Delhi District Court
Smt. Priti Dhamanakar vs . on 10 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU VEDWAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT01,
CENTRAL, DELHI.
CC NO. 142/6/13
U/s 12 of The Domestic Violence Act.
PS : Karol Bagh
Case ID no. 02401R0403062013
1. Smt. Priti Dhamanakar
W/o Sh. Anil Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Dhakuram Dhamanakar,
2. Pranjal (Minor)
D/o Sh. Anil Kumar
(Through her natural guardian/mother
Smt. Priti Dhamanakar)
Both R/o House No. 4267,
Gali No. 61, Raigerpura,
Karol Bagh, Delhi. ..........Complainant
Vs.
1. Shri Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Tejkumar
2. Sh. Tejkumar
3. Smt. Kamla W/o Sh. Tejkumar
4. Sh. Ajit S/o Sh. Tejkumar
5. Anita W/o Sh. Pushpender
D/o Sh. Tejkumar
All R/o B424, Chhatarpur Extension,
Near Murgi Farm, New Delhi ..........Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 12.08.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 10.05.2016
Date of decision of case : 10.05.2016
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 1 of 15
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the petition under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the complainant against the respondents.
Brief facts of the case are stated as under: 2 It is the case of the complainant that she got married to respondent no.1 on 22.10.2011, at Delhi, according to, Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of that wedlock, a baby girl namely Pranjal born on 24.07.2012.
3 Complainant has levelled allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against the respondents. It is stated that with consent of both the sides, date of roka ceremony was fixed and the inlaws of the complainant insured that there were 8 to 10 persons at the roka ceremony from their side. It is further stated that on the day of roka ceremony, there were more than 30 persons from the side of inlaws. On that day itself, inlaws of complainant demanded cash as sagan for every person present in the function including children. It is further stated that in September 2011 on the day of ring ceremony, mother and brother of the complainant gave rupees 5,000/ as cash sagan, one gold ring, one gold chain to respondent husband and one gold pendant set with earrings to motherinlaw and Rs.3100/ cash as combined sagan to all relatives of the respondents. But, inlaws of the complainant demanded more cash CC No. 142/6/13 Page 2 of 15 as sagan of Rs. 50,000/, which was given by brother of the complainant. It is also stated that parents of the complainant had spent lots of money on dowry articles, gifts and on other functions of marriage. It is further stated that after the marriage, on 06.11.2011, respondent husband told the complainant that they would go to Manali for honeymoon on 08.11.2011 and 09.11.2011. Parentsinlaw and husband of the complainant insisted her to give all gold articles to her mother inlaw on the pretext that she would keep the same in a safe custody.
4 It is further stated that on 09.11.2011, when the complainant alongwith her husband had to go for honeymoon, her husband told her that he had some urgent office work and cancelled the honeymoon programe. When, the complainant asked the reason for cancelling the honeymoon, respondent husband started shouting and said "apne bhai se paise le aa to honeymoon per chalte". It is further stated that after 34 days, when the complainant demanded her gold articles from her husband and mother in law to wear the same in the dinner function organised at her parents home, they both started shouting at the complainant and said "iske bhai nai our maa nai shadi mai na to ghar ka sara saman dia or na hi mere ladke ko bike dee". When the complainant replied "mere bhai nai apko kya nahi diya", her husband and motherinlaw started beating her badly.
