Bangalore District Court
K. Sukanya vs R1. B. Varatharajan on 31 January, 2026
1
C.Misc. 75/2016.
KABC050058602016
Presented on : 04-05-2016
Registered on : 04-05-2016
Decided on : 31-01-2026
Duration : 9 years, 8 months, 27 days
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC
COURT-III), BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: SMT. MANJU.S.
BAL, LLB, LLM.
JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2026.
Crl. Misc. No. 75/2016
Petitioners : 1. Smt. K Sukanya,
W/o Varatharajan Bose,
Aged about 30 Years,
2. Baby V. Supritha,
D/o Varatharajan Bose,
Aged about 6 Years,
Petitioner no.2 is minor
represented through her
mother & natural guardian
petitioner no.1
Both are R/at 6th Cross,
Jayamma Building,
Nelagadanahalli,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-560073.
(By Sri. J.V.P., Adv.)
2
C.Misc. 75/2016.
V/s.
Respondent : 1. Sri. B. Varatharajan
S/o C. Bose,
Aged about 40 Years,
Working at Emulex,
Communications Pvt.Ltd.,
The Millenia Tower "C",
Level 3, No.1 & 2,
Murphy Road,Ulsoor,
Bengaluru-560008.
2. Sri. C. Bose,
S/o Chinnaiah Pillai,
Hindu, Major,
3. Smt. Vasuki Bose,
W/o C. Bose,
Hindu, Major,
4. Mrs. Kavitha
W/o Balasounder,
Hindu, Major.
All are residing at
No. 302, "A" Block,
Pavani Layout Extension,
Whitefield,
Bengaluru.
5. Mr. Karthikeyan Bose,
S/o C. Bose,
Aged about 30 Years,
No 38/2, 2nd Floor,
3rd Block, 5th Main,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bengaluru-560028.
(by Sri K.K.S. Adv.,)
3
C.Misc. 75/2016.
ORDERS ON MAIN PETITION
1. This petitioners filed the said petition U/sec. 12
r/w sec. 18, 19 and 20 of Protection Of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The facts of the case is as follows;
It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage
between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1
was solemnized on 08.03.2009 and the petitioner No.1
belongs to reputed family and petitioner no.1 father
was Retired Professor working in a reputed College in
Madurai, Tamil Nadu. After their marriage the
petitioner No.1 was joined the company of Respondent
no.1 and subsequently the petitioner No.1 has gave
birth to one female child dated: 05.07.2010 by name
V.Supritha, on that day the respondent No.1 along with
other respondents were came to the hospital and
demanded more jewels and money from the parents of
petitioner no.1, because the petitioner no.1 was gave
birth to female child and subsequently the respondent
no.1 was assaulted the petitioner no.1 in the hospital.
4
C.Misc. 75/2016.
3. The petitioner further stated that on 06.08.2010, the
respondent No.1 along with other respondents was
quarreled with the petitioner no.1 and her family
members for the purpose of dowry amount, jewels and
subsequently the respondents family left the petitioner
no. 1 in her parents' house and during the median of
said period after some negotiations, the petitioner No. 1's
parents was given 80 grams of gold jewels to the
respondent No.1 and subsequently the respondent No.1
was taken the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and accommodated
in Bengaluru on 01.01.2011. At the said period, the
petitioners were living with the respondent no.1 at BEML
Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru and there also
the respondent No.1 along with other respondents were
brutally beating the petitioners and took all the valuable
things, household things and vacated the said house
during the said period. The petitioners were waiting
outside the apartment without food and water till the
parents of the petitioner was reached to the said apartment
midnight at about 12.30 and again the petitioners were
5
C.Misc. 75/2016.
taken by her parents and also the petitioners was
accommodated in her parents' house at Madurai. After
some mediation, the respondent No.1 was arranged the
shelter at Malleshpalya, again the respondent No.1 along
with other respondents mainly the respondent by name
Karthikeyan Bose was brutally assaulted the petitioner
No.1 and subsequently on 04.12.2012 the complaint was
registered against the respondents before the
Byappanahalli and the said police was arranged
compromise and as per the said compromise the
petitioner No.1 was returned to her matrimonial home.
