and exchange of letters between them. That the petitioner had been introduced among friends' circles and parties as the respondent's partner. That, the petitioner who was going through a bad marital relationship coupled with divorce proceedings with her husband in 1993 was very well taken back by the care and love of the respondent. That, the respondent had offered and had given all support to the petitioner to come out of her bad marital life. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent was in cloud nine during these days and was very well waiting for the divorce proceeding to get over. It has been promised by the respondent that the petitioner would be announced as his wife, publically through marriage after the legal hurdles got over. That the relationship of almost 10 yrs between the parties had reached to such an extent that in the year 1998 the respondent and the petitioner had after some rituals like applying of KUMKUM etc., started visiting the petitioner regularly and living together as husband and wife 4 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 at No. 242, Pitampura Apartments, Pritampura, New Delhi and No. 6A/46, 3rd Main road, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru. That the joy of both the parties knew no bounds and they enjoyed their life to the maximum. Both the parties lived like husband and wife, consummated their marriage, moved in the community as husband and wife, the petitioner had been taken to many of respondent's friends houses and had introduced her as his wife. That in the mean time the respondent had gained the trust and confidence of the petitioner.
4. That, when such being the things the respondent who was always having a voice over the petitioner compelled her to resign her job at ICAR at Delhi and to live with the respondent at Bengaluru. That the petitioner was not ready to take such a drastic step in her career life as she was advancing in her career ladder and does not want to put an end to that. Unfortunately, the respondent as usual by his magical approach convinced the petitioner that he loves her so much that he want and to spend his entire life with her and don't want to waste not even a single day without her and ultimately the petitioner had resigned her prosperous job and started living with the respondent at Bengaluru. That during these days, that the petitioner to her utter shock realized that the respondent is 5 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 already married to one Mrs. Mamtha and that he had two children from the said marriage. On being confronted the respondent had promised the petitioner to marry her after the divorce proceedings with his legal wife as he was not at all happy in that marriage and that the petitioner will be given social status. Though, not happy with this contention the petitioner had to suffer in silence because of her love for the respondent. That, the petitioner and the respondent had been a part of all social functions. That, the petitioner and the respondent attended all this occasions as a couple and was treated the same by friends and society. But, the respondent who came to know that the petitioner is aware of his family life had started showing some different attitude, thereafter. The respondent, who had forced the petitioner to resign her job at Delhi, forced the petitioner to live a lonely life with lots of difficulties. That the respondent started to avoid the petitioner on one or other pretext and had given lots of mental torture. That during all these period the respondent was showing different temperaments as once he will say that he will not leave her as he loves her so much and will marry her soon and later on he was saying that his family is most important for him and not the petitioner.
6 C.Misc. No. 139/20155. The petitioner further submits that she was depressed due to the activities of the respondent decided to end her life by consuming sleeping pills and was hospitalized at Mallige hospital on 16.1.2007. That due to timely intervention of doctors her life got saved. Later it is came to know that the respondent's legal wife passed away on 22.2.2010 and the respondent had informed the petitioner that he will be marrying her soon and that the children will never interfere in their matter. That, the respondent has called up from the mobile no. 9845955000. That, the petitioner was very sure that the respondent will marry her, but the respondent broke his promise yet again, without any rhyme or reason and the petitioner was forced to live on the streets literally. That the petitioner had made all efforts to get her rights, but failed. Thus the respondent with deceitful nature had made the petitioner's life like a hell, at first by concealing the fact that he is a married man and later by compelling her to resign her job and thereafter by his activities which all will amounts to Domestic Violence. All attempts of the petitioner to get the problems solved never found results due to the adamant attitude of the respondent.
6. That, both the petitioner and the respondent were living together as husband and wife since the year 1998 7 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 and they were represented to be so infront of the friends, family and society also for the past 15 yrs. When this being the state of affairs all of a sudden the respondent showed withdrawal symptoms by putting the petitioner in to untold mental agony, defamation and depression. The petitioner was always interested to lead happy life with the respondent and to join the matrimonial house during which time it came to her notice that the respondent had already decided to continue with his married life. That, the activities of the respondent amount to willful desertion, deceit, defamation and fraud. That the respondent had caused mental harm to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in relationship with the respondent the abuser and that they lived together in a shared household and are related through a relationship in the nature of marriage. That the omission or the desertion of the petitioner by the respondent abuser amounts to Domestic Violence.
7. That the respondent is founder and chairman and earning monthly income of much more than few crores by way of sales of seeds, plants, land and properties. The petitioner is not having any source of income to maintain herself. Now the respondent as a responsible partner has to maintain the petitioner and to provide shelter, food and clothing. The petitioner without any other alternative is 8 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 taking shelter with help of her friends and knowing people for her day to day life. The petitioner has all along been subjected to Domestic Violence in the form of mental and economic abuse by the respondent. Being a victim of Domestic Violence the petitioner has filed the said complaint due to all the above stated reasons. The petitioner has got neither money nor any kind of support and the petitioner is not having any source of income to maintain herself. By contending so, the petitioner prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice and equity.
8. On the other hand, the respondent put forth his appearance before this court through his counsel and filed objections to the main petition.
9. In the said objections, the respondent has over all denied the entire case of the petitioner and submitted that the petition is not maintainable both in law and on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. That the provisions of Domestic Violence Act is not at all applicable and the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act.
10. That, the petitioner and the respondent were never in matrimony and they never cohabited and question of disruption of cohabitation due to Domestic Violence will not arise. The petitioner is a clear abuser of judicial process 9 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 and solely intended to threaten respondent of frivolous litigation and defame and consequently make wrongful gains. The respondent is more then 80 yrs old conferred with 'Padmashree' award and even otherwise highly reputed and respected individual as admitted in the petition.
11. That, the qualification of the petitioner is of no consequences to this case. However, she is put to strict proof of her claims in the petition. The petitioner and the respondent never gained mutual acquaintance nor came in regular touch and did not spend time publicly or at office or at residence or by calls or by letters as claimed by the petitioner. The respondent was never in partnership with the petitioner nor was introduced as partnership with the petitioner nor was introduced as partner to friends or social circle. The petitioner was admittedly married as averred in the petition. Admittedly, the respondent was already married and his wife was alive and not divorced. They never had any relationship much less for ten years and vague claim that in 1998 some rituals like applying KUMKUM was undertaken. The respondent was never visiting the petitioner at Pitampura or Jayanagar address as claimed by her. Since, there was no cohabitation consummation will not arise. They never moved in his community or 10 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 introduced each other as husband and wife. There existed no trust or confidence between them. All contrary contentions are denied. She is put to strict proof of her claims in the petition.
12. The respondent further submits that he is not instrumental nor is aware as to reasons she allegedly quit her job at ICAR. The respondent is unaware of her residence and never insisted on any specific locations. The respondent is not a magician, nor promised cohabitation nor convinced her cohabitation. The respondent's marriage with Mamatha Attavar and their two children was known to one and all and claims of the petitioner that she later gained knowledge of these facts are figment of her imagination. The respondent had no occasion to discuss issues regarding his lawful marriage with Mamata with the petitioner nor assured to divorce and take the petitioner as his wife. He was happily married with loving family. The respondent never socialized with petitioner as alleged and question of subsequently avoiding is again based on imagination. All these are vague claims.
13. That the respondent had not promised to marry the petitioner after the death of his wife on 22.2.2010. The respondent individually does hold alleged phone number and further question of breaking promise of marriage or 11 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 forcing her to live on streets will not arise. It is reiterated that they never cohabited as husband and wife much less for 15 yrs. Hence, question of withdrawal does not arise. The allegation of Domestic Violence, defamation, fraud and deceit are unfounded and false. The respondent has not caused harm or injury to the petitioner.
14. That the respondent is not earning crores of rupees as alleged and petitioner is put to strict proof thereof. The petitioner herself claiming to be well trained and luminary in the field cannot contradict she has no source of income. The petitioner has not been subject to Domestic Violence and petition is intended to make unlawful gains. The respondent who is aged more than 80 yrs and is a highly reputed individual. He is carrying high reputation not only amongst the Indians, but he is recognized internationally, particularly for his contribution and achievements in the field of agricultural research. In recognization of his achievements the Govt. of India has conferred upon him the Padmashree Award. He is the founder of Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt., Ltd which has been instrumental in achieving various research and development in the field of agriculture. The petitioner had evinced interest to join Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt., Ltd and accordingly communicated her profile 12 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 along with a covering letter dtd: 14.12.1998. The same was considered by the company and she was informed by communication dtd: 14.1.1999 that there was no scope in the organization of her line of activity and was unable to accommodate her services in the company. Thereafter, she having recognized the standing of the respondent in the society and with intent to intimidate and exploit the respondent, the petitioner has engineered false claim that she is the wife of the respondent and accordingly submitted a grievance to the women and Child Development Department, Government of Karnataka. The petitioner was unable to substantiate her claim of marriage with the respondent and the same is affirmed by communication dtd: 26.3.2009 issued in response to the grievance submitted by the petitioner.