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 3 of 15 5 It is further stated that after one month of the marriage, motherinlaw, sisterinlaw and husband of the complainant said that "bari ayai saj dhaj kar aram karane wali ab koi nakhare nahi challenge, aaj se sare ghar ka kam tu karegi, aaj se hamne kam wali ko bhi kam karene ke liye mana kar diya hai", she was then made to work like a maid servant and was always taunted by saying that she came from a very poor family and her mother did not teach her how to cook food. One day, upon constant taunting of the inlaws, when the complainant replied, her husband and mother in law slapped her very badly, locked her in a room for two hours without food and water and told her that if she wanted to live in their house, she had to live according to them. 6 It is further stated that in the first week of December 2011 when the complainant went back from her school to home, after washing some utensils, she went back to her room for some rest, her motherinlaw again started abusing her and asked her to wash utensils. When the complainant told her that she had already washed the utensils and if some left, she would wash them after taking some rest, her motherinlaw created a scene and tried to beat her by throwing utensils on her. It is further stated that in the evening when husband and brotherinlaw of the complainant came, motherinlaw of the complainant narrated them false and fabricated story and they all without knowing the truth started CC No. 142/6/13 Page 4 of 15 beating the complainant.
7 It is further stated that in the month of December 2011, the complainant got pregnant and when the complainant asked her husband to go to doctor for checkup, her husband refused and told her to go with her brother Ajit. All the respondents always threatened the complainant "Ladka hi hona chahiye varna hum tujhe jaan se mar denge". It is also stated that even in the pregnancy condition, complainant was not allowed to take rest and was forced to go to school for job. Whenever, in the morning, complainant told her husband to drop her to the bus stand, he always refused and taunted her that "tere bhai nai shadi mai kon se bike dee hai jo mai tujhe bus stand pai drop kar don". 8 It is further stated that on 26.12.2011, complainant told her husband that she wanted to meet her parents, respondents told that "hamare pass time nahi hai, un bhokho kai ghar jane ka, tum apne aap hi chali jao". On hearing this, complainant herself reached at her parental house. In the evening, respondent husband told the complainant on phone that if she wanted to live in her matrimonial home, she had to bring rupees 50,000/ or a bike from her brother. On the said demand, parents of the complainant somehow arranged an amount of rupees 50,000/ and gave it to her inlaws, after that, complainant was allowed to enter into her matrimonial house.
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 5 of 15 9 It is further stated that one day, when the complainant went back from school, she found that her television was not in her room and her motherinlaw told that she did not want two televisions in the house. One day, when the complainant switched on her motherinlaw's television, her motherinlaw came and turned off the television and pushed her out of the room and said "agli bar t.v ko hath lagaya to hath tor dungi". It is further stated that on 12.01.2012, in the evening when the complainant served tea to her sisterinlaw and motherinlaw, suddenly, her motherinlaw poured that hot tea on her and said "yeh chai layi hai ya sharbat tujhe pata hai mai jayada chini nahi piti". On listening the loud voice, brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw of the complainant pulled her from her hair and beat her. Respondent husband asked the complainant to say sorry to her motherinlaw for her no fault. 10 It is further stated that apart from the financial and mental stress, her husband made sexual contact with her against her will and if complainant refused, he started beating her and used vulgar language and said "tujhe mai apne jutey may pani pilaonga". It is further stated that on 17.02.2012, all the respondents pressurized the complainant to go for a routine checkup to their doctor at Ghaziabad, though, the treatment for pregnancy continued in Delhi. When the complainant reached to the doctor at Ghaziabad, she checked the complainant and also done the ultrasound. It is CC No. 142/6/13 Page 6 of 15 further stated that on 20.02.2012, husband of the complainant told her that according to their doctor, there is a girl child in the womb of complainant, they did not want girl child, respondents forced her to abort the child and also beat her in her pregnancy condition. 11 It is further stated that on 21.02.2012 in the morning, the complainant was in very high fever and could not prepare food in the morning and went to her school. In the afternoon, when the complainant went back to her matrimonial home, all the respondents got angry and started assaulted and torturing by giving slap on her face. Respondent husband told that "yaa to tu abortion kara lai, ya apne bhai ke ghar chali ja, varna main tujhe aj jaan se mar dunga or teri lash ko pankhe se latka dunga". The complainant thereafter, called her brother and mother. In the evening of 21.02.2012, parents of complainant came to her matrimonial home but her inlaws did not allow them to enter into the house and also threw the complainant out from the house and kept the door lock. Thereafter, parents of the complainant took her with them to her parental home. The complainant was not even allowed to take her clothes, gold articles and other necessary articles while leaving her matrimonial home. It is further stated that since 21.02.2012, complainant is living separately from her husband. All the expenses of the delivery of baby girl was also borne by her brother.