Again on 03.07.2013 as per ill-advice of the other
respondents the respondent No.1 again brutally
assaulted petitioner nos. 1 & 2, the petitioner nos. 1 and
2 were severely wounded and admitted in CMH
Hospital, Bengaluru, after receiving the intimation from
the hospital the police came from Byapanahalli Police
Station and got two statements from Petitioner No.1
respectively on 03.07.2013 and 04.07.2013, then again
the petitioner No.1 registered a complaint against all
the respondents after inquiry the respondent no.1 was
6
C.Misc. 75/2016.
admitted his offence and gave a written statement that
hereafter he will never allow his parents to interfere in
their life to have peaceful family life.
4. The petitioner further stated that, after these
developments the petitioner no.1's parents was decided
to establish family life of her daughter peacefully for
the said reasons they purchased house property in the
name of both petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1,
through the registered sale deed for valuable sale
consideration of Rs.26,64,000/-. The respondent No.1
along with other respondents were forcefully thrown
out the petitioner no.1 from own house and all her
belongings, necessary documents was kept inside the
house. The respondents not allowed the petitioners to
lead their own house and again they committed
physical and mental violence under one roof, without
giving any food, nourishment to the petitioners and
demanding the money and gold jewels from the
petitioner No.1's parents. On 04.07.2015, the Petitioner
No.1 was made a complaint against the Respondents
7
C.Misc. 75/2016.
before the Whitefield Police, the Whitefield Police was
registered the FIR under Section 498-A of IPC and 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently the
Respondent No.1 as per influence of other respondents
forcibly thrown out the Petitioners from the said house,
though the Respondent No.1 working at Software
Engineer in MLC Company and he was earned more
than Rs.5 lakhs from his job, but he was neglected to
maintain the Petitioners and the Petitioners were
unable to maintain themselves and till today the
Petitioners are depending on their old aged parents and
the said parents are facing their own problems.
5. The petitioner no.1 further submits that after some
negotiations was arranged between the petitioners and
respondents, the Respondent No.1 was agreed to
receive petitioners to the matrimonial home, and as per
the assurance of the respondent No.1 the petitioners
were entering into the Pavani Pleasant Apartment
entrance on 02.03.2016, but the gate was locked and
also the respondent No.1 was affixed one white colour
8
C.Misc. 75/2016.
notice in front of the house door that "NO ADMISSION
WITHOUT PERMISSION ORDER BY COURT" then the
petitioner no.1 was made a complaint on same day
before the Whitefield Police and also in the said
complaint the Petitioner No.1 clearly stated that to
provide police protection to entering in her husband
house and also the said property is the joint property,
the respondent no.1 along with other respondents
influence forcibly prevented the petitioners to entering
into the shared house. But the said police was failed to
provide protection and to arrange the accommodation
in the shared house. It clearly shows that the petitioner
No.1 and 2 was suffered from domestic violence in the
hands of the respondents. Hence, this petition.
6. After the registration of petition, the notice has been
issued to the respondents. The respondents appeared
through their counsel and the respondent no.1 filed his
detailed objections to the main petition. Wherein, he
has denied the entire allegations narrated by the
petitioner in the petition in para wise and in toto. The
9
C.Misc. 75/2016.
respondent no.1 admits the solemnization of marriage
between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner no.1 as
well as the birth of female child out of their wedlock.
The expenses of the marriage was borne by the
respondent no.2. The petitioner no.1 is a Computer
Engineering Graduate with BE degree in computer
science and Engineering and have worked as main
teacher in Chrysalis High School, White Field,
Bengaluru and she was earning gross salary of
Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.2,60,000/- along with
perks. Being a computer Science Engineering graduate
and having software skill set, she is capable of earning
more than double salary of what she earned.
