Delhi District Court
Mst. Shadma Parveen @ Nanno vs Mohd. Nadeem on 31 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. RITU SINGH,
MM (MAHILA COURT NO. 1) / SHAHDARA, KKD, DELHI
CC NO.V192/12
Unique I.D. No. 02402R0246992012
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Mst. Shadma Parveen @ Nanno
W/o Sh. Mohd. Nadeem
D/o Late Mohd. Iqbal
2. Suhail
S/o Mohd. Nadeem
3. Amir
S/o Mohd. Nadeem
4. Areeba
D/o Mohd. Nadeem
All R/o H.No. 670, Gali no.3,
Babarpur, Delhi110032
... petitioners
Versus
1. Mohd. Nadeem
S/o Late Fareed
2. Saleem S/o Late Fareed
3. Waseem S/o Late Fareed
4. Shabana W/o Saleem
R/o H.No. 433, Mohalla Chahshree
B24, INO, Bijnor, Distt. Bijnor, UP
... respondents
Date of Institution of present petition : 30.08.2012
Date on which the judgment has been reserved: 31.10.14
Date of Judgment: 31.10.14
V192/12 Page 1 of 9 pages
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application filed by petitioner for seeking orders U/s. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 wherein petitioner has claimed for relief for herself and her three children from respondent U/s. 12,17,18,19,20 & 22 of the Act.
2. It is alleged in complaint that the complainant no. 1 was married with the respondent no. 1 on 18.06.1995 in Distt. Bijnore, U.P. according to Muslim Rites and Custom and the marriage was duly consummated between the parties and out of said wedlock three children was born namely 1. Suhail aged 14 years.2. Amir aged 12 years and Ariba aged 10 years and all are school going children, and all are in care and custody of the complainant.
3. It is alleged in complaint the parents of the complainant no. 1 spent sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ according to their capacity and status at the time of solemnization of marriage of the complainant no. 1 with the respondent no. 1 the parents of complainant no. 1 solemnized the marriage in a very decent manner. The parents of the complainant no. 1 gave gold and silver jewelery, house hold furniture, electronic items, domestic use goods, to the respondent no. 1. However the respondent no. 1 and his family members i.e. Sh. Saleem Brotherinlaw/jeth) Smt. Shabana (sisterinlaw/jethani) Sh. Waseem (Brother in law/jeth) were not satisfied with the articles, jewellery ,furniture and goods etc.,given in the marriage to the respondent no. 1 and his other family members.
4. It is alleged in complaint that after solemnization of marriage the complainant no. 1 joined the company of respondent no. 1 and discharged her all marital obligation towards the responded no. 1 and gave full respect and love to the respondent no. 1 and his family members being a devoted and faithful Muslim wife.
5. It is alleged in complaint that since beginning of the marriage the respondent no. 1 and his family members named above started to V192/12 Page 2 of 9 pages harass, humiliate, torture, beat and insult the complainant no. 1 for less dowry and began to demand from the complainant no. 1 to bring cash Rs. 1,00,000/and a car from her parents on this whe the complainant no. 1 tried to make them understand that her parents has already given sufficient dowry/articles to them as per their demand and now her parents are not in position to fulfill their illegal demand of Rs.1,00,000/ and a car then the respondent no. 1 said to the complainant no.1 " mere sabhi doston ko shadi me car mili he, mujhe aur mere pariwar ko ummeed thi ki dahej me car milegi, par tere gharwale to kangle nikle, kahin aur shadi karta to car milti" the family members of the responsdent no. 1 further said to the complainant "hum apne larke ki shadi kisi aur se karti to car milti" the family members of of the respondent no.1 further said to the complainant "hum apne larke ki shadi kisi aur maldar ke yahan karte to humein dahej me nakad aur bahut saman mil jata." In this connection when the complainant raised objection and tried her level best to make them understand that the brothers of the respondent no 1 i.e. respondent no 2 and 4 instigated the respondent to beat the complainant no. 1, saying that "isko itna maar ki iski akal thikane aa jaaye" and consequently on the instigation of respondent no.2 and 4 the respondent no. 1 tortured her for less dowry. Despite this, the complainant no.1 kept on tolerating all the acts of cruelties of the respondents only with the hope that one day good sense would prevail when the nature and behaviour of the respondents would be changed.
6. It is alleged in complaint that in between the complainant no.1 became pregnant, but during the pregnancy, good diet and medicine were not provided by the respondent no. 1 to the complainant, while whenever the complainant requested the respondent no. 1 for medical treatment and medicine, then she was rebuked by him saying that "apne baap se dwai ke paise maang ya bchcha apne baap ke ghar paida kar".
V192/12 Page 3 of 9 pages
7. It is alleged in complaint that time passed and the complainant no. 1 gave birth to a make child i.e. complainant no. 2 while the parents of the complainant no.1 had borne all the expenses of the delivery of the complainant no. 1 and gave sufficient gifts but despite of this the respondent no. 1 and his family members did not forget their illegal demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and a car from her parental home and threatened that " agar tu apne baat se ek lakh aur car nahi layee to tere bachche ko bijli ka current laga deinge." After hearing this threats of the respondents, the complainant no. 1 began to live in her matrimonial home in tension and terror of respondents.
8. It is alleged in complaint on 21.05.1999, again the respondent no. 1, and 2 and 4 had beaten the complainant no. 1 mercilessly due to non fulfilling of their illegal demand of Rs. 1,00,000/ and a car and thereafter, the respondent no. 1 also threw the complainant no. 2 on floor and the complainant could hardly saved the complainant no. 2 and during the said action, the complainant received injuries when her head hit with the wall and become unconscious. When she regained conscious then the respondent no. 2 tauntedher that " hum to iske marne ka intezar kar rahe they, ye kamini churall mar kyon nahi gayee mar jaati to hamare liye achcha hota".