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 7 of 15 12 It is further stated that the respondent no.1 husband is working at R.K & Company, Chhatarpur, Delhi at very good position and earns rupees 20,000/ per month and also have a rental income. It is further stated that the respondent husband is having equal share/or owner of the property bearing no. B424, Chhatarpur Extension, new Murgi Farm, New Delhi. 13 On the basis of above facts, the complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18, residence order u/s 19, monetary relief u/s 20 and compensation u/s 22 of PWDV Act.
14 Domestic Incident Report (DIR) was filed by the protection officer.
15 After considering the DIR, summons of the petition was served upon respondent no. 1 to 3 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 17.08.2013.
16 Thereafter, detailed reply was filed on behalf of respondents refuting all the allegations. It is stated in the reply that the marriage was a gift less marriage and no gift, cash or any article was exchanged between the parties in the said marriage. It is further stated that the complainant wanted to lead a luxurious life and immediately after the marriage, she demanded a luxurious car and a flat. It is further stated that due to the ruthless attitude of the complainant, respondent husband fallen ill and suffered some neurological problem i.e partial seizure of body. It is also stated CC No. 142/6/13 Page 8 of 15 that the respondent no.3 used to wash utensils and clothes of whole family. It is further stated that none of the respondents have ever beaten or slapped the complainant at any point of time. It is further stated that on 21.02.2012, the complainant herself left her matrimonial home with her brother Rajesh and sister Dr. Shilpa on the pretext of party at her parental house. It is further stated that on 21.02.2012, the complainant went to school as daily routine and did not return to her matrimonial home. The respondents were worried about the complainant and when they inquired, then it was revealed that she went to her brother's house. It is further stated that the complainant did not join her matrimonial home despite repeated requests of the respondents. It is further stated that the respondents were not intimated/informed about the delivery of the child. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 husband is unemployed and totally depends upon his parents, even for his day to day needs and requirements.
17 Thereafter, matter was put up for leading of complainant evidence. Complainant in order to support her contentions has examined herself as CW1 and has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. CW1 has reiterated the same facts as stated in the complaint.
CW1 during her cross examination submitted that her brother had spent rupees ten to twelve lakh approximately in her CC No. 142/6/13 Page 9 of 15 marriage. However, she had not placed any document regarding such expenditure. CW1 further submitted that she had not lodged any other complaint against her inlaws for harassment. CW1 has once again submitted that she was doing job even, when, she was residing in her matrimonial home.
18 After the completion of complainant evidence, respondent has lead his piece of evidence. Respondent no. 1 has filed his affidavit as Ex. RW1/1 and has reiterated the facts as stated by him in his reply. RW1 has relied upon the salary slip of the complainant Ex.RW1/2.
During the course of cross examination, RW1 submitted that he is suffering from the ailment as mentioned in his written statement i.e partial seizure of body. RW1 further submitted that he had told about his said illness to the family of the complainant before marriage. RW1 also submitted that he is not working at present. RW1 admitted that he worked in the Hansraj Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. company at Gurgaon four to five years back. RW1 also deposed that he had left his job after the marriage. RW1 denied the suggestion put to him by counsel for the complainant that he had made two versions of stories in his written statement regarding leaving of matrimonial house by the complainant. 19 Arguments heard on behalf of both the parties and perused the record carefully.