15. The respondent further submits that the petitioner once again in the year 2011, began her attempts to exploit the respondent and approached the Police Department claiming to be the wife of the respondent. The police authorities after verification of all her claims found that she was not the wife of the respondent. Having failed in establishing the false claim she proceeded with the alternative modus operandi to defame the respondent and in such process she utilized the services of certain local 13 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 newspaper to publish the false claim that she was the wife of the respondent though the same has been false to her knowledge and has been found to be false by various authorities as mentioned above. The petitioner has been making false claims that she is married to the respondent in 1998. Admittedly, the respondent was already married and his wife was surviving on such day. Hence, the question of petitioner marrying the respondent will not arise. The submission of profile in job application which is on 14.12.1998 clearly affirm that she is single even on the date of submission of the profile. In all her correspondence earlier including application for job, police complaint, grievance before the Government Department she consistently claimed to be Neelam.
16. That the contents of the petition are a clearly contradiction of the earlier claims. The petitioner never resided with the respondent nor had any relationship and the petition is intended to be an instrument to exploit the respondent on false claims. The petitioner cannot be an aggrieved person under the Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief as none of the ingredients are made out. No allegation is made regarding violence committed against the petitioner. There is no claim of shared household or apprehension of dispossession or alienation.
14 C.Misc. No. 139/2015No destruction or loss/injury is averred nor relationship established. The claim made in addition to being legally unsustainable is exaggerated and exposes true motive of the petition. By contending so, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity.
17. On basis of the above mentioned averments the following points do arise for my consideration:
1. Whether petitioner proves that she has married the respondent on 10.1.1998 and thereafter she is under the domestic relationship with the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner in the alternative proves that her relationship with the respondent falls under the purview of relationship in the nature of marriage?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that she has suffered any acts of Domestic Violence at the hands of the respondent?
4. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
5. What order?
18. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P. 1 to 93. The respondent 15 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 himself has been examined as RW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to R.9.
19. I have heard arguments on both sides. The counsel for the respondent furnished following statutory extracts and authorities.
1. Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
2. Sec. 4 & 5 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
3. Sec. 5 and 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
4. Sec. 4 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
5. Sec. 2,3,18, 19, 20, 22, 27 and 28 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005.
6. Sec. 65-A & B and Sec. 165 of Indian Evidence Act.
7. Intimation issued by Deputy Registrar, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
8. Manu/SC/0144/1989, in Civil Appeal no. 2-4 of 1975, dtd: 2.5.1989, between Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat I, Ahmedabad V/s M.A. Merchant, Accountable person of Late Shri. A.G. Merchant, Majirajwadi Road, Bhavnagar and ors
9. Manu/SC 3453/2008 in Civil Appeal No. 5183/2008 and Civil Appeal No. 5184/2008, decided on 21.8.2008 between J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd., V/s Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig and ors.
16 C.Misc. No. 139/201510. Manu/RH/0877/2009, in the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), decided on 7.1.2009, between Smt. Hema @ Hemlata and Anr V/s Jitendra and Anr.
11. Manu/MH/1670/2010, In the High Court of Bombay at Goa, in Crl. R. Application no. 14/2010 decided on 9.12.2010, between Johnson Fernandes V/s Maria Fernandes, Michael Fernandes and State through Public Prosecutor.
12. Manu/SC/0007/2007, in Civil Appeal no. 5837/2006 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 38/2006, decided on 15.12.2006, between S.R. Batra and anr V/s Smt. Taruna Batra.
13. Manu/MH/0290/2010, In the High court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench), Crl. Writ Petition No. 37/2008, decided on 30.3.2010, between Kishor S/o Shrirampant Kale V/s Shalini W/o Kishor Kale, Master Shantnu S/o Kishor Kale and State of Maharashtra.
14. Manu/SC/1230/2013, Crl. Appeal No. 2009/2013, decided on 26.11.2013, between Indra Sarma V/s V.K.V. Sarma.
15. Manu/SC/0872/2010, Crl. Appeal Nos. 2028- 2029/2010, decided on 21.10.2010, between D. 17 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Velusamy V/s D. Patchaiammal.
16. Manu/KA/1045/2011, Crl. R.P. No. 856/2010, decided on 12.8.2011, between V.K.V. Sarma V/s Indra Sarma.
17. Manu/KA/0762/2009, in Crl. Petition No. 807/2009, decided on 24.11.2009, between K. Narasimhan V/s Smt. Rohini Devanathan.
18. Manu/HP/1461/2014, in Cr.A. Nos. 104 & 105 of 2011, decided on 25.4.2014, between Maya Ram and Ors, V/s Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the entire records, my answer to the above framed points are as follows:
Point Nos.1 & 2: Negative Point Nos.3 & 4 : Negative Point No. 5: As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
20. Point Nos.1 & 2 :- These two points are taken together for discussion as they emanates from same set of facts and circumstances of this case and also they require common discussions.
It is well settled that law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have co-habited continuously for long time. However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable 18 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 evidence. A heavy burden lies on the party who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. The Hon'ble Apex court in a recent decision has held that live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor sin though socially unacceptable in this country. With this perception let us go through the case of hand in detail.
21. In this case, it is necessary first to examine whether appellant is an aggrieved person and had involved in the domestic relationship with the respondent and whether both petitioner and the respondent had lived in the shared household together. Sec 2 (f) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 refers five categories of relationship such as, related by consanguinity, marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, and family members living together as a joint family.
For better understanding, I bestow my attention to the sections namely:
2 (a): "Aggrieved person" means any 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;
2 f) "Domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or 19 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 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;.
2 (q) "Respondent" means "any adult male person" who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that, an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner; 2 s) "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 20 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household".
22. The petitioner in this case has to first prove that she is under domestic relationship with the respondent. Even though the petitioner in this proceeding u/sec. 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 fails to show that she and the respondent had lived together as husband and wife, It is sufficient if she proves that her relationship with the respondent is in the nature of marriage. If the petitioner proves such relationship then the court can presume that they had lived together in the relationship which is in the nature of marriage or live-in- relationship.
23. In Indian culture normally the male person if he is having any extra marital affair with another woman then the relationship will be kept secret. No person having relationship of such nature will dare enough to declare before society. It means the person who resides or maintains a relationship in the nature of marriage normally avoid to explore their relationship with the society. In order to prove the said relationship which society will not accept, no person will be having a proof of that relationship. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no such strict proof of 21 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 marriage is required to deal the present case on hand. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove her case relying upon the available evidence including circumstantial evidence on record.
24. As far as, the relationship of the petitioner with the respondent is concerned, it is specific case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the respondent.
In order to prove the case of the petitioner that she had domestic relationship with the respondent, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and deposed that she is a Postgraduate in Botany with research in Stress Physiology and that her research is published in International Journals of repute. The petitioner further deposed that she joined ICAR in 1982 and worked as editor and brought out chrysanthemma brochures and authored Sikkim India Book and was editor of Indian Horticulture. That, in all those books the respondent made the petitioner to write her name as Mrs. Neelam Mannohar Attavar.
25. It is further deposed by the PW-1 that the respondent is founder/Chairman of INDO-AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA PVT LTD., and recipient of 'Padmashree' in 1998 from Government of India. That, the PW-1 got acquaintance with IAHS and its founder chairman's name in 1986 and was formally introduced in 22 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 1987. The PW-1's acquaintance gradually developed into a strong personal bond as such they publically spent time together, visit each other's working place and that the respondent used to call her in working and non-working hours, they had exchanged hand writing letters and notes.
26. It is further deposed by the PW-1 that she had bad marital relationship coupled with divorce proceedings in the year 1993 and earlier marriage of the PW-1 ended with divorce on 10.10.1996, then the respondent asked her to visit Bengaluru and that the PW-1 visited Bengaluru on 30.10.1996 and later on visited respondent's residence # 38/1 at Bengaluru.
27. It is pertinent here to mention that the residence of the respondent i.e., # 38/1 is not at all mentioned by the petitioner in her main petition pleadings. The address which is mentioned by the PW-1 in her main petition pleadings is # 6A-46, 3rd main road, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru. It is the burden casted upon the PW-1 to prove that said address falls under the purview of shared household.
28. The PW-1 to substantiate her case got produced the Ex.P.1 which is the certificate dtd: 11.2.2008 issued by the Under Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research which states that Mrs. Neelam has served in 23 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 ICAR as grade T-7 from 21.4.1982 to 31.10.1997. The service rendered by the PW-1 in the ICAR is not in dispute. As per the case of the PW-1, the respondent made her to write her name as Neelam Manmohan Attavar, but contrary to her evidence, the Ex.P.1 contains her name as Mrs. Neelam. The learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments also brought to the notice of this court, the typing error with respect to the word ''Indian'' and argued that said Ex.P.1 even though is against the case of the PW-1 cannot be said that it has emanated from the proper custody as it do not contain official seal.
29. On careful perusal of the Ex.P.1, I am of the opinion that if at all the PW-1 used to her name as Neelam Manmohan Attavar as insisted by the respondent, then why she has not changed her name officially in her working place records has not explained by the PW-1.
