Bangalore District Court
Juhi Sinha vs Chandra Mohan on 29 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SMT.POOJA SHETTI
BA., LL.B. (Hon's).
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 29th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014
PETITIONER: Juhi Sinha,
W/o.Chandra Mohan,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at.No.102, Tulasi Villa, 6th Cross,
ING Vyshya Bank, RT Nagar,
Bengaluru - 05.
// VS //
RESPONDENTS : 1. Chandra Mohan,
S/o.Late.Mohan Rao,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at.No.11/1, Webster Road,
Thambuchetty Road, Cox Town,
Bengaluru - 06.
2. Rani Padmini Rao,
Mother of respondent No.1,
aged about 50 years.
3. Asha Rao,
Sister of respondent No.1,
Aged about 33 years.
4. Girish Rao,
Brother of respondent No.1,
Aged about 30 years.
\
2 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence At., 2005 (herein after referred as P.W.D.V. Act, 2005) seeking various relief.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case is as follows;
That the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent was a love marriage and they got married on 09.12.2011 at Ganesha Temple, Near Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in the presence of friends. After the marriage, petitioner informed her family about the same, however she was unable to convince them, hence the respondent took her from the tuition class to his house. Thereafter, his parent's informed local police, where the police called her parents and obtained their statement. According to petitioner, she was taken to respondents house on 02.01.2012 and on 04.01.2012 her marriage with the respondent was registered at Registrar of Marriage, Ulsoor, Bengaluru and on 02.01.2012 the respondent forced her to give statement stating that, her parents are committing nuisance by interfering and they should not visit \ 3 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 her. According to petitioner, respondent No.3 i.e., sister of the respondent No.1 has left her husband 11 years back itself and she was living in the matrimonial house of the petitioner. According to petitioner, her sister-in-law and mother-in-law i.e., 2nd respondent used to instigate the 1st respondent stating that, petitioner is not performing any of house hold work and the respondent No.1 after listening to that, used to abuse the petitioner. According to petitioner, 1st respondent is working for Future Group of Company and drawing a salary of more than Rs.20,000/- per month, 4th respondent i.e., brother of the 1st respondent is working as Technical Executive and drawing a salary of more than Rs.30,000/- and the 2nd respondent is owing a house of her late husband and getting a rent of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, the entire income of the family is nearly Rs.1,00,000/- per month and same will be handed over to respondent No.2, who used to handle the maintenance of joint family of the respondent. The petitioner further submits that, her marriage registration certificate and school documents are retained by the respondent and they did not return the same to her. The petitioner further submits that, the 1st respondent used to \ 4 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 harass and torture her mentally and physically by demanding money and jewellaries from her parents and after the death of 1st respondent's father, the male members of the family started to consume alcohol and used to harass the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that, when she became pregnant, she wanted to meet her parents, however as her parents did not fulfill the demands of respondent for money and jewellary, the respondent used to take the petitioner to nearby places to meet her father and she was not allowed to meet her father alone and those meetings were restricted to short period and during those meetings, her father used to give Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent to take care of the petitioner's need, however the respondent never took care of her and she was subjected to mental and physical harassment. Thereafter, they did not send her to her parent's house and she gave birth to a child at K.C.General Hospital, wherein she has undergone caesarean, as her health condition was very bad. The petitioner further submits that, even after the birth of child, she was not given proper food, hence she and her child suffered from Malnutrition. With respect to harassment of the respondent, she \ 5 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 has lodged complaint on 06.01.2014 at Pulakeshinagara Police Station against the respondent No.1. According to petitioner, she was not provided any financial assistance by the respondent. The petitioner further submits that, whenever she questioned the wrong deeds of the respondent No.1, he used to assault her in front of everybody and he used to consume alcohol and used to abuse the petitioner. Further, there is no co-habitation between them from last two years and the respondent used to ask for divorce, as he had illegal relationship. The petitioner further submits that, on 01.01.2014, she requested the respondent No.1 and 2 to allow her to visit her parent's house for permission, though they permitted her to visit, implored condition that, she should bring money and jewellery from her parents. When the petitioner visited her parents house, the 1st respondent did not entered the house, he was waiting outside, then