7. The father of the petitioner no.1 has money minded
attitude. He has demanded money from the 1 st
respondent now and then. He forced 1 st respondent to
transfer money on monthly basis and sometime
lump-sum money. Due to negative influence by
petitioner no.1 and her father and sister, she
blackmailed the 1st respondent that if he goes to his
10
C.Misc. 75/2016.
hometown to see his parents and grandparents, she
will file false case against him and his relatives. The
respondent no.1 approached Commissioner of Police
and gave complaint on 23.09.2013 regarding that, the
sister and father of the petitioner no.1 instigated the 1 st
petitioner to file false dowry case and false domestic
violence case in order to extract money and house
from 1st respondent. Regarding this the 1st respondent
approached the Commissioner and given petition to
Commissioner of police Bengaluru on 14.11.2015. The
respondent no.1 gave the house on lease agreement on
5.12.2015 to meet his financial difficulties, The
petitioner no.1 along with her father tried to break the
house lock on 02.03.2016 when tenant was not in
home. There is a litigation dispute (OS no.325/2016)
case filed by the tenant of the Whitefield house which
is pending on the Hon'ble Prl-II Civil Court, Bengaluru.
8. The respondent no.1 is staying alone in a rented
house in Meenakshi Layout, Parappana Agrahar,
Bengaluru. The respondent no.1 is willing to share the
11
C.Misc. 75/2016.
child expenses on actual equally with the petitioner
no.1. The respondent no.1 has voluntarily sent money
for his child expenditure to the 1st petitioner through
multiple money orders for the past one year. But the 1 st
petitioner returned all the money order except one. It is
clearly evident that the 1st petitioner is capable of
maintaining herself and child. Hence, on all these
ground prays to dismiss the petition.
9. Heard arguments on both the side. In turn both the
side counsels filed their written arguments. Perused
the materials placed on record. The counsel for the
respondent relied upon the decisions passed by Apex
Courts in the Judgment which are reported as follows;
i) Crl.R.P. No. 344/2011 "Damanpreet
Kaur V/s Indermeet Juneja"
ii) M.Cr.C.No.5644/2016 between
Kuldeep Singh and Ors V/s Rekha.
iii) SPL Crl.No.2600/2016 between
Abhijit Saha V/s Sangita Saha.
iv) Crl.RP no. 1326/2015 between
Ramesh V/s Navaneetha-Karnataka
High Court.
v) Dr.E. Shanthi V/s Dr. H.K. Vasudev-
12
C.Misc. 75/2016.
Karnataka High Court in WP no.
31296/2003.
vi) S. Anandanatesan V/s P.
Hemalatha-High Court of Madras in
Crl.R.C.No.176/2021.
vii) Koushik Gharami V/s Sangeeta
Koushik Gharmi-Mumbai High Court in
Crl.RP no. 32/2014.
viii) Shymal Dutta V/s Sheli Dutta-
Calcutta High Court in CRR no.
2676/2019.
ix) "Vijayanda Dattaram Naik V/s
Vishranti Vijayananda Naik" in Crl.RP
no. 60/2018.
x) Mahalakshmi V/s Basavaraju by
MMTC-III, Bengaluru in
Crl.Misc.No.21/2020.
xi) Anil Kumar V/s Shashi Bala in
Cr.MMO No.30/2011.
"In the above decisions the Hon'ble apex courts held
and observed that.
"Well qualified spouses desirous of
remaining idle, not making efforts
for the purpose of finding out a
source of livelihood, have to be
discouraged, with the society wants
to progress".
10. In support of her case the petitioner examined
herself as PW.1 and produced the documents which
13
C.Misc. 75/2016.
are got marked and exhibit as Exs.P.1 to Exs.P.12 and
one witness examined on behalf of petitioner no.1 as
PW.2. The respondent no.1 examined himself as RW.1
and produced the documents which are got marked
and exhibited as Ex.R.1 to 34.
11. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for the Protection Orders
as contemplated U/sec. 18 of DV
Act?
2. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for alternative
accommodation as contemplated
under Sec.19 of DV Act?
3. Whether the petitioner is
entitled for monetary relief as
contemplated under Sec.20 of
DV Act?
4. What order?
12. The findings to the above points are as
follows:-
Point No.1 - In the Negative
Point No.2 - In the Negative.
Point No.3 - Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.4 - As per Final Order, for the
following:-
14
C.Misc. 75/2016.
-: R E A S O N S:-
13. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since these points are
interconnected with each other and requires common
appreciation of evidence, hence to avoid repetition of
facts these two points are taken together for common
consideration.
14. The case of the petitioners is that, the marriage
between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1
was solemnized on 08.03.2009 and the petitioner No.1
belongs to reputed family and petitioner no.1 father
was Retired Professor working in a reputed College in
Madurai, Tamil Nadu. After the marriage the petitioner
no.1 gave birth to petitioner no.2, then after the
respondents were quarreled with the petitioner no.1
and her family members for the purpose of demanding
of the dowry amount. Thereafter several times of
negotiation held between the petitioners and the
respondents before the elders and due to the result of
negotiation, the petitioner no.1 is living with the
respondent no.1, after that also the respondent no.1
15
C.Misc. 75/2016.
due to instigation of other respondents brutally
assaulted and harassed the petitioner nos.1 & 2 and
the petitioner no.1 lodged the complaint against the
respondents on several times. After negotiation, again
the respondent no.1 bring the petitioner no.1 to the
home in which he is residing, then after the parents of
the 1st petitioner decided to establish the family life to
their daughter, for that reason they purchased the
house property in the name of petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.1 jointly for a sum of Rs.26,64,000/-.
After that, the respondent no.1 along with other
respondents was forcefully thrown out the petitioner
no.1 from her own house and all her belongings and
necessary documents was kept inside the house. Even
after arrangement of the own house by the parents of
the 1st petitioner, the respondent no.1 was committed
physical and mental violence to the petitioner no.1
under one roof without giving any food, nourishment to
the petitioners and demanding the money and gold
jewels from the petitioner no.1 and her parents. The
16
C.Misc. 75/2016.
petitioner no.1 lodged the complaint against the
respondents and filed a case u/sec. 498-A of IPC and 3
& 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequently the
respondent no.1 as per the influence of other
respondents thrown out the petitioners from the said
house. Now the petitioners are residing with the
father's house situated at Madurai. The respondent
no.1 neglected to take care of the petitioner no.1 and
her daughter. The respondent no.1 working at
Software Engineer in MLC Company and he was
earning more than Rs.5 lakhs from his job, but he is
neglected to maintain the Petitioners and also
Petitioners were unable to maintain themselves and till
today the Petitioners are depending on their old aged
parents and the said parents are facing their own
problem.
15. On the other hand, after service of notice, the
respondents were appeared before court by filing
vakalath through their counsel and filed detailed
objections to the main petition and denied all
17
C.Misc. 75/2016.
allegations made by the petitioner in her petition.
16. To prove the contention of the petition, the
petitioner no.1 herself filed an chief examination
affidavit and examined as PW-1 and examined one
witness as PW.2 who is none other than the father of
the petitioner no.1 and produced the documents which
are got marked as Ex P-1 to Ex.P-12. In that Ex.P-1 is
marriage invitation, Ex.P.2 is the information letter
given by the SRO Varthur, Ex.P.3 is the receipt dated:
06.01.2017, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of sale deed dated:
15.05.2013, Ex.P.5 is memorandum of deposit dated:
20.03.2015, Ex.P.6 is Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.7
is jewels purchase receipts, Ex.P.8 is school fee
receipts, Ex.P.9 is medical bills and prescriptions,
Ex.P.10 is X-ray report, Ex.P.11 is Mail conversation
details and Ex.P.12 is the certificate u/sec. 65 (B) of
Evidence Act.