30. The Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the decree of divorce in between the PW-1 and her ex-husband Sri. Harishchandra Chabra on 10.10.1996. The said document even though challenged by the respondent counsel is undisputed piece of evidence. As on 10.10.1996 the PW-1 had divorced her earlier husband. The Exs.P. 3 to 5 are the photo copies of the PW-1 attending various functions in 24 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 ICAR and Ex.P.6 is the CD containing the photo copies of Exs.P. 3 to 5 which is not in dispute.
31. The Ex.P.7 is the copy of the E-mail sent by Mr. P. Saktivel to the PW-1 dtd: 17.2.2015. On careful reading of the Ex.P.7, it appears that the PW-1 had sought information regarding one Smt. Shakun, who worked in ICAR through her E-mail dtd: 13.2.2015. The said Saktivel has not provided the address of Smt. Shakun as per Ex.P.7 for the reason that the PW-1 not furnished the actual purpose for which the address is sought. The said Ex.P.7 also not useful to the case of the PW-1.
32. The Ex.P.8 is the copy of the E-mail communication of PW-1 with her son dtd: 15.2.2015. The said document has is emerged as post filing of this case which is not useful to the case of the petitioner. On careful reading of the said document, there is mention by son of PW-1 that Shakun aunty willingly allowed three of them to stay at her place. It means the PW-1 with her two children might have stayed at shakuns house at Pitampura, New Delhi. But no where it is mentioned that the respondent was ever resided in the said address SD 139, Pitampura, Delhi.
33. It is also pertinent here to mention that the PW-1 has pleaded in her main petition that she along with 25 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 respondent lived together at # 242, Pitampura Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi. However, contrary to her case, the evidence of PW-1 at page 4 para 4 is that the respondent spent time with her as husband and wife at SD 139, Pitampura, Delhi.
34. On marshalling the pleadings and the evidence of PW-1, it appears that the PW-1 herself is not firm in her say regarding actual residence. No documentary proofs are furnished by the PW-1 to show that she ever lived with the respondent. The PW-1 is not a rustic villager, she is a highly educated lady what prevented her to produce any address proof is not explained by her.
35. The PW-1 in her petition averments and also in her evidence has not at all mentioned the period or length of stay by her with the respondent. It is well settled that the length of staying together by a man and woman has to be proved before this court with prima facie, vital and clinching documents.
36. The Ex.P.9 is the only one document produced by the PW- 1 which is the photo of her with the respondent. But, she has not produced the negative of the said photo copy. Merely production of only one document cannot prove the relationship of PW-1 with the respondent in any manner as there is a chance of taking such photograph 26 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 during the course of official meetings between the PW-1 and the respondent.
37. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that their 10 yrs relationship had reached to such an extent that in the year 1998, the respondent had after some rituals like applying KUMKUM to the petitioner started visiting her regularly and lived together as husband and wife at No. 242, Pitampura Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi and No. 6A/46, 3rd main road, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru. As, I have held the PW-1 in her evidence has given a go-bye to the pleading averments and deposed the she lived with the respondent at SD 139, Pitampura Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi and that # 6A/46 which is the house of Hebsa Steward. Therefore, I am of the opinion that above mentioned address do not fall under the purview of the shared household.
38. It is also pertinent here to mention that the petitioner in her pleading has not mentioned the exact date when KUMKUM is applied by respondent on her forehead. However, during the course of her evidence she has improved her version and mentioned the date as 10.1.1998. The PW-1 neither pleaded nor deposed the place where exactly the respondent has applied KUMKUM to her forehead. The PW-1 has also failed to mention the names of 27 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the witnesses who were present there. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the case of the petitioner as no such marriage ceremony has taken place on 10.1.1998 as alleged by the petitioner.
39. The Ex.P.10 is the letter written by the PW-1 dtd:
23.4.1998 addressed to one Dr. Barghouti. The Ex.P.10 also goes against the case of the PW-1 as her name is written by herself as Miss. Neelam as on 23.4.1998 and her address is shown as C/o # 16/532, Faridabad, Hariyana.
The theory proposed by the PW-1 is that she married the respondent on 10.1.1998, if it is so then what made her to mention her name as Miss Neelam in Ex.P.10 is not explained by her. The PW-1 would have mentioned her name as Mrs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar in the Ex.P.10, if there was a marriage between the PW-1 and the respondent. Further, if the PW-1 is residing at Faridabad as on 23.4.1998 then the theory put forwarded by her that she is living with the respondent at No. 242, Pitampura Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi and No. 6A/46, 3rd main road, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru the address falls to the ground.
40. The Ex.P.11 is the air-ticket standing in the name of one Desai which is not helpful to the case of the PW-1. The arguments of petitioner that her name Neelam has 28 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 been wrongly spelt as Desai by the Air-port authority holds no water. The Ex.P.12 is the postal cover and the said document is not legible and hence no much importance can be given to the said document. The Ex.P.13 is the copy of the quotation dtd: 20.4.2002 issued by the Thomson Press (India) Ltd., addressed to PW-1. In fact, the Ex.P.13 also goes against the case of the PW-1 as she is addressed as Miss. Neelam in the year 2002 itself. If really the PW-1 had married the respondent in the year 1998 then her name in Ex.P.13 would have been mentioned as Mrs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar. The Ex.P.14 is the police acknowledgment dtd: 10.7.2003 wherein the PW-1 is mentioned as Smt. Neelam. The PW-1 relying on the said document argued that the police people have addressed her as Smt. Therefore, it is a proof that she has married to respondent. However, said argument of PW-1 holds no water as the said Ex.P.14 document is issued only at the instance of PW-1 herself. The Ex.P.15 is the UCO bank pass book standing in the name of PW-1. During the course of cross-examination of RW-1, this court has insisted the PW-1 to produce the certificate from the bank to know whether the PW-1 opened her account in the said bank as earlier as in the year 2003. The document is produced by the PW-1 which is marked at Ex.C.1. No doubt, the said 29 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 document contains information that the PW-1 had opened her UCO bank account way back in the year 2003. The said document itself is not sufficient to prove the domestic relationship of PW-1 with the respondent, because it is not the case of the PW-1 that the address mentioned in Ex.P.15 pass book "MM FARMS" is the shared household in which the PW-1 had co-habited with the respondent. Further, on careful perusal of the Ex.C.1, it appears nowhere it is mentioned that one of the employer of the respondent has introduced the PW-1 to open an account with the UCO Bank. Further, the PW-1 has also not examined before this court the person who has introduced to her to the said bank for opening an account.
41. On relying upon the Exs.P.16 & 17, the PW-1 during the course of her arguments, argued that the address mentioned in CC 4878/02 and CC no. 1039/03 is mentioned as C/o footpath, Opp. 38/1, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru. The PW-1 further argued that as the address of her in these two judgments is mentioned as # 38/1, this court has to decide this matter in her favour holding that she has co-habited along with the respondent in the said address. I have carefully gone through the Exs.P. 16 & 17 which are certified copy of the copy application filed by the petitioner's counsel seeking for 30 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 certified copies of two judgments and destroy register. It appears from the said documents that the original files has been destroyed as per the provisions and after obtaining permission of Hon'ble Appellate courts. Even though, it is considered that the address mentioned in the said judgments are C/o footpath opposite No. 38/1, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru. These two documents are not useful to the case of the petitioner as C/o Footpath cannot be considered as shared household. It is also not the case of the PW-1 that the respondent also resided along with her in the said C/o footpath address.
42. The Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of the letter dtd:
8.1.2015 addressed to Chair Person, KSCW, written by PW- 1 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.19 is the letter dtd:
29.6.2008 written by the PW-1 addressed to the then DCP South, South End Circle, Bengaluru. I have gone through the said document wherein the PW-1 herself has mentioned in that document that she has been in Bengaluru since October 1998 regularly. The word regularly cannot be considered as continuously. It appears that the PW-1 used to visit Bengaluru since October 1998 very frequently.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the PW-1 has not co- habited with the respondent in the shared household at Bengaluru. The Ex.P.19 also contains the information that 31 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the address of PW-1 is mentioned in the judgments is that C/o footpath, # 38/1, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru. As, I have already held that C/o footpath is not a shared household. The Ex.P.19 further contains the information that the PW-1 has spent a decade and a year on the footpath opposite of # 38/1, Jayanagar 7th block, Bengaluru i.e., opposite of the residence of the respondent i.e., Dr. Manmohan Attavar. On careful reading of the said document, it appears that the PW-1 has not resided along with the respondent in any house which can be termed as shared household.
43. The Ex.P.20 is the visiting card of Albert Edwin which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.21 is another visiting card standing in the name of PW-1 and her name is mentioned as Mrs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar. Relying upon solely on the said document, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the respondent is having any domestic relationship with the PW-1. The Ex.P.22 is the document which contains the handwriting of the respondent as per the case of the petitioner. Even though the said document is admitted, it is not helpful to the case of the petitioner in any manner.