9. It is further alleged in the complaint that during this period the petitioner again became pregnant but during her pregnancy on 10.08.2000 the respondent no.2&4 kicked over the stomach of the petitioner with intention to kill the unborn child of the petitioner in her womb.
10. 1It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner had given a written complaint against the respondent no.1 to 4 to SHO PS Welcome V192/12 Page 4 of 9 pages on 27.08.12.
11. It is further alleged in the complaint that petitioner alongwith her three minor children has been residing at her parental home since 09.10.2003.
12. On the basis of application filed by petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and supporting documents, respondents were summoned. Vide order dt. 04.04.13 of Ld predecessor of this court respondent no.1, was directed to pay sum of Rs. 4000/ per month as interim maintenance to petitioners w.e.f. from that day. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed WS wherein he has taken various preliminary objections as well as objections on merits of the case. Ld. Predecessor of this court proceeded exparte against respondent no.2 to 4 vide its order dt. 29.05.13.
14. Petitioner has filed replication, reiterated the stand taken by her in her application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
15. Petitioner led her evidence, wherein she examined herself as PW1 on affiadvit in evidence Ex. CW1/1 and relied upon complaint Ex. CW1/A. Thereafter, evidence was closed vide order dt. 10.03.12.
16. Respondent no.1 led his evidence, wherein he examined himself as RW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon documents Ex. RW1/1 and RW1/2. Respondent has also examined HC Arvind Kumar as RW2 who has proved the documents as Ex. RW2/1&2. Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dt. 12.05.14.
17. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence was allowed and thereafter, petitioner has examined Smt Rashida as PW2 whose affidavit in evidence is Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, PE was closed.
18. Final arguments were heard on behalf of parties.
19. Under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 petitioner has to establish that she is an "aggrieved V192/12 Page 5 of 9 pages person" as defined in Section 2(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person" as 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. In order to establish that she is an "aggrieved person" as envisaged under Act, petitioner must establish that:
1. She is or has been in "domestic relationship" with respondent within reasonable period of time, before filing of petition.
2. She was subjected to "domestic violence" by respondent during subsistence of such "domestic relationship" with respondent.
20. Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines "domestic relationship" as "a relationship between two persons who live or 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".
21. Domestic relationship between two person arises when two persons lives or have lived together in "shared household" when they are related together by marriage, adoption, consanguinity or as members of joint family within a reasonable period of time before filing of petition. Two persons are said to reside in "shared household" if it is "A household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or alongwith 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 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."
V192/12 Page 6 of 9 pages
22. In the present case Petitioner as well as respondent no.1 has admitted marriage. In domestic Incident Report filed by Protection Officer on basis of information furnished by petitioner, it is stated that she only needs maintenance from respondents no.1 and there are no allegations of dowry related harassment.
23. Petitioner has deposed in her affidavit Ex. CW1/1 that she was tortured for dowry and was subjected to physical assault on her failure to satisfy their demand for dowry. In sharp contrast to her testimony in on oath in present case, in information furnished by her to Protection Officer while drafting domestic incident report, petitioner had clearly denied any dowry related harassment by respondent no.1 or even any physical violence against her by respondent no.1.
24. Further it is admitted by petitioner in her complaint that petitioner alongwith her three children had left the respondent in 2003.
25. In the case at hand, it is admitted fact that petitioner along with her three children were not residing in her matrimonial house on 09.10.2003 with respondent no.1 and since then she had been residing in her parental home and that since then no provision was made by respondent for maintenance of petitioner and her three minor children. It is not disputed by respondent that petitioner had left his company alongwith her children on 09.10.2003. It is important to mention herein that petitioner did not take any action till 2012 and filed present application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 30.08.2012.
26. It is equally strange that petitioner did not file any complaint either before CAW Cell or other authorities for redressal of her grievances against respondent for a intervening period of about nearly nine years and only on 27.08.2012(i.e. three days before filing of present application) a complaint was filed by petitioner herein in PS Welcome against respondents herein regarding alleged demand of dowry and dowry related harassment of petitioner herein. Copy of police V192/12 Page 7 of 9 pages complaint dt. 27.08.2012 does not bear seal/acknowledgment of receipt of complaint. Perusal of copy of aforesaid complaint dt. 27.08.2012 allegedly lodged before ACP, Seemapur, reveals that it is in respect of incidents of period before petitioner had left her matrimonial home on 09.10.03. There is no incident of domestic violence after petitioner had left the company of respondent no. 1 on 09.10.03.
27. It has been well settled by catena of judgments that an application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has to be filed within reasonable period from date of alleged act of domestic violence. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588 that " In view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous. In view of the provisions of Section 28 and 32 of the 2005 Act Read with Rule 15(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty and NOIDA Enterpreneurs Assnv. NOIDA."
28. It is now a settled position of law that a wife can file an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, within a reasonable period of time after cessation of domestic relationship, where such domestic relationship has ceased on account of any such domestic violence so as to show that relationship would give her cause of action to sue under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for reliefs under the Act.
29. The present application U/.s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been filed, after more than 9 years from cessation of domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent no.1 herein. Therefore, in light of judicial precedent cited V192/12 Page 8 of 9 pages above and observations made herein above, present application U/s. 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be said to be filed within reasonable period of time.
30. Accordingly, present application U/s. 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is dismissed as not maintainable, having been filed beyond reasonable period of time from cessation of domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent.
31. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (RITU SINGH)
ON 31-10-2014 MM/MAHILA COURTS NO. 1
SHAHDARA , KKD, DELHI
V192/12 Page 9 of 9 pages