17. In order to prove her marriage with the respondent
no.1, the petitioner no.1 produced the marriage
invitation card which reveals that the marriage of the
18
C.Misc. 75/2016.
petitioner no.1 with respondent no.1 was solemnized
on 08.03.2009. The marriage between the petitioner
no.1 and respondent no.1 and birth of petitioner no.2
are not disputed by the parties. After the marriage, the
petitioner no.1 and the respondent No-1 were living
together in the matrimonial home. It is the contention
of the petitioner no.1 that subsequent to the marriage,
the respondent no.1 demanding the petitioner no.1 to
bring the dowry from her parents, in that regard the
respondent no.1 also harassing the petitioner no.1 and
neglected the petitioner no.1.
18. As per the provisions of Sec.18 of DV Act, the
Magistrate may, after giving an opportunity of being
heard and on the petitioner and the respondent side,
being prima-facie satisfied that domestic violence has
taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection
order in favour of the petitioner and prohibit the
respondent from committing such domestic violence.
19. In this case in order to prove the harassment done
by the respondent no.1, the petitioner no.1 after her
19
C.Misc. 75/2016.
examination got furnished the documents and marked
Ex P-1 to Ex P.12. In that Ex P-7 which is the receipts
with regard to purchasing of the gold and Exs.P.8 to
Ex.P.10 are the medical bills as well as X-ray reports of
petitioner no.1. In that there is no mention about for
which reason she undergone for the treatment and get
the medical bills. Apart from that, the petitioner no.1
not even produced any documents to show about the
harassment made by the respondent no.1 to the
petitioner no.1, of course in the petition, the petitioner
no.1 stated that she lodged the complaint against the
respondents with regard to the harassment made by
them and the same was ended with the compromise
between the parties. But to prove the the harassment
and domestic violence act of the respondent, the
petitioner no.1 not at all produced any iota of
documents regarding the complaints made by her
against the respondent no.1.
More over, in the cross examination, the PW.1 deposed
that
20
C.Misc. 75/2016.
"ದಿನಾಂಕ 4.7.2015 ರವರೆಗೆ ನಾವು ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವಾಸ
ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಈಚೆಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಮತ್ತು
ನಾನು ದೂರವಾಣಿ ಮೂಲಕ ಮಾತನಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ದಿನಾಂಕ 4.7.2015 ರವರೆಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಮನೆ
ಖರ್ಚು ವೆಚ್ಚಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಬಾಯಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು
ಅರ್ಧ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಭರಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದು
ಉಳಿದ ಅರ್ಧ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು
ಎಂದು ನುಡಿದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಮದುವೆಯ ನಂತರ ಎದುರುದಾರರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಊಟಿ,
ಕೊಡೈಕೇನಾಲ್, ಕೇರಳ, ಗುರುವಾಯುರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೂರ್ಗ
ಪ್ರವಾಸದ ಸ್ಧಳಗಳಿಗೆ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಪ್ರವಾಸಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು
ಹೋಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
"ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು
ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಪದೇ ಪದೇ ಜಗಳವಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ."
As per the say of the petitioner after their marriage the
respondent taking care of the petitioner and house hold
expenses, there is no domestic act of violence by the
respondent No-1. As such the petitioner failed to prove
her version as stated in the petition.
20. In support of the case, the petitioner no.1 examined
one witness as PW.2 on her behalf who is none other
than father of the petitioner no.1. During the course of
21
C.Misc. 75/2016.
cross examination of PW.2 who is father of the
petitioner no.1 and father-in-law of respondent no.1
stated that
"on 6.7.2015 to January 2019 again
from September 2022 till date the
petitioner no.1 is residing with us.
She is traveling from Madurai to
Bengaluru to visit her child who is
residing with his another daughter's
house".
As deposed by the PW.2, the petitioner no.1 is residing
with her parents house and the petitioner no.2 is
residing with petitioner no.1's sister's house.