44. The Ex.P.23 is the copy of the E-Mail communication of PW-1 with one Dr. Nagendra Lucid dtd:
32 C.Misc. No. 139/201522.5.2014 till 10.12.2014. The learned counsel for the respondent, during the course of arguments brought to my notice that the communication dtd: 14.6.2014 and submitted that the PW-1 had tried to collect the respondent's information and after collecting such information from every source, the PW-1 is using the said information only to harass the respondent. I have carefully gone through said Ex.P.23, it appears the said document is not useful to the case of the PW-1 in any manner as said document has emanated only after filing this case. The Ex.P.24 is the CD containing whats apps messages.
45. The Ex.P.25 is the screen short of PW-1's mobile call logs, wherein it appears one Sathosh Attavar has called the PW-1 over his mobile. The PW-1 argued that it was the respondent who called her through his son Santhosh Attavar cell phone on 8.9.2014. However, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence to show that the respondent had spoken to PW-1 on that day. Even if it is considered that the respondent had spoken to PW-1 itself is not sufficient to prove the domestic relationship in between them. The Ex.P.26 is the CD of screen shorts which is not in dispute. The Ex.P. 27 is the letter addressed by one Dr. C. Prasad to PW-1 dtd: 29.8.2013. I have carefully perused the said records, it appears that said C. Prasad who was 33 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Ex-Deputy Director General (ICAR) has also mentioned the address of PW-1 as park, opposite to residence # 38/1, 30th cross, 3rd main, 7th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The said documents further discloses one more fact which goes against the case of the PW-1 that the relationship between the PW-1 and the respondent is unsettled relationship. Therefore, when the petitioner is not residing anywhere along with the respondent and when the relationship is not yet settled as on 2013, then this court cannot come to a fair conclusion that the PW-1 had domestic relationship with the respondent. The Ex.P.28 is the postal cover addressed to PW-1 to the address mentioned as park opposite residence of respondent's house. The learned counsel for the respondent rightly argued that these two documents namely Exs.P. 27 & 28 are self serving documents which only have seen light of the day for the first time before one month of filing this case. As these two documents have emerged just before one month of filing this case, they have got no evidentiary value as the PW-1 might have got up these documents in support of her case.
46. The Ex.P.29 is the certified copy of the FIR registered against the PW-1 in Cr. No. 402/02 U/sec. 504 and 506 of IPC. The petitioner during her arguments argued that the police have mentioned her name as Smt. 34 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Neelam and that her address is # 38/1, 30th Cross, 3rd main, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. As, I have already held said information in FIR is written by the police as per the information furnished by the PW-1. Hence, no much weightage shall be given to the said document also.
47. The Ex.P.30 is the letter addressed by Beena Dayanand, Legal consultant, Janodaya Micro credit Programme to PW-1 dtd: 30.1.2009. I have perused the said document, the address of the PW-1 is mentioned in the said document as Ex-Editor, India Horticulture, ICAR, New Delhi. It means the PW-1 in the year 2009 also was living in Delhi and not in the Bengaluru. Further said legal consultant came to a conclusion that the PW-1 and respondent's relationship for the past 12 years is like a husband and wife. But, to arrive to such a conclusion what documents and materials were relied upon by the said legal consultant is not discussed in the said Ex.P.30.
48. The Ex.P.31 is the copy of the draft dtd:
28.11.2009 sent by Dr. C. Prasad to Sri. Narendra Modi the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. The Ex.P.32 is the copy of the E-mail sent by Dr. C. Prasad along with the draft to PW-1. It is pertinent here to mention that there is no dispute regarding the talent and caliber of PW-1. But, in this case, these two document do not come to the rescue of 35 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the PW-1 in any manner. The Ex.P.33 is the copy of the E- mail sent by PW-1 to one Dr. Swaminathan dtd:
30.11.2009. In the said document also the PW-1 herself has said that past 13+ years the respondent has neither accepted her as he should have nor allowed her to earn and lead a dignified life. It means the relationship of PW-1 with the respondent from the past 13 yrs also did not have a concrete basis. The Ex.P.34 is the copy of the E-Mail sent by Dr. M.S. Swamynathan to PW-1. The above Exs.P. 33 & 34 are not useful to prove her domestic relationship with the respondent. The Ex.P.35 is the E-Mail addressed to PW-1 from a unknown person and said document is not useful to the case of the PW-1.
49. The Ex.P.36 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 to Sri. K.J. George, Hon'ble Home Minister of Karnataka on 6.2.2015 which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.37 is also another certified copy of the letter addressed by PW-1 to Sri. K.J. George, Hon'ble Home Minister of Karnataka which is also not in dispute and the said document is not useful to the case of the PW-1.
50. The Ex.P.38 is the magazine Chrysanthemum produced by the PW-1. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein it appears that the PW-1 was the guest editor to the said magazine in the year 1995-96. The 36 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 said document is not at all in dispute as the respondent has got no objections to the fact that the present PW-1 was editor in India Horticulture (ICAR) and that she has authored many valuable books. In the said Ex.P.38 there is a article with respect to present respondent which is also not in dispute. It is the specific case of the respondent that as he was President of Indo-American Hybrid Seeds, the present PW-1 used to interview him regarding the cultivation of chrysanthemum and other horticulture works.
51. The Ex.P.39 is the magazine, ICAR now and ahead which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.40 is another book authored by the present PW-1 namely Sikkim, India. The said document is not at all disputed by the respondent. On careful reading of these two documents one thing is very much clear that the petitioner herein was of a high caliber in her profession during her working with ICAR. However, the above mentioned two documents are in no way helpful to the case of the petitioner to prove domestic relationship with the respondent.
52. The Ex.P.41 is another extract produced by the PW-1 authored by herself with respect to a subject namely 'Effect of Cytokinin and Moisture Stress on Cell Expansion Growth of Etiolated Cotyledons of Sponge-gourd (luffa 37 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Cylindrica) Roxb'. The said document is also not at all in dispute. The Ex.P.42 is the letter written by one R. Telang, Secretary, Food Security & Agriculture Development addressed to PW-1. The petitioner during the course of her arguments vehemently argued that said IAS officer has addressed her as Mrs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar and therefore she must be considered as wife of present respondent. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein said document even do not contain the date on which it is communicated. The mentioning of the name of PW-1 as Mrs. Neelam Monmohan Attavar itself is not sufficient to hold that the PW-1 has got any kind of domestic relationship with the respondent. The Ex.P.43 is another letter written by Ms. Santhosh Vas, Chair lady, Janodaya dtd: 26.3.2009 addressed to present PW-1. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein said document contains the information that present PW-1 has got no permanent address to prove that the PW-1 is living along with the respondent. The said document also contains the information that there was no proof of marriage in between the PW-1 and the respondent. Hence the said document goes against the case of the petitioner.
53. The Ex.P.44 is the letter addressed by the PW-1 to the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services 38 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Authority. I have carefully perused the said document wherein it appears that the ultimate aim of PW-1 is only a settlement with the respondent.
54. The Ex.P.45 is the letter dtd: 20.2.2009 to IGP (G&HR), Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru by the present PW- 1 which is also not at all in dispute. The petitioner in person during the course of arguments, argued that the said document Ex.P.45 is sufficient to prove her inter personal relationship with the respondent. I have carefully gone through the said argument wherein there is no iota of evidence to show that the PW-1 has got domestic relationship with the respondent. The PW-1 has mentioned in the said document that she has shared relationship with Manmohan Attavar and it is well known to spread of people. However, to prove the relationship PW-1 has not examined any other witnessess such as relatives, commons friends who were knowing the inter personal relationship of PW-1 with the respondent. The Ex.P.45 is a self serving statement which is not all useful to the case of the PW-1. In the said document itself, the present PW-1 has sought for the relief that face to face meeting may be arranged with Dr. Manmohan Attavar in the presence of Dr. R.P. Sharma, IGP. It means the PW-1 has sought only meeting to settle her claims in the year 2009 itself. If at all, there was a 39 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 relationship with the respondent, the PW-1 would have sought establishment of her stained relationship in the said letter itself. On careful reading of Ex.P.45, further it appears that the PW-1 has not even pleaded that she shared the relationship with the respondent as that of husband and wife. The PW-1 has not even examined Santhosh Vas, Chair Lady, Janodaya nor Lokeshwar in this case to substantiate her case.
55. The PW-1 during the course of arguments relying upon the admission of RW-1 at page no.26, para no.29 argued that the RW-1 has not denied the fact that her picture is in respondent's wardrobe. However, I am of the opinion that the RW-1 even though has not denied the said suggestion, the RW-1 to the suggestion put forward by the PW-1 answered as 'so what'. It means if any of the cook or any person working with the respondent says something to the PW-1 then what is stated by the cook or any other person to the PW-1 cannot be treated as gospel truth unless said cook is examined before this court. Admittedly, the PW-1 has not even examined the so called cook namely Manjula. On reading the entire Ex.P.45 nowhere it is mentioned by the PW-1 that she lived together with the respondent at any point of time at a given place.
