Delhi District Court
Smt. Kaveri vs . Naveen & Ors. on 3 June, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR:MM
KARKARDOOMA COURTS / DELHI
Smt. Kaveri Vs. Naveen & Ors.
CC No. 12/08
P.S. Krishna Nagar
U/s : 12 of Protection of the Women
From Domestic Violence Act, 2005
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application for interim reliefs u/s.12 of the Act filed by the complainant.
2. In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that she was married with the respondent no.1 on 11.12.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It has been submitted that though sufficient dowry was given in the marriage by the parents of the complainant but, the respondents were not satisfied with that and soon after the marriage the respondents started taunting, torturing and harassing the complainant physically and mentally. It has been submitted that respondent no.1 started demanding Rs.2,00,000/- and a Karizma motor cycle from her parents in dowry as they has given CD 100 Bajaj motor cycle and when the complainant showed her inability to bring in dowry such a huge amount, she was beaten up mercilessly. It has been alleged that respondent no.2 refused to Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 2 make physical relations with the complainant as his demand for dowry was not being fulfilled. It has been submitted that respondent no.6 used to instigate the respondent no.1 to divorce the complainant. It has been submitted that in December 2006 and on 23.6.2007, the aforesaid demand of Rs.2,00,000/- and the Karizma motor cycle was repeated by the respondents and on refusal of the same, the complainant was man handled, abused and insulted. It has been alleged that when the demand made on 23.06.2007, was not complied with, all the respondents no.1 to 5 gave mercilessly beatings to the complainant with fists and blows and they took the complainant on the roof of the house and threw the complainant from the room on the road in order to kill her as a result of which the complainant sustained multiple fractures on her different parts of body and consequently FIR No.554/07 u/s.498A/307/506/34 IPC was registered against the respondents. It has been submitted that the respondent no.1 is doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of the mobile phones, mobile coupon, mobile accessories under the name and style of M/s. Naveen Telecome at C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi-92 and earns about Rs.30,000/- per month and besides this the respondent is doing the business of property dealing and earns about Rs.20,000/- per month. It has been further submitted that all the jewelleries and stridhan of the complainant Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 3 has been retained by the respondents and respondent no.2 is the owner of the property bearing no.C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi-92 and all the dowry articles are lying in the said house in the possession of the respondents. It has been prayed that respondent no.1 be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards the maintenance, Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for treating the complainant with cruelty, to direct the respondent no.1 to secure some accommodation for the complainant to live therein in the premises no.C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi or at some other suitable place of the same level, to pay Rs.20,000/-per month to the complainant towards the ad-interim exparte maintenance u/s.23 of the Act, to restrain the respondents from alienating or disposing of the house C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi and to restrain the respondent from renouncing his right in the shared household and also restrain the respondents from disposing of or causing any loss to the dowry articles/stridhan of the complainant.
3. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 to 6 submitting therein that it was not the complainant who was tortured or humiliated but it were the respondents who became the scapegoat to the sarcastic and cruel mentality of the complainant and her family which resulted in registration of false FIR No.554/07 Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 4 u/s.498A/307/506/34 IPC in PS Shakarpur. It has been submitted that the complainant was under graduate at the time of marriage and graduation studies were completed while staying at her in law's house and expenses incurred in the studies were borne by the respondents. It has been submitted that the incident as alleged by the complainant that she was thrown away from roof is absolutely false and frivolous as the complainant fell down from the grill due to unbalance resulted by giddiness and regained conscious after three days at G. T. B. Hospital, Shahdara and respondent no.3 alongwith other family members including respondent no.1 gave blood on 24.06.2008 for the complainant and all the expenses were born by the respondents. It has been submitted that the complainant had written a letter16.07.07 to SHO PS Shakarpur to the said effect and this letter was mentioned by the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld.ASJ while granting bail to the respondents in FIR No.554/07. It has been submitted that respondent no.1 has no source of income to even feed himself and presently living on the mercy of the friends and the relatives. All the allegations of cruelty, torture and demand of dowry have been denied by the respondent in the reply. It has been denied that the respondent no.1 ever demanded Rs.2,00,000/- or a Karizma motor cycle. It has been denied that respondent no.1 is earning about Rs.30,000/- p.m. and Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 5 that respondent no.1 is earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. from property dealing. It has been submitted that the respondent no.1 opened the outlet for selling the mobile pre-paid coupons in the month of March 2007 with the financial assistance of respondent no.3 but the same was shut down as the respondent no.1 alongwith respondent no.3 and 4 put to judicial custody on 22.07.2007 for one month. In the end it has been prayed that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as she has also taken her jewellery articles/stridhan as well as the one gifted by the respondents and nothing has left with the respondents. It has been prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.
4. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for both the parties.
5. The factum of the marriage of the complainant with respondent no.1 on 11.12.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies is not denied. It has also not been denied that after lodging the FIR no.554/07 at the instance of the complainant against the respondents, the complainant is residing separately from the respondents. During the course of arguments on the point of shared household Ld. counsel for the respondent has relied upon Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 6 an authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India titled as S. R. Batra & Anr. vs.Smt. Taruna Batar cited as 2006 SCCL.COM 1112 wherein it has been held that :
"Matrimonial Home - British Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 - no such law in India - the rights which may be available under any law can only be as against the husband and not against the father-in-law or mother-in-law - house in question belongs to the mother-in-law of the respondent and not to the husband - the house in question cannot be said to be a `shared household' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in- laws or other relatives - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(s), 17 and 19(1)."
6. In the case in hand, I would like to decide the controversy as to whether house bearing no. C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi-92 is a shared household or not and as to whether the complainant is entitled for any relief with respect to the said house. It has to be seen that in para 13 of the complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant has himself submitted that Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 7 respondent no.2 i.e. Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Sh. Shia Ram who is mother of the respondent no.1 and mother-in-law of the complainant is the owner of the aforesaid house.
7. Vide orders dt. 30.04.2008, which was passed on the consent of counsel for the complainant, lady members i.e. respondent no. 2,5,6 & 7 were deleted from the array of the respondents in view of the judgement titled as Ajay Kant & Ors. vs. Smt. Alka Sharma cited as 2007(4) RCR Crl. Page 930 (MP High court) wherein it was held that :
"U/ss.12 & 2(q) of the Act, the complaint against the ladies is not maintainable and the complaint for the offence under the Act can be filed only against adult male person and as such the proceedings qua ladies quashed."
8. In the light of the abovesaid ratio of the case decided by Hon'ble supreme court of India wherein it has been categorically held that if the house in question belongs to the mother-in-law and not to the husband then house in question cannot be said to be shared household, I am of the opinion as in the case in hand none else but the complainant has stated that the house in question belongs to mother-in-law and as such the aforesaid house cannot termed as shared household within the meaning of section 2 (s) of Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 8 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence as such the interim relief sought for by the complainant with respect to the shared household cannot be granted.
9. So far as the question of maintenance is concerned it has to be seen that the complainant has alleged that from his earning of mobile shop, the respondent no.1 is earning Rs.30,000/- and from the business of property dealing is earning Rs.20,000/-. No documentary proof has been placed on record to show that he is earning so much. Respondent no.1 in the reply had categorically denied any income and he has stated that for his survival also he is depending upon the friends and relatives. With respect to the opening of the outlet of mobile phone for selling the mobile pre-paid coupons it has been submitted that while he was in JC in case FIR No.554/07 both the shops were closed and shut down. Under these circumstances, there is no straight jacket formula before the court to come to any rigid conclusion with respect to the in-come of the respondent no.1. However, from the entirety of the facts, in my opinion, it would be in the fitness of the things if interim maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- p.m. is granted to the complainant, the same would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances, the respondent no.1 is also directed to acquire same level of accommodation for the complainant as she would be Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 9 in the shared household bearing no.C-25, Guru Ram Dass Nagar within one month from today.
10. To come up for evidence on behalf of the complainant on 31.07.2008.
Announced in the open court on 03.06.2008 ( RAJ KUMAR ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMACOURTS:DELHI Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 10 Smt. Kaveri Vs. Naveen & Ors.
CC No. 12/08P.S. Krishna Nagar U/s : 12 of Protection of the Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 03.06.2008 Present:- Complainant with counsel.
Vide separate order, the interim reliefs have been granted to the complainant under various sections of the Act as mentioned in the order itself.
Matter be put up for evidence on behalf of the complainant on 31.07.2008.
MM/03.06.2008 Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08 11 Kaveri vs. Naveen & Ors. CC NO.12/08