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 10 of 15 20 During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the complainant had submitted that respondents have committed various sorts of cruelties qua the complainant and therefore, she had to leave her matrimonial home. It is also submitted that the complainant has to take care of all the needs of the child and the respondent husband is not helping her in any way. It is also submitted that the respondent husband is earning an amount of Rs. 20,000/ per month and also getting the rental income. It is also submitted that the respondent husband is also having share in property bearing number B424, Chhatarpur Extension, new Murgi Farm, New Delhi. It is also submitted by counsel for the complainant that now just to avoid his liability, respondent husband is claiming that he is not working.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainant is a teacher and earning Rs. 40,742/ per month. Same is also not objected to by the complainant. Respondent no.1 has also filed the salary slip of complainant to establish his claim, therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance. It is also submitted that the respondent is not working and also not having any rental income and is totally dependent upon his parents. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 is medically not fit to earn and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the maintenance to the complainant. CC No. 142/6/13 Page 11 of 15 21 Despite giving ample effective opportunities, both the parties miserably failed to file their fresh income affidavit in terms of recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court. Though, they have filed their affidavits in terms of previous judgment of Hon'ble High Court and they have already submitted that nothing material change has happened from that time. It was also submitted by both the parties that it would be fruitless to file fresh affidavit as well as hardship for both the parties.
22 Now, after discussing facts in hand, evidence lead by parties, their respective submissions, let us discuss some relevant points of substantive law which are applicable in the present situation. No doubt, wife is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. Monthly income of the husband may not very often be within the knowledge of wife, particularly in a case where the relationship is considerably strained and the spouses are living apart for considerable period. If the husband as in the present case despite effective opportunities failed to disclose the true income then reasonable methods at the hands of the court be used to draw the presumption thereof. The court has also to consider the status of parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statute CC No. 142/6/13 Page 12 of 15 but involuntary payments and deductions.
The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. After perusing all the documents on record, testimonies of parties and hearing of submissions of both the parties, it seems that respondent husband is more towards hiding his actual income. Thus, now court is left with no option but to see the whole situation applying other relevant formulas for assessment of income or say his worth.
Husband now claims that he is not working due to some psychological problem. Though, that has never been explained by the respondent husband that how and in what way even if that alleged problem exists affects him? Whether, because of the alleged problem he is not able to earn or disqualified not to do any job? These relevant points even after having opportunities have ot been explained by the husband. From bare physical appearance he is an able bodied man. The mere contention without any supporting medical record that respondent husband is not able to work due to seizure problem cannot be relied upon. The court is therefore, constrained to draw the inference that respondent no.1 is deliberately concealing his income from the court just to avoid the CC No. 142/6/13 Page 13 of 15 liability to maintain his child. The court has now to assess the income of respondent husband on the basis of his status in the society. As, discussed earlier also that respondent husband is enjoying a good status in the society as is evident from the admitted photographs of the marriage and other arenas of his life divulged at the various stages of the case, the income of the respondent husband is assessed to the tune of rupees 15,000/ to 20,000/ per month.
Admittedly, complainant has prayed that as she is earning, therefore, she does not require maintenance for herself but for the child. Complainant has claimed that she is solely burdened with the expenses of the minor child. As, child is the responsibility of both the parents, respondent husband is therefore, directed to pay an amount of rupees 5,000/ per month to the complainant towards the maintenance of the child, which also includes the maintenance for alternate accommodation, if any, from the date of the judgment. Child was already granted the interim maintenance of rupees 1,000/ which was made final till the date of judgment. Thus, it has been clarified that the maintenance which the child is now held entitled will be received by her from the date of judgment only. Needless to say that the amount already paid in any other proceedings shall stand adjusted. Respondent husband is directed to pay the maintenance by 10th day of every month of CC No. 142/6/13 Page 14 of 15 English Calender. Respondent is further directed to pay Rs.4000/ towards the litigation expenses to the complainant. 23 In the absence of any cogent evidence, other reliefs are accordingly denied. With the above directions the complaint U/s. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 filed by the complainant stands disposed of.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today
on this 10th day of May, 2016 (MANU VEDWAN)
MM : Mahila Court01,Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CC No. 142/6/13 Page 15 of 15