40 C.Misc. No. 139/201556. The Ex.P.46 is another letter written by present PW-1 dtd: 19.11.2008 addressing Sri. R.P. Sharma, IGP, Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru. I have meticulously read the said document wherein the PW-1 has mentioned in the said document that "in 1995 it was surprise to everyone including my parents that I was going through dissolution in Phase I of life because I never allowed my nasty private life to be common knowledge. I add, I never filed the divorce nor contested it. It was then that Manmohan asked me over telephone. You are going through your D-word what do you want me to do implying Mamtha. It was like joy to me that my suffering in silence was watched by him and that he loved me enough to protect and care". It means the present petitioner in the year 1994 it self was knowing that the respondent had a wife by name mamatha.
57. The Exs.P. 47 & 52 are the same certified copies of the letter addressed by the respondent to IGP complaining against the PW-1 of continuous harassment and attempt to extract money. The Exs.P. 48 & 49 are the certified copies of the same copies of the endorsement addressed by the office of Director General of Police to PW-1 stating that as per the enquiry report, there is no proof of evidence to 41 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 prove the marriage of the PW-1 with the respondent. The Ex.P.48 also goes against the case of the PW-1. The Ex.P.50 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the then Commissioner of Police namely Sri. Shankar Bidari to DG and IGP stating that the police have no power to arrange for face to fact meeting of the PW-1 with the respondent. On careful reading of the said document also, it is ample clear that the request of PW-1 is only to have a face to face meeting with the respondent and nothing else.
58. The Ex.P.51 is the certified copy of another letter addressed by the PW-1 dtd: 7.2.2001 to Sri. T. Sunil Kumar the then DCP South. On careful reading of the said document also it appears there is no mention of PW-1 regarding her marriage with the respondent or the place of residence etc., her only prayer is that one face to face meeting has to be arranged. Those document also in any way is not useful to the case of the PW-1. The Ex.P.52 is the same as that of Ex.P.47. The Ex.P.53 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent dtd:
9.1.2009 to Asst. IGP which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.54 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by Asst. IGP to PW-1 dtd: 19.1.2009 regarding enquiry to be conducted.
The Ex.P.55 is the certified copy of the letter dtd: 19.1.2009 addressed to IGP by the respondent complaining against 42 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the PW-1 which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.56 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to Asst. IGP (Cr) dtd: 20.1.2009 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.57 is the certified copy of the medical certificate of respondent dtd: 20.1.2009 which is not in dispute in this case.
59. The Ex.P. 58 is the certified copy of the report dtd:
13.1.2009 addressed by the Police Commissioner to DG and IGP. I have carefully read the said document wherein it appears the said document also goes against the case of the PW-1 as there is no proof of marriage. The Ex.P.59 is the certified copy of the notice dtd: 25.2.2009 issued by Karnataka State Legal service authority addressing the respondent. The Ex.P.60 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 dtd: 18.11.2009 to Ajay Kumar Singh, DGP and IGP asking for face to face meeting with the respondent which is also against her own case. The Ex.P.61 also certified copy of the endorsement dtd:
11.1.2010 addressed by the DGP and IGP to PW-1 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.62 is the certified copy of the endorsement dtd: 12.1.2010 addressed by the DGP and IGP to the Police inspector, Jayanagar which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.63 is the certified copy of the endorsement dtd: 12.1.2010 addressed by Police inspector, 43 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Jayanagar to the DGP and IGP which is also not in dispute.
The Ex.P.64 is the certified copy of the letter addressed to Sri. S.V. Ranganath, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka by the PW-1 dtd: 11.6.2012 which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.65 is the copy of the letter dtd: 10.1.2012 written by the PW-1 addressed to D.V. Sadananda Gowda, Chief Minister of Karnataka which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.66 is the copy of the project proposal submitted by the PW-1 to the Principle Secretary of Government of Karnataka which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.67 is the certified copy of the medical records of the PW-1 which are not in dispute. The Exs.P.68 and 69 are the copies of the E- mail addressed by the PW-1 on 30.6.2013 to the Governor of Karnataka. The Ex.P.70 is also the copy of the E-Mail dtd: 22.7.2013 which is also not useful to the case of the PW-1 in any manner.
60. The Ex.P.71 is the certificate issued by the Z-4 Cyber Café stating that the computer out put printed in a paper in their cyber cafe. I have carefully gone through the said document and I am of the opinion that the said document is not useful to the case of the PW-1 as the PW-1 has not even examined the in charge person of the said cyber café before this court. Further, I am of the opinion that there is no address mentioned in the Ex.P.71 with 44 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 respect to the said Z-4 Cyber Café. It is pertinent here to mentioned that the respondent has got produced the Ex.R. 8 which is the copy of bill obtained from Z-4 Cyber Café dtd: 15.5.2015 in which the address is mentioned. The Ex.P.72 is the discharge summary dtd: 19.1.2007 of Mallige hospital. The Ex.P.73 is the certified copy of the medical report of Mallige hospital which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.74 is the copy of the certificate of appreciation of PW-1 issued by C.S. Singh dtd: 21.6.1980 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.75 is the certified copy of the letter dtd:
7.9.1989 addressed by one Ramdas which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.76 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by PW-1 dtd: 9.3.2015 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.77 is the E-ticket issued dtd: 25.2.2010 standing in the name of PW-1. However, there is no mention of exact date of travel in the said e-ticket. Hence, said document is not useful to the case of the PW-1. The Ex.P.78 is the certified copy of the statement of PW-1. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein it appears that the PW-1 has stated that the respondent had spoken to her over telephone on 25.2.2010. All these statements and conversation are not proved before this court as the PW-1 has not substantiated her claim by any proof. The said document hence is only 45 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 self serving statement of PW-1. The Ex.P.79 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to the Police Inspector, Jayanagar complaining against the PW-1. The Ex.P.80 is the certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 to the ADGP, Bengaluru dtd: 13.1.2011. On careful reading of the said document, it appears nowhere the PW-1 has deposed having any kind of domestic relationship with the respondent.
61. The Ex.P.81 is the certified copy of the calendar of events of the PW-1 from the year 1986 till 2010. In the said document also the PW-1 admits that she has spent 10 yrs in the park opposite to respondent's residence. It means the PW-1 has not resided with the respondent in any of the shared household and hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not having any kind of domestic relationship with the respondent. It is also pertinent here to mention that the petitioner in the cause title of this case also mentioned her address as resident at park, opp to residence no.38/1 30th cross 3rd main Jayanagar. The Ex.P.82 is the copy of the E-mail dtd: 22.10.2009 which is not useful to the case of the PW-1 as there is no mention of the name of PW-1 in Ex.P.82. The Ex.P.83 is the copy of the E-Mail addressed by the PW-1 which is unconcerned to this case. The Ex.P.84 is the copy of the material obtained by 46 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the internet which is also not useful to prove the domestic relationship of the PW-1 with the respondent. The Ex.P.85 is another certificate issued by Z-4, Cyber Café which is not useful to the case of the PW-1. The Exs.P. 86 & 87 are the copies of the details obtained from internet with respect to the achievements of Indo-American Hybrid seeds India Pvt., Ltd., which is also not in dispute. The Exs.P. 88 & 89 are the copies of details obtained from the internet regarding the information of PW-1 and the respondent which is not useful to prove the case of PW-1 in this case. The Ex.P.90 is the certificate issued by in charge of Z-4, Cyber Café which is also not in dispute. The Ex.P.91 is the Xerox copy of the magazine, Indian Horticulture for the period of January to March 1991 addition which is not disputed by other side. The Ex.P.92 is the certified copy of the document dtd: 1.7.2002. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein the security guard of respondent had lodged the first information against the PW-1. The Ex.P.92 (a) is the signature admitted by the RW-1 dtd:
2.7.2002, relying upon the said document the PW-1 has argued that one Pemmaiah, Security guard of respondent as per the direction of the respondent has mentioned the PW-1 as Smt. Hence, the PW-1 submits that she is wife of respondent. However, the said arguments holds no water 47 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 as merely mentioning as Smt. Neelam will not prove the ingredients of provisions in the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 against the respondent. It appears as per the Ex.P.92 (a) the respondent has received the copy of the said first information on 2.7.2012.
62. The PW-1 further examined herself and produced Ex.P.93 which is the letter addressed by the PW-1 to IAHS Pvt., Ltd., seeking for placement dtd: 14.12.1998 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.94 is the letter written by the PW- 1 dtd: 31.3.2008 addressed to respondent which is also not useful to the case of the PW-1 in any manner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondent and herself had exchanged and communicated many letters among themselves while they were residing at Delhi.
However, I am of the opinion that if at all there were any letters exchanged in between the PW-1 and the respondent at Delhi, the PW-1 definitely would have produced all the letters before this court without fail. The non-production of letters by the PW-1 clearly manifests that no such letters were communicated in between them.