she informed her parents about her condition and torture given by the respondent and return to the house of the respondent. After coming to know that, the petitioner did not brought money and jewellary from her parents, the respondent No.1 started to assault the petitioner with the help of respondent \ 6 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 No.2 and 3 and other respondents were also involved. They did not gave food to the petitioner. On 05.01.2014, after listening to respondent No.2 and 3, the petitioner was mercilessly beaten, hence she fell unconscious for few minutes. Thereafter, following morning, when the 1st respondent was sleeping, she took his mobile phone and informed her parents about the incident, hence her parents with the help of two constables of Frazer Town Police Station came to the house of respondent and rescued the petitioner along with the child. Thereafter, police took complaint from the petitioner on 06.01.2014 in NCR No.14/2014. According to petitioner, in the complaint, the police as per the instruction of respondent No.1, forced her to add a line stating that, "she is going to her parents along with her son" to cover up the mistakes of the respondent. The petitioner further submits that, as the petitioner and the 1st respondent were very young, police advised them to stay away for 20 days and to see, if there is any changes. Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint before Ulsoor Gate Police Station asking the petitioner to come and join, only to safeguard himself from the dowry harassment complaint which petitioner \ 7 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 might have filed. Thereafter, police advised them to stay separately for 6 months and asked the petitioner to show the child to 1st respondent, which continued for 2 to 3 weeks. Thereafter, suddenly the 1st respondent stopped visiting to see the child and filed case for restitution of conjugal right and custody of the child. According to petitioner, in spite of repeated advice, there is no change in the behavior of the respondent and he showed dis-respect to petitioner and her parents. The petitioner further submits that, her father and police arranged counseling, however it failed and from last two years there is no co-habitation between petitioner and 1st respondent. According to petitioner, respondent has told her that, he married petitioner only due to the force of her younger brother and common friends. Further, he has threatens the petitioner with the dire consequences and false complaints, as he has economic and political help. Hence, the petition.
3. After the registration of the petition, notice has been issued to the respondents through RPAD and P.O. After the service of said notice, respondents appeared before the court and filed objections to main petition.
\ 8 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 On the other hand, respondent admitted the marriage, however contended that, the petitioner is making false allegation and it is her parents who are real culprits and it is them who destroyed the family of petitioner and respondent. According to respondent, he has studied only up to SSLC, he has no money power or political influence, hence he is finding difficulty even to find a job, after deserting the respondent, petitioner is leading her life, as per her choice, she is working and earning good salary and also roaming around with like minded friends. She is also not allowing the respondent to meet the child and using the child as pawn. According to respondent, he had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal right, before Hon'ble Family Court, Bengaluru. As the petitioner, as left the matrimonial house due to her immaturity and lack of worldly knowledge and at the instigation of her parents and brother. According to respondent, he has made his efforts to take back the petitioner, however all his efforts went in vein. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
4. In order to prove her case, petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and got 5 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to \ 9 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 Ex.P.5. In spite of sufficient opportunity, the respondents failed to cross examine the PW.1.
5. Perused both documentary and oral evidence available on record. Heard arguments.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the respondents have subjected her to domestic violence ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief's sought in the petition ?
3. What order?
7. My findings on the above said points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE;
Point No.3: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 AND 2 : As these points are interlinked
with each other, they are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
\ 10 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014
9. In the present petition, respondents did not disputed his relationship with the complainant and factum of living together in the shared household prior to their separation. Accordingly, domestic relationship between the parties as defined under section 2(f) of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 is proved. In order to grant relief under the provision of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005., it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent and she is aggrieved person as per the provisions of the said act.