'' In further PW.2 deposed that an
amount of Rs.26,64,000/- was given by
him to the respondent no.1 to purchase
the White field flat, but he is not aware
of when the flat agreement, sale deed
was done and with regard to said
amount, the PW.2 has not declared same
in his income tax assessment''.
If at all there is a harassment by the respondent no.1
and if the father of the petitioner no.1 is lending the
amount in favour of the respondent no.1 to purchase
the flat as per Ex.P.4 definitely there shall be a
document by the petitioner's side to prove the same.
22
C.Misc. 75/2016.
Moreover, the recitals of the Ex.P.4 also not reveals
anything about the payments made by the father of the
petitioner no.1 to purchase the flat as per Ex.P.4. The
RW.1 in his cross examination deposed that;
"ನಿಪಿ 4 ರ ಪ್ಲಾಟನ್ನು ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯಾದ
ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರಳ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಜಂಟಿಯಾಗಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರಳ
ಕೋರಿಕೆಯ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ಖರೀದಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ
ನಾನೇ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ."
More over, during the course of cross-examination of
RW.1, it is suggested to the respondent no.1 that ;
ದಿನಾಂಕ 01.01.2011 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರು
ನನ್ನೊಂದಿಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರಳು ಬಿಇಎಂಎಲ್ ಲೇಔಟ್,
ರಾಜರಾಜೇಶ್ವರಿ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆವು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರಳನ್ನು ರಾಜರಾಜೇಶ್ವರಿ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮನೆ
ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನಾವು ಸಿವಿ
ರಾಮನ್ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ ಪಾಳ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ
ಮಾಡುವ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ರಾಜರಾಜೇಶ್ವರಿ ನಗರದ
ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ.
ದಿನಾಂಕ 5.8.2015 ರಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ ಜನ್ಮ
ದಿನವಿದ್ದು ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ-ತಾಯಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ
ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಬ್ಬಕ್ಕೆ ಕರೆಯುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ
ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರಳೇ ವಿನಾ ಕಾರಣ ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳನ್ನು
ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
23
C.Misc. 75/2016.
ಮದುವೆಯಾದ ದಿನದಿಂದ ಇಂದಿನವರೆಗೂ ನನ್ನ
ಹೆಂಡತಿಯನ್ನು ಬೈದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಮತ್ತು
ಹೊಡೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ನಡುವೆ
ಮದುವೆಯಾದಾಗದಿಂದಲೂ ದೈಹಿಕವಾಗಿಯಾಗಲೀ
ಅಥವಾ ಮಾನಸಿಕವಾಗಲೀ ಬೈದಾಟ ನಡೆದಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
The said suggestions made to the RW.1 clearly
reveals that the respondent no.1 is looking the
petitioner no.1 in the good way, but the petitioner no.1
herself left the matrimonial home without any reasons.
As per the Ex.R.32 the photographs which clearly
discloses that the petitioners and the respondent No-1
were leading their life happily and as per Ex.R-8 to
Ex.R.11 which are the bank statements which
discloses that the respondent no.1 was extending
financial support to the petitioner no.1.
21. More over, PW.1 during her cross examination
stated that she had not detailed has to exactly which
material obligations her husband failed to fulfill, she
has not specified that exact details in her petition. The
purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved
persons against domestic violence. The domestic
24
C.Misc. 75/2016.
violence can take place only when one is living in
shared household with the respondents. One has to
make distinction between violence committed on a
person living separate in a separate household and the
violence committed on a person living in the shared
household. Only violence committed by a person while
living in the shared household can constitute domestic
violence.
Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed
when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing
same household and sharing all the household goods
with an opportunity to commit violence. But in this
case, as admitted by the parties till 2011, the
petitioners and respondent no.1 are living together in
the matrimonial home itself and during that period as
suggested to the RW.1 there is no domestic act or
harassment made by the respondent no.1 to the
petitioner no.1. In the cross examination of Pw-1
deposed that ,
ನಾನು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಸುಮಾರು 3
25
C.Misc. 75/2016.
ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಕಾಲ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದಲ್ಲಿ
ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಮದುವೆಯಾದ
ನಂತರ ಮೊದಲ ಬಾರಿಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಸ್ವಂತ
ಊರಾದ ಪರಮಗುಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳ ಕಾಲ
ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆನು. ಆನಂತರ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಬಂದು
ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೆನು.
The version of the PW.1 itself is very clear that after
her marriage with the respondent no.1, only one month
of period she is living in the respondent's native place
at Paramagudi. After that they were shifted to
Bengaluru and they are residing separately. Even
though, the petitioner no.1 stated that there is a
domestic violence caused by all the respondents to the
petitioner no.1 who are not at all residing with the
respondent no.1 and petitioner no.1 in the Bengaluru
of their shared house. But, the petitioner no.1 stated
that there is a harassment and cruelty in the hands of
the respondents to the petitioner no.1.
22. After their marriage, they are residing in the
Bengaluru separately that too far away from their
families. Such being the actuality the question of
domestic violence caused by respondent nos.2 to 5 who
26
C.Misc. 75/2016.
are residing separately far away from the petitioner
no.1 as well as respondent no.1 will not arise at all.
23. On this point, this Court has carefully gone
through the petition and the documents, in the
considered opinion of this Court, that in the present
case, after their marriage, only one month the
petitioner no.1 residing with the matrimonial home
along with respondents No 1 to 5, after that she gone
with her husband I,e the respondent no-1 and lives in
the share household to establish their own households
at Bengaluru, and as a result domestic relationship
comes to an end, therefore there is no shared
household by the petitioner no.1 as well as
respondents nos.2 to 5.
24. More over, the petitioner no.1 herself stated that
she is ready to live with the respondent no.1 and
withdraw all allegations made against respondent no.1
if the court gives her protection. The said version of the
petitioner no.1 clearly shows that during the period of
staying in the matrimonial home, the petitioner no.1
27
C.Misc. 75/2016.
and respondent no.1 were leading their life in the
shared house. If at all there is domestic violence act
caused by the respondent no.1 then why the petitioner
no.1 intends to join with the respondent no.1. The
PW.1 herself admitted in her cross examination that;
"ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಈಗಲೂ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿ
ಜೀವನ ಮಾಡಲು ತಯಾರಿದ್ದು ಆತನ ಜೊತೆ ನೀವು
ಹೋಗಲು ಸಿದ್ದರಿದ್ದೀರಾ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನನಗೆ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕರೆ ನಾನು ಹೋಗಿ ಜೀವನ
ಮಾಡಲು ಸಿದ್ದಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಜೀವನ ಮಾಡಲು
ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದರೆ ಆತನ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಆಪಾದನೆಗಳನ್ನು
ಹಿಂಪಡಿಯುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂಬ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ದಿನ
ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿ ನೋಡಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ನಾನು ಹಿಂಪಡೆ ಯುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದು
ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ."
After left out the matrimonial home, the petitioner no.1
residing with her parents house at Madurai and the
petitioner no.2 is residing with the sister's house of the
petitioner no.1 in Bengaluru.
25. No doubt, as per Sec.3 of DV Act, if at all the
respondent commits any domestic violence as above
pleaded then it has to be fully established by the
28
C.Misc. 75/2016.
petitioner then definitely the petitioner will be entitled
for an order of protection under Sec.18 and mandatory
reliefs as contemplated under Sec.20 of the Act. But, in
this case, the petitioner has failed to prove the
allegations made against the respondents with cogent
and material evidence.
26. On going through the oral and documentary
evidence of petitioner no.1, it is clear that due to the
dispute in marital relationship between respondent
no.1, the petitioners are now residing separately far
away from the respondent no.1. But on perusal of the
oral submissions made by the petitioner no.1, the
respondent no.1 has caused domestic violence against
the petitioner no.1 and her child. But, to prove the
same the petitioner no.1 not placed any material
documents in support of her contention. As such she
fails to prove her contention taken in her petition.