63. On the other hand, the respondent himself has been examined as RW-1 wherein he has almost all reiterated his objections averments. Apart from, the RW-1 during the course of cross-examination of PW-1 has got 48 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 marked Ex.R.1 by confronting to the PW-1. The PW-1 has admitted the said document Ex.R.1 which is the copy of the letter addressed to PW-1's Faridabad address on 14/1/1999 intimating her that in the Indo-American Hybrid Seeds, India Pvt, Ltd., there is no scope for the line of activity which the PW-1 possess. It is also pertinent here to mention that the PW-1 herself has admitted during the cross-examination at page no.30 that "in the profile submitted to IAHS, I have mentioned my name as Ms. Neelam. In the said application after the words about me 'as single'. On careful reading of the said admission, it appears that in the month of December 1998 also the PW-1 was residing alone. It means she was not married to the respondent as on 10.1.1998.
64. It is pertinent here to mention that if at all there was a marriage in between the PW-1 and the respondent as on 10.1.1998 or was there any kind of relationship in between the parties to the proceedings, then definitely the respondent would have helped the PW-1 to secure a job in IAHS as the respondent admittedly got great hold in the IAHS. Further the address to which the PW-1 is communicated is Faridabad, Hariyana and also to the Delhi address. It means in the year 1999 also the PW-1 was residing at Faridabad and Delhi. Therefore, it can be 49 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 presumed that in the year 1999 the PW-1 was not staying in Bengaluru.
65. The Ex.R.2 is the copy of thebill to the mobile no. 9845955000 for the month of September 2014. The Ex.R.3 is also the copy of the bill of mobile no. 9844014442 for the month of September 2014. I have carefully gone through Ex.R.2 & 3 wherein no phone calls are registered to the petitioner's cell phone. The petitioner during the course of cross-examination of RW-1 had filed an application u/sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. and sought for a direction to direct the respondent to produce the other months phone bills. However, even though the respondent has filed the objections, the PW-1 has not argued on the said application. Hence, now the PW-1 cannot submit before this court to take adverse inference as against the respondent for failing to produce the said documents as the petitioner has not pressed on the said application filed by the PW-1.
66. The Ex.R.4 is the certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 134/14 lodged against one Nagendran which is not in dispute. The Ex.R.5 is another certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 208/15 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra which is not in dispute. The Ex.R.6 is also another certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 334/13 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra 50 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 which is not in dispute. The Ex.R.7 is also another certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 85/15 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra which is not in dispute.
67. The learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments submitted to the court that Dr. Nagendra who is not in good terms with the respondent has joined hands with the PW-1 and only to extort money from the respondent made the PW-1 to file this petition. However, to substantiate such claim the respondent has not produced any documents or evidence before this court.
68. The Ex.R.8 is the copy of the bill obtained in Z-4, Cyber Café dtd: 15.5.2015. I have carefully gone through the said document wherein bill produced by the RW-1 contains address of Z-4 Cyber Café as no. 657/58, SLV Arcade, 11th main, 4th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. But the documents produced by the PW-1 in Ex.P.71 with respect to the said Cyber café don't contain such address. Hence, serious doubt is casted upon the case of the petitioner with respect to the documents furnished by her. The Ex.R.9 is the intimation letter under RTI Act issued by Deputy Registrar, The State Public Information Officer, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. On careful reading of the said document, it appears all the documents obtained by the PW-1 through RTI Act are all emanated 51 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 from her and the PW-1 is the author of the said representations. Hence, no much importance can be given to these documents.
69. The learned counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments brought out the contradiction in the case of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner in this case has not at all mentioned in her main petition regarding the date of her marriage with the respondent. However, the petitioner in her examination-in-chief for the first time has mentioned the date of marriage as 10.1.1998. Further, in whose presence and the place of marriage is not at all specified by the PW-1. The address which are mentioned by the petitioner do not fall under the purview of shared household as those two address belonged to Shakun and Hebsa steward admittedly.
70. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross- examined the PW-1 wherein the PW-1 at page no.27, 2nd para has admitted that in May 2006 she had written a letter addressed to Bishop South India asking for a meeting with the respondent. The said admission also goes against the case of the PW-1 as she has asked only for a meeting and not claiming any relationship with the respondent.
71. The PW-1 at page no. 28, further admits that "it is true to suggest that by 1993, I was aware that the 52 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 respondent has already married and having two children". If it is so, even for the sake of arguments if it is considered that the PW-1 and the respondent both belonged to Hindu religion then also their alleged marriage dtd: 10.1.1998 is a void marriage as the respondent had a living spouse at the time of said second marriage. The Sec. 5 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 reads as follows:
"5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage-A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:-
i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
ii) at the time of marriage, neither party-
a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or 53 C.Misc. No. 139/2015
c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity;
iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of (twenty-one years) and the bride, the age of (eighteen years) at the time of the marriage;
iv) the arties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;
Further even as per Sec. 4 of the Special Marriage Act 1954, also even if both PW-1 and the respondent are considered as Hindu and Christian then also their marriage amounts to void as the respondent had a living spouse at the time of marriage. The Sec. 4 of the Special marriage Act which reads as follows:
"4. Conditions relating to solemnization of special marriages; Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force relating to the 54 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 solemnization of marriage, a marriage between any two persons may be solemnized under this Act, if at the time of the marriage the following conditions are fulfilled, namely;
a) neither party has a spouse living;
b) neither party-
i) is incapable of giving a valid
consent to it in consequence of
unsoundness of mind; or
ii) though capable of giving a valid
consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
iii) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
c) the male has completed the age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years;
d) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship:
Provided that where a custom governing at least one of the parties 55 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 permits of a marriage between them, such marriage may be solemnized, notwithstanding that they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship; and
e) where the marriage is solemnized in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, both parties are citizens of India domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends.
72. On careful reading of the admissions and also Sec. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sec. 4 of Special Marriage Act, it appears that so called marriage of the PW-1 with the respondent dtd: 10.1.1998 cannot be called as a marriage for the simple reason that the PW-1 knew regarding the survival of wife of respondent as early as in the year 1993 itself.
73. The PW-1 further at page no. 29 has admitted regarding her place of residence in Bengaluru which reads as follows: "When, I shifted to Bengaluru, I resided in a hotel, thereafter in friends house and some ICAR guest houses. It is true to suggest that I resided in a house in Vani Villas road. Witness voluntarily says she resided in a rented house at Jayanagar and respondent asked her to go there. I do not remember 56 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 the duration or period of residence in Jayanagar and Vani Villas road. The above two houses are rented houses. After house at Vani Villas road, I stayed at 3rd block, Jayanagar and 5th block Jayanagar for a short period. Finally on 15th or 20th January 2001, I refused to stay here and there for short period and asked the respondent to provide proper accommodation".
74. It means the PW-1 has never stayed with the respondent in a house which can be called as a shared household address as mentioned in the petition and evidence affidavit. Further the PW-1 even though admitted that she has documents to show that she has resided at SD.139, Pitampura, Delhi. The PW-1 has failed to produce a single piece of documentary proof before this court.
75. One more admission at page no.30 of PW-1 which goes against her own case is that "From January 1998 to March 1998, I was in Delhi at SD.139, Peethampura, Delhi". If it is so, then how did the respondent gave Sindur to her at Shankara Matt, Bengaluru on 10.1.1998 is not at all explained by the PW-1. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn as against the case of the PW-1.
76. One more contradiction in the case of the PW-1 is that the petitioner in her main petition has pleaded that after resignation of her job in the 1997 she started living 57 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 with the respondent at Bengaluru and during those days the petitioner to her utter shock realized that the respondent is already married to one Mrs. Mamtha and had two children out of their wedlock. As I have already discussed above, the PW-1 has admitted during her cross- examination that in the year 1993 itself she knew regarding the marriage of the respondent.
77. It is further the case of the PW-1 that on being confronted the respondent had promised the petitioner to marry her after the divorce proceedings with his legally wedded wife. It means as on 10.1.1998 the petitioner was not at all married with the respondent. The petitioner further submits that the respondent forced her to live a lonely life with lots of difficulties and started to avoid the petitioner on one or other pretext. Per contra, during the course of cross-examination of PW-1 she has admitted at page no. 31 that the attitude of respondent changed after he being conferred with 'Padmashree' award on 21.3.1998. On careful reading of the above admissions and pleadings, it appears that the PW-1 herself is not clear with her case.
78. The petitioner party in person in this case has also cross-examined the RW-1 at length wherein almost all the suggestions put forth by the petitioner is denied by the RW-1. The PW-1 during the course of arguments relied 58 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 upon the admission of RW-1 that the annual domestic sales of Indo-American company fetch Rs. 80 million and out of it, from export Rs. 20 million despite discourage odds. Further, the RW-1 also admitted that he had 70% stake control over the said Indo-American company. By arguing so, the PW-1 submits that the respondent has got ability to pay the maintenance to her in crores. The petitioner further argued that the RW-1 in recent year has purchased a Jaguar and also purchased Audi for his son and one more high End SUV for his daughter in total the RW-1 has invested almost Rs. 4 crores. The purchase capacity of the respondent and the standard of living is nothing to do with the case of the petitioner.
