Delhi District Court
Cc No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs . Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu on 14 March, 2013
Page 1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: MAHILA
COURT:SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI.
CC No:378/1 (Date of filing 03.12.2011)
Case ID: 02406R0306262011
Jurisdiction of Police Station : Malviya Nagar
Ms. Pratima Gupta
W/o Sh. Shalender Kr Gupta @ Pappu
D/o Sh. Durga Prasad Gupta,
R/o J8B, PhII, Sheikh Sarai,
New Delhi. .................Aggrieved Person
Versus
Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu (Husband)
S/o Sh. Ram Ajor Gupta,
R/o H.No.2260/31, Adarsh Nagar,
Cooperative House Society,
Near U.S. Academic School,
Central Park, Ram Rahim Nagar,
Oswal Nagar, Nala Sapara,
East Mumbai 401209. .....................Respondent No.1
Sh. Sita Devi Gupta (Mother In law) W/o Sh. Ram Ajor Gupta, R/o H.No.2260/31, Adarsh Nagar, Cooperative House Society, Near U.S. Academic School, Central Park, Ram Rahim Nagar, Oswal Nagar, Nala Sapara, East Mumbai 401209. .....................Respondent No.2 Sh. Ram Ajor Gupta, (father in law) CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 2 of 9 R/o H.No.2260/31, Adarsh Nagar, Cooperative House Society, Near U.S. Academic School, Central Park, Ram Rahim Nagar, Oswal Nagar, Nala Sapara, East Mumbai 401209. .....................Respondent No.3 Ms. Urmila (Sister in law) W/o Sh. Ram Bahadur Gupta, R/o H.No.2260/31, Adarsh Nagar, Cooperative House Society, Near U.S. Academic School, Central Park, Ram Rahim Nagar, Oswal Nagar, Nala Sapara, East Mumbai 401209. .....................Respondent No.4 Sh. Ram Bahadur Gupta (Brother In law) S/o Sh. Baij Nath Gupta, R/o H.No.2260/31, Adarsh Nagar, Cooperative House Society, Near U.S. Academic School, Central Park, Ram Rahim Nagar, Oswal Nagar, Nala Sapara, East Mumbai 401209. .....................Respondent No.5 (RESPONDENT NO.25 WERE NOT SUMMONED BY THE COURT) APPLICATION U/S 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 EXPARTE JUDGMENT CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 3 of 9
1. Vide this exparte judgment, I shall decide an application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as "Act"), filed by Smt. Pratima Gupta (hereinafter referred as "the applicant") against her husband Shalender Kr. Gupta (hereinafter referred as "respondent No.1"), mother in law Sita (hereinafter referred as "respondent No.2"), father in law Ram Ajor Gupta (hereinafter referred as "respondent No.3"), sister in law i.e. Nanad Urmila (hereinafter referred as "respondent No.4") and brother in law i.e. Nandoi Ram Bahadur Gupta (hereinafter referred as "respondent No.5").
2. The application was filed on 03.12.2011. After hearing arguments, the Ld. Predecessor Court discharged respondent No.25. Respondent No. 1, however, was summoned by the Court. He did not appear despite service till 1:15PM on 08/08/12 and hence he was proceeded exparte.
3. Applicant was directed to lead exparte evidence during which she has examined herself as CW1 by way of an affidavit Ex.C1 on 06.02.2013. She has also relied upon certain documents in support of her testimony. Ex.CW1/A is the copy of the complaint dtd.06/07/11 filed before CAW Cell, Ex.CW1/B is the copy of Election I.D. Card of the applicant, Ex.CW1/C is the copy of the rent agreement executed between the applicant and her landlord on 30/07/11, and Ex.CW1/D is the application U/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The applicant was again examined ExParte on 14/03/13 regarding the source of income, and status of the families, of the applicant and respondent No.1. As the respondent No.1 was proceeded exparte, the applicant was not cross examined.
4. Final arguments were heard by the Court on 14.03.2013. I have considered the final arguments and perused the record carefully.
CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 4 of 9
5. It is alleged in the application u/s 12 of the Act, that the applicant married to the respondent No.1 on 04.03.1995. One female child, namely Komal, was born out of this wed lock on 12/08/98. The female child is in the custody of the applicant. She is a minor. After marriage the applicant was treated with utmost cruelty by respondent No.1 at her matrimonial house situated at Village Kanja Sarai Ghulami, Pargana and PS Patti, District Pratapgarh, UP. All the dowry articles of the applicant were taken away. She was taunted for not being fair and bringing insufficient dowry. Respondent No.1 did not bear the expenses of delivery when the applicant was pregnant with her first child. She was forced for abort her second child. On 09/05/00 she was beaten by the respondent No.1 when she demanded her jewelery. Respondent No.1 also demanded Rs.50,000/ during the marriage of the sister of the applicant. He further demanded money for running a shop and for purchasing a motorcycle. When the applicant was not able to fulfill his demand, she was beaten up. In the year 2004, respondent No.1 refused to pay money for the admission of their daughter. Harassments continued unabated even thereafter. Finally, in Feb.2008 the applicant was thrown out of the matrimonial house along with her daughter.
6. It is alleged by the applicant that she suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondent No.1 and hence, she does not want to go back to the matrimonial house. However, she has prayed for protection order u/s 18 of the Act along with residence order in the form of alternate accommodation / rent u/s 19 of the Act, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ per month, medical expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/ per month, compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/ along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.30,000/. It is alleged by the applicant that the respondent No.1 is a whole sale fruit supplier at Mumbai and is earning Rs.50,000/ per month.
CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 5 of 9
7. In her exparte testimony, applicant has reiterated the contents of her application on oath. As she was not cross examined, her testimony has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
8. I have heard final arguments and carefully perused the record.
9. In order to grant any relief to the aggrieved person qua any respondent, it is essential for aggrieved person to establish that she shared "domestic relationship" with the person arraigned as respondent and was subjected to domestic violence by the said respondent.
10. In the present case, applicant has alleged that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1. Though no proof has been filed by the applicant qua this claim, she has also not been cross examined on this aspect. A complaint filed by her before the CAW Cell raises the same claim. Applicant has leveled specific allegations of beating and taunting against the respondent No.1. The proceedings under Domestic Violence Act are quasi civil in nature and as per Section 18 of the Act, the applicant is only required to show a prima facie case. Hence, the applicant is not required to lead a strict proof of violence but only a shallow proof, which weighs heavier on the balance of probability. Testimony of the applicant being unrebutted, and the specific allegations against respondent No.1 suggest that the applicant was treated with cruelty. Hence, the applicant has been able to establish domestic relationship with the respondent No. 1 along with the fact that she was treated with cruelty in the matrimonial house by him.
11. DIR filed by the Protection Officer also supports the case of the applicant. The testimony led by the applicant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, court has no reason to disbelieve her testimony. It is established by the applicant from her unrebutted CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 6 of 9 testimony that she suffered physical violence as well as economic abuse in the matrimonial household at the hands of the respondents No.1. Hence, the applicant is entitled to claim various reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
12. Now, I shall deal with the relief sought by her.
Relief:
U/s 18 of the Act
13. The applicant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 of the Act stating that the respondent be injuncted from committing / repeating the acts of domestic violence alleged by her. However, it is clear from the perusal of the record that the applicant is residing separately from the respondent No.1 since the year 2008. She is not interested in staying with the respondent No.1 in future as well. Hence, question of continuance of domestic violence does not arise. Relief of protection order is therefore declined.