10. In order to prove her contentions, petitioner got herself examined as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in- chief. It is the contention of the petitioner that, her marriage with the respondent No.1 was a love marriage, however after the marriage, as petitioner was only 18 year old, respondents approached police and took the assurance from her parents that, they will not disturb the marriage. According to petitioner, she was not allowed to meet her parents and she was compelled to do all household works. The petitioner further contends that, respondent's family is a dysfunctional family, who believes in \ 11 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 superstition and 2nd respondent is an autocrat. According to petitioner, the 2nd respondent i.e., mother of 1st respondent has separated all her children from their respective spouse. The 3rd respondent i.e., sister of 1st respondent has deserted her husband and she has a 11 year old daughter. According to petitioner, she seeks money ranging from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from her husband even to allow him to meet his daughter. However, at the time of filing of petition, the petitioner neither alleged about superstition or witchcraft against the respondents and all these allegations are beyond her pleadings and backed up with no corroborative evidence. Further, at the time of filing of petition, in her pleading, the petitioner contended that, her father-in-law, used to consume alcohol and used to use abusive language against her. However, in her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief, the petitioner claims that, it is the only her father-in-law who had sympathy towards her and he used to support her, hence respondent No.1, 2 and 4 used to beat him According to petitioner, her father-in-law expired on 04.11.2012 and the respondents did not allowed her to meet him. However, when she got an \ 12 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 opportunity, to sneak into his room, while he was on death bed, he warned her to leave the matrimonial house for her safety. The petitioner further deposes that, during her pregnancy, her father- in-law used to bring fruits and sweets to her, without the knowledge of other respondents. That, itself goes to show that, the petitioner improving her version and it is in contradiction with main petition averment, where she has alleged that, her father-in- law, who is no more also used to verbally abuse her after consuming alcohol. Further, no where in her petition averment, the petitioner has stated that, the house of the respondent is like a port having iron grills with big padlocks. According to petitioner, excess to ground floor and first floor are also secured with iron grills and padlocks and 2nd respondent used to keep the key with her and she used to roam around the house like a prison warden. All these allegations are beyond pleading allegations and no corroborative evidence has been placed on record.
11. According to petitioner, during her pregnancy, the respondents failed to provide proper medication and food, hence her child is suffering from malnutrition. In order to prove the \ 13 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 same, she has produced a photograph of her child with a C.D. and got them marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively. By mere perusal of a photograph, it cannot be decided whether a child is suffering from malnutrition or not and no corroborative medical records has been placed on record by the petitioner to prove that, her child is suffering from malnutrition.
12. According to petitioner, the respondents used to demand dowry and when the petitioner failed to comply, the respondents have beaten her and also abused her stating that, after the birth of her child, her father-in-law died. According to petitioner, when she failed to bring dowry from her parents, she was not given proper food and occasionally, the 1st respondent used to make her kneel down, naked and used to beat her with his belt. On 05.01.2014, the respondent No.1 to 3, assaulted her mercilessly and when she fell unconsciousness they sprinkled water on her, next day, she took the mobile phone of 1st respondent without his knowledge and informed her parents about the life threat, hence her parents came to the house of respondent along with two constables of Frazer Town Police Station and rescued her and her \ 14 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 child from the respondents, hence she has lodged a complaint in NCR.No.14/2014 against the respondents. However, police advised them to stay separately for 20 days and in the meanwhile, respondents approached Halsurgate Police Station and filed a false complaint against the petitioner. He also filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal right and G & WC only to protect himself. In order to prove her contention, she has produced two medical records issued by Bowring Hospital and got that marked as Ex.P.5. On perusal of the same, information of assault was given by the patient herself and in the said document, there were no allegations about the in-laws, only it has been mentioned that "alleged assault by her husband". Further, the said examination was done on 13.01.2014 with respect to alleged assault dated 05.01.2014. Further, as per Ex.P.5, she was discharged against medical advice, that, itself clearly goes to show that, after 8 days of the alleged incident, petitioner went to hospital, and no other documents of treatment, if taken any have been produced by the petitioner. She has also produced NCR copy and got that marked as Ex.P.4. On perusal of the same, complaint has been lodged only against the 1st \ 15 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014 respondent and there are no allegations against other respondents. Further, the complaint has been lodged on 06.012014, still there was no mentioned about the alleged assault dated 05.01.2014 or about police rescuing her from the matrimonial house. Further, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, after filing of restitution of conjugal rights petition by the respondent. In view of above observation, it is very clear, the petitioner did not approach this court with clean hands and except vague allegations, there is no corroborative evidence of any form of domestic violence. Hence, I answered both Point No.1 and Point No.2 are in the NEGATIVE.
13. Point No.3: For the foregoing discussion and finding on Point No.1 and 2, following order is passed;
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under
section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act., 2005 is hereby
dismissed.
Parties have to bear their own cost.
\
16 Crl. Misc.No.161 - 2014
(The order dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and pronounced and signed by me on this 29th day of February 2020) (POOJA SHETTI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Juhi Sinha.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P.1 Marriage Registration Certificate.
Ex.P.2 Photo.
Ex.P.3 C.D.
Ex.P.4 Copy of NCR.
Ex.P.5 Out-Patient Card.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
NIL
(POOJA SHETTI)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.