79. On careful perusal of the admission of RW-1 and also on hearing the petitioner, I am of the opinion that as the petitioner has failed to prove her domestic relationship with the respondent then the question of Domestic Violence will not arise. When the Domestic Violence is not there, then the petitioner cannot be treated as aggrieved person. If the petitioner is not an aggrieved person then the RW-1 herein cannot be termed as respondent as per the provision of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any maintenance to the petitioner.
59 C.Misc. No. 139/201580. Further the PW-1 argued that she has resigned her job only on the say and sake of the respondent, as the respondent gave assurance to marry her and the petitioner after resigning her job has come down to Bengaluru. By contending so, the petitioner prays to allow the petition filed by her.
81. On careful reading of the entire evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the arguments canvassed by the petitioner is neither supported with any documentary proof nor with an evidence of eye witnesses.
82. The PW-1 further argued that the addresses of her in the judgments referred in Exs.P. 16 & 17 documents are mentioned as # 38/1, 30th cross, 3rd main, 7th block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru i.e., same address of respondent and as the respondent has failed to produce those copies of the judgments then this court can take adverse inference as per Sec. 114 of Indian Evidence Act against the respondent. However, I am of the opinion that the address in the judgments will be mentioned by the court only on relying upon the charge sheet filed by the police. The address mentioned by the police itself is not sufficient to hold that the PW-1 was residing in the said address, unless, the PW- 1 establishes the said fact before this court.
60 C.Misc. No. 139/201583. It is also pertinent here to mention that this court acting U/sec. 165 of Indian evidence Act has put some questions to RW-1 wherein the RW-1 specifically answered that he do not have any relationship with the petitioner other than the interview conducted by her. But the RW-1 who is aged more than about 83 yrs failed to recollect the date and year of the interview.
84. The PW-1 further argued that the respondent had an account in UCO bank in the year 2003 and has sent his employee to the bank as an introducer to open an account to the petitioner at UCO bank, Kengeri. Even though, the RW-1 has admitted that he had the account in the UCO bank that itself is not sufficient to hold that the respondent had any domestic relationship with the PW-1 as the PW-1 has failed to prove her case with cogent evidence. Further the PW-1 has failed to examine the so called introducer before this court. Hence, the Ex.C.1 is also not useful to the case of the petitioner.
85. The other part of the suggestions put forward by the petitioner are mere self serving statements of PW-1 which in fact are categorically denied by the respondent. On marshalling entire cross-examination of RW-1, it appears that the petitioner has nowhere suggested to the RW-1 the exact date and period of residence and 61 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 cohabitation of the petitioner and the respondent had shared earlier. It means, the PW-1 had not shared co- habitation with the respondent at any point of time.
86. In this case, the petitioner has argued and submitted that ultimately the deciding factor is "INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP" and not the "ROOF" which "Shelters". However, as per the decision relied upon by the respondent's counsel in 'Indra Sarma' V/s V.K.V Sarma in Cr. A. no. 2009/2013 arising out of SLP Crl No. 4895/2012 it appears there is no scope for any kind of interpersonal relationship as far as Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is concerned. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex court at para no.65 of the said Judgment held as follows:
"We are, therefore, of the view that the Appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in- relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in-relationship are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Appellant's and the respondent's relationship is, therefore, not a "relationship in the nature of marriage"
because it has no inherent or essential 62 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than "in the nature of marriage" and the Appellant's status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of "domestic relationship" Under Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act. If we hold that the relationship between the Appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the Respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to "Domestic Violence" Under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act".
87. On careful reading of the above paragraph, it appears that the petitioner in the present case also might have entered into a relationship which is not a domestic relationship knowing well that the respondent was a married person. It is admitted fact that the respondent was married having two children was well within the knowledge 63 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 of the petitioner way back in the year 1993 itself. Further it is also pertinent here to mention that Hon'ble Apex court in the same Judgment, at para no. 62 has observed which reads as follows:
"Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the act, so that women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage".
On careful reading of the above observation of Hon'ble Apex court, it appears that unless proper amendment is carried out to the present Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005, this court has got no jurisdiction under this act to grant any kind of reliefs to the petitioner whose relationship is not in the nature of the marriage with the respondent. Hence, the petitioner is not all entitled for any reliefs under this Act. In this case, it is not at all case of the petitioner that she had lived together with the respondent for a reasonably long period of time in a relationship which was in the nature of marriage.
88. It is also argued by the petitioner that the respondent has failed to furnish the telephone bills from 64 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 1.8.2014 intentionally in order to hide his conversation over the phone with the petitioner. Even if, the said call records are furnished and even if there was a call made by the respondent to the petitioner, this itself is not sufficient to prove the case of the petitioner.
89. The petitioner further argued that as the RW-1's health was in deteriorating condition she has not questioned very personal questions on sex, co-habitation and so on. The petitioner no doubt has not confronted such personal questions to RW-1 during the course of cross- examination, but what prevented her to plead and depose in her main petition and her evidence regarding those personal aspects are not explained by the petitioner. Therefore, at the stage of arguments now the petitioner cannot take such a defence.
90. The petitioner relying upon the article "Notes to Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning" argued that her case is unique case and submits that precedent and analogy will not weigh her case and that ruling of the courts are binding and no decisions which can be distinguished. On hearing the petitioner and also on marshalling the said copy of the documents furnished by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the arguments canvassed by the petitioner holds no water because as per 65 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 article 141 of Indian Constitution the decision of Hon'ble Apex court is binding upon this court.
91. Apart from the petitioner during her arguments also prayed for some reliefs before this court i.e., to Sanctify her orthodox marriage on 10.1.1998 with her husband Dr. Manmohan Attavar. It is also prayed by the petitioner to recognize her as living spouse, to restore her honour and dignity in a shared household. In this case, when the petitioner has failed to prove that her relationship fall within the ambit of domestic relationship, then the petitioner is debarred from seeking any further reliefs as mentioned above. Further in this case there are major contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in the statements, evidence and documents of the petitioner.
92. It is also pertinent here to mention that the present case on hand has been transferred to this court at the stage of cross-examination of RW-1. The earlier courts have not called for domestic incident report. To know whether the perusal of domestic incident report is mandatory in the case which is filed directly before the magistrate u/sec. 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005, I would like to bestow my attention to a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 66 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 in "ILR 2009, KAR 4295 (circuit bench at Gulbarga) in between Nagyanakumar V/s State of Karnataka and another, wherein it is held that "perusal of domestic incident report by the magistrate is not mandatory in the case where the petitioner has directly approached before the Magistrate, without approaching the protection officer or service provider". Hence, I am of the opinion that the perusal of domestic incident report is not necessary in this case also.
93. The petitioner during the course of arguments submitted before this court to consider the main petition averments which is presented by her before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. However, I am of the opinion that the petition which is duly filed by the petitioner through her counsel has to be looked into and not the other copy where the petitioner has incorporated many other things without the permission of the court.
94. It is also pertinent here to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme court has recognized live-in relationships and very recently held that if a "man and woman lived like husband and wife" for a long period and had children then the judiciary would presume that the two where married and the woman would be eligible to inherit the property after the death of her partner". Further the Hon'ble Apex 67 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Court also recently held that parliament should enact the act according to changing times to protect the interest of such woman living in live-in-relationship.
95. In the light of above decision of Hon'ble Apex court, once again, I would like to go through the case of the petitioner wherein it is not at all the case of the petitioner in this case that she had lived with the respondent as husband and wife for a long period and had children. Further the petitioner herein knew that the respondent was married man having wife and children. This will make the petitioner ineligible and dis entitle for any reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent cannot be termed as a domestic relationship in the nature of marriage and it cannot be said that she is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. Hence, in this case the petitioner neither has proved that she is a wife married to the respondent legally nor woman having such relationship which can be termed as live-in relationship which in fact falls under the ambit of domestic relationship. Hence, I answer the point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
96. Point Nos. 3 & 4: In veiw of discussions made by me in the above point Nos. 1 & 2, I am of the firm opinion 68 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. The respondent herein cannot be termed as respondent as per the definition mentioned in the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. Hence, I answer the point nos. 3 & 4 also in the negative.