U/s 19 & u/s 20 of the Act
14. The applicant has prayed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.30,000/ per month along with rent for arranging an alternative accommodation of the same level as that of the matrimonial household. To decide the amount of maintenance and rent that is to be ordered in favour of the applicant, Court is first required to assess the status of the parties. In the present case, applicant has alleged that the respondent No.1 is running a business of whole sale supply of fruits in Mumbai. During her reexamination she deposed that the respondent No.1 has studied up to 12th std. and he has inherited the business of supply of fruits from his father. She deposed that the respondent does not own any vehicle and the entire family is staying in a one room accommodation in Mumbai. She deposed that the father of the respondent owns some agricultural land at village Kanja Sarai which is being CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 7 of 9 cultivated by his brothers and they sent some share to the father of the respondent as well. It is deposed that the respondent is the only son of his parents and there are no unmarried daughters in the family. Regarding her own education, applicant deposed that she has studied up to 10th standard and that she has worked as a receiptionist in the part and was earning Rs.4,500/ per month towards salary from the said job. The applicant has alleged that the respondent No.1 is earning around Rs.50,000/ per month. However, no proof of income of the respondent No.1 has been filed by the applicant. Hence, court has no option but to assess the income of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the social status of the parties.
15. As deposed by the applicant, none of the party i.e. she herself or respondent No. 1 went to the college. Respondent No.1 has only studied up to class 12th and the applicant has studied up to 10th standard. The life style professed by both the parties suggest that they belong to lower middle income group. I say so on the basis of the fact that none of the parties own a vehicle. Further, the entire family of the respondent No.1 is residing in a one room accommodation in Mumbai. The kind of family status of the respondent No.1, disclosed by the applicant, makes me doubt upon the statement of the applicant to the effect that the respondent No.1 is earning Rs.50,000/ per month. However, at the same time, I am not oblivious of the fact the respondent No.1 is residing in Mumbai where cost of living is much higher then the cost in Delhi. Accordingly, considering the assumption that the parties belong to lower middle class families and the fact that the respondent No.1 is settled in Mumbai where cost of living is much higher then Delhi and the respondent No.1 is still able to own a house though only consisting of one room, I proceed to assume the income of respondent No. 1 to be Rs.20,000/ per month. As per the material placed on record, respondent No.1 has a responsibility to maintain the applicant and their minor daughter only, as the parents of the CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 8 of 9 respondent No.1 are receiving agricultural income. Therefore, the income of the respondent No.1 is required to be divided into 4 shares out of which two shares will go to the respondent No.1 and one share each would be allocated to the applicant and her minor daughter. While allocating the share to the applicant and her minor daughter it is imperative upon this court to also considered the fact that the cost of living is much higher in Mumbai then in Delhi. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/ per month each to the applicant and her minor daughter towards maintenance from the date of filing of the present application, till the lifetime of the applicant, or till her remarriage. Minor daughter shall be entitle to receive the maintenance until she attain the age of majority or until her marriage, whichever is earlier. Further, in order to enable the applicant to secure an alternate accommodation, he is directed to pay rent to the tune of Rs.2,000/ per month to her from the date of the order.
16. Arrears be cleared within nine months. The respondent is further directed to furnish the monthly maintenance and the amount towards rent after the date of order, by way of money order or by deposit in the bank account of the aggrieved person on furnishing of account number of the same, by or before 10th day of each English calender month. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Gaurav Sodhi Vs. Divya Sodhi - 120 DLT (2005) 426. Maintenance that may have been received, or being received by the applicant in any other case shall be adjusted.
U/s 22 of the Act
17. Applicant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/. However, no specific physical or mental injuries have either been alleged or proved by the applicant in order to enable her to claim damages. Hence, relief of compensation is declined. Regarding CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu Page 9 of 9 litigation expenses, it is seen that the Ld. Counsel of the applicant has not filed any certificate of fees. However, considering the economic status of the parties, one time litigation charges to the tune of Rs.10,000/ are awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondent No.1.
18. No ground made out to grant any other relief to the aggrieved person.
19. Application stands disposed off in the said terms. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court On 14th March, 2013.
(JYOTI KLER) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No:378/1 Ms. Pratima Gupta vs. Sh. Shalender Kr. Gupta @ Pappu