97. Point No.5: In view of the reasons and discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby dismissed.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of July 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
69 C.Misc. No. 139/2015ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW.1 : Neelam Manmohan List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Certificate dtd: 11.2.2008
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the decree of divorce
Ex.P.3 to 5 Photo copies of the PW-1
Ex.P.6 CD
Ex.P.7 Copy of the E-mail sent by Mr. P. Saktivel to
the PW-1 dtd: 17.2.2015
Ex.P. 8 Copy of the E-mail communication of PW-1
with her son dtd: 15.2.2015
Ex.P. 9 Photo copy
Ex.P. 10 Letter written by the PW-1 dtd: 23.4.1998
addressed to one Dr. Barghovathi
Ex.P.11 Air-ticket standing in the name of one Desai
Ex.P.12 Postal cover
Ex.P.13 Copy of the quotation dtd: 20.4.2002
Ex.P.14 Police acknowledgment dtd: 10.7.2003
Ex.P.15 UCO bank pass book standing in the name
of PW-1
Ex.P.16 & 17 Certified copy of the application filed by the
petitioner's counsel seeking for certified copies of two judgments and destroy register Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the letter dtd: 8.1.2015 the addressed to Chair person, KSCW, written by PW-1 Ex.P.19 Letter dtd: 29.6.2008 written by the PW-1 addressed to the then DCP, South End Circle, Bengaluru 70 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Ex.P. 20 Visiting card of Albert Edwin Ex.P. 21 Another visiting card standing in the name of PW-1 Ex.P. 22 Document which contains the handwriting of the respondent Ex.P.23 Copy of the E-Mail communication of PW-1 with one Dr. Nagendra Lucid dtd: 22.5.2014 till 10.12.2014 Ex.P.24 CD contains whats apps messages Ex.P.25 Screen short of PW-1's mobile call logs Ex.P.26 CD of screen shorts Ex.P.27: Letter addressed by one Dr. C. Prasad to PW-1 dtd: 29.8.2013.
Ex.P.28 Postal cover addressed to PW-1
Ex.P.29 Certified copy of the FIR registered against
the PW-1 in Cr. No. 402/02 U/sec. 504 and
506 of IPC
Ex.P.30 Letter addressed by Beena Dayanand, Legal
consultant, Janodaya Micro credit
Programme to PW-1 dtd: 30.1.2009
Ex.P.31 Copy of the draft dtd: 28.11.2009 sent by
Dr. C. Prasad to Sri. Narendra Modi the then Chief Minister of Gujrat.
Ex.P. 32 Copy of the E-mail sent by Dr. C. Prasad along with the draft to PW-1 Ex.P. 33 E-mail sent by PW-1 to one Dr. Swaminathan dtd: 30.11.2009 Ex.P. 34 Copy of the E-Mail sent to PW-1 by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan.
Ex.P.35 E-Mail address to PW-1 from a unknown person 71 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Ex.P.36 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 to Sri. K.J. George, Hon'ble Home Minister of Karnataka on 6.2.2015 Ex.P.37 Certified copy of the letter addressed by PW-
1 to Sri. K.J. George, Hon'ble Home Minister of Karnataka Ex.P.38 Magazine Chrysanthemum Ex.P.39 Magazine, ICAR now and ahead Ex.P.40: Another book authored by the present PW-1 namely Sikkim, India Ex.P.41 Extract produced by the PW-1 authored by herself with respect to a subject namely 'Effect of Cytokinin and Moisture Stress on Cell Expansion Growth of Etiolated Cotyledons of Sponge-gourd (luffa Cylindrica) Roxb' Ex.P.42 Letter written by one R. Telang, Secretary, Food Security & Agriculture Development addressed to PW-1 Ex.P.43 Another letter written by Ms. Santhosh Vas, Chair lady, Janodayas dtd: 26.3.2009 Ex.P.44 Letter addressed by the PW-1 to the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority Ex.P. 45 Letter dtd: 20.2.2009 to IGP (G&HR), Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru by the present PW-1 Ex.P. 46 Another letter written by present PW-1 dtd:
19.11.2008 addressing Sri. S.P. Sharma, IGP, Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru 72 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Ex.P. 47 & 52 Certified copies of the letter addressed by the respondent to IGP complaining against the PW-1 Ex.P.48 & 49 Certified copies of the some copies of the endorsement addressed by the office of Director General of Police to PW-1 Ex.P.50 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the then Commissioner of Police namely Sri. Shankar Bidari Ex.P.51 Another letter addressed by the PW-1 dtd:
7.2.2001 to Sri. T. Sunil Kumar the then DCP South Ex.P. 53 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent dtd: 9.1.2009 to Asst. IGP Ex.P.54 Certified copy of the letter addressed by Asst. IGP to PW-1 dtd: 19.1.2009 Ex.P.55 Certified copy of the letter dtd: 19.1.2009 addressed to IGP Ex.P. 56 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to Asst. IGP (Cr) dtd: 20.1.2009 Ex.P. 57 certified copy of the medical certificate of respondent dtd: 20.1.2009 Ex.P. 58 Certified copy of the report dtd: 13.1.2009 Ex.P.59 Certified copy of the notice dtd: 25.2.2009 issued by Karnataka State Legal service authority addressing the respondent Ex.P.60 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 dtd: 18.1.2009 to Ajay Kumar Singh Ex.P.61 Certified copy of the endorsement dtd:
11.1.2010 addressed by the DGP and IGP to PW-1.73 C.Misc. No. 139/2015
Ex.P.62 Certified copy of the endorsement dtd:
12.1.2010 addressed by the DGP and IGP to the Police inspector, Jayanagar Ex.P.63: Certified copy of the endorsement dtd:
12.1.2010 addressed by Police inspector, Jayanagar to the DGP and IGP Ex.P.64 Certified copy of the letter addressed to Sri. Ranganath, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka by the PW-1 dtd: 11.6.2012 Ex.P.65 Copy of the letter dtd: 10.1.2012 written by the PW-1 addressed to D.V. Sadananda Gowda, Chief Minister of Karnataka Ex.P.66 Copy of the project proposal submitted by the PW-1 to the Principle Secretary of Government of Karnataka Ex.P.67 Certified copy of the medical records of the PW-1 Ex.P. 68 & 69 Copies of the E-mail addressed by the PW-1 on 30.6.2013 to the Governor of Karnataka Ex.P. 70 Copy of the E-Mail dtd: 22.7.2013 Ex.P.71 Certificate issued by the Z-4, Cyber café Ex.P.72 Discharge summary dtd: 19.1.2007 of Mallige hospital Ex.P.73 Certified copy of the medical report of Mallige hospital Ex.P.74 Copy of the certificate of appreciation of PW-
1 issued by C.S. Singh dtd: 21.6.1980 Ex.P.75 Certified copy of the letter dtd: 9.7.1989 addressed by one Ramdas Ex.P.76: Certified copy of the letter addressed by PW-
1 dtd: 9.3.2015 to Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka 74 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 Ex.P.77 E-ticket issued dtd: 25.2.2010 Ex.P.78 Certified copy of the statement of PW-1 Ex.P.79 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the respondent to the Police Inspector, Jayanagar complaining against the PW-1 Ex.P.80 Certified copy of the letter addressed by the PW-1 to the ADGP, Bengaluru dtd:
13.1.2011.
Ex.P.81 Certified copy of the calendar of events of the PW-1 from the year 1986 till 2010.
Ex.P. 82 Copy of the E-mail dtd: 22.10.2009 Ex.P.83 Copy of the E-Mail addressed by the PW-1 Ex.P.84 Copy of the material obtained by the internet Ex.P.85 Another certificate issued by Z-4, Cyber Café Ex.P.86 & 87 Copies of the details obtained from internet with respect to the achievements of Indo- American Hybrid seeds India Pvt., Ltd., Ex.P.88 & 89 Details obtained from the internet Ex.P.90 Certificate issued by in charge of Z-4, Cyber Café Ex.P.91 Xerox copy of the magazine, Indian Horticulture for the period of January to March 1991 Ex.P.92 (a) Signature admitted by the RW-1 dtd:
2.7.2002 Ex.P.93 Letter addressed by the PW-1 to IAHS Pvt., Ltd., wherein the placement dtd: 14.12.1998 Ex.P.94 Letter written by the PW-1 dtd: 31.3.2008 75 C.Misc. No. 139/2015 List of witnesses examined for Respondent:-
RW-1 Manmohan Attavar List of documents marked for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of the letter addressed to PW-1's Faridabad address in the year 1999 Exs.R.2 & 3: Ex.R.2 is the copy of the mobile no.
9845955000 for the month of September 2014. The Ex.R.3 is also the copy of the bill of mobile no. 9844014442 for the month of September 2014 Ex.R.4 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 134/14 lodged against one Nagendran Ex.R.5 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 208/15 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra Ex.R.6 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 334/13 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra Ex.R.7 Certified copy of the FIR in Cr. No. 85/15 lodged against said Dr. Nagendra Ex.R.8 Copy of the bill obtained in Z-4, Cyber Café dtd: 15.5.2015 Ex.R.9 Intimation letter under RTI Act issued by Deputy Registrar, The State Public Information Officer, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
List of documents marked for Court:
Ex.C.1: Letter issued by UCO bank dtd:
17.6.2015
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M.)
M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
76 C.Misc. No. 139/2015
77 C.Misc. No. 139/2015
78 C.Misc. No. 139/2015
Orders vide separate Order sheet
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/-(six thousand) per month to the petitioner no.1 (including food, cloth, rent, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till her lifetime.
The respondent no.1 is also directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each (Two thousand each) per month to the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 (including food, cloth, school fee, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till they attain age of majority.
79 C.Misc. No. 139/2015The respondent no.1 or his men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner.
The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioner no.1 in enforcing the order.
The other prayers of the petitioner no.1 are deemed to be rejected.
The claim made by the petitioners against the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is hereby dismissed.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both the parties.
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.