27. Apart from this, to prove the defence taken by the
respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 examined
himself as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R.1
29
C.Misc. 75/2016.
to R.34. Ex.R.1 is school receipt, Ex.R.2 is certified
copy of order sheet in Crl.P.no.6842/2016, Ex.R.3 is
certified copy of FIR, Ex.R.4 is certified copy of
complaint, Ex.R.5 is certified copy of statement of
RW.1, Ex.R.6 is postal receipts, Ex.R.7 is Certificate
u/sec. 65 (b) of Ecidence Act, Ex.R.8 is SBI Bank
statement of respondent no.1, Ex.R.9 is LIC housing
finance statement of respondent no.1, Ex.R.10 is Letter
dtd: 10.03.2015, Ex.R.11 is Joint SBI Bank statement
of respondent no.1 and petitioner no.1, Ex.R.12 is reply
dated: 27.11.2019, Ex.R.13 is Copies of petition in
HMOP no.135/2019, Ex.R.14 is HDFC bank statement,
Ex.R.15 is ICICI Prudential policy paid receipts,
Ex.R.16 is certified copy of Offer cum acceptance letter
dated: 13.05.2014, Ex.R.17 is certified copy of letter of
confirmation and increment letter dated: 31.03.2015,
Ex.R.18 is Certified copy of medical prescription of
petitioner no.2, Ex.R.19 is Certified copy of complaint
dated: 23.9.2013, Ex.R.20 is certified copy of complaint
dated:14.11.2015, Ex.R.21 is certified copy of order
30
C.Misc. 75/2016.
sheet in TP no. 420/2022, Ex.R.22 is
Acknowledgments dtd: 19.9.2015, Ex.R.23 is Copy of
petitioner's statement, Ex.R.24 is Copy of complaint
dated: 06.07.2013, Ex.R.25 is Certified copy of bank
statement of petitioner, Ex.R.26 is certified copy of
Judgment in CC no. 2083/2017, Ex.R.27 is Medical
documents of parents of respondent no.1, Ex.R.28 is
Certificate u/sec. 65 (b) of Evidence Act, Ex.R.29 is Lap
top bill, Ex.R.30 is auction on line copy, Ex.R.31 is
bank notice dated: 2.11.2019, Ex.R.32 are photos,
Ex.R.33 is CD and Ex.R.34 is Certified copy of order in
HMOP no. 135/2019 and its translated copy.
28. As per the version of the respondent no.1,
relationship between the petitioner no.1 and the
respondent no.1 and birth of female child out of their
wedlock is admitted. It is also admitted by both the
sides that after their marriage, they are living with the
shared house at the matrimonial home along with their
child. To prove that the respondent no.1 produced the
documents i.e., Ex.R.32 photos and Ex.R.23 Account
31
C.Misc. 75/2016.
statement which clearly reveals that the petitioner no.1
and her daughter are living with the respondent no.1 in
the matrimonial home.
29. The main contention of the petitioner no.1 is that
the respondent no.1 has harassed the petitioner no.1
mentally, physically and emotionally by neglecting her.
But to prove the same, she is not produced any
materials to show that there is a domestic violence
caused by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner no.1 at
their shared house/matrimonial home. Considering the
above reasons, the point nos.1 & 2 are answered in the
Negative.
30. Point No.3: It is an undisputed fact that as on the
date of filing of the petition, the petitioner no.1 is the
legal wedded wife of respondent no.1. After their
marriage, one female child was born, then after they
are living separately. It is the allegations made by the
petitioner that the respondent no.1 was neglected the
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 and thrown out
them from the matrimonial home without providing
basic amenities to the petitioners. The respondent no.1
is working at Software Engineer in MLC Company and
32
C.Misc. 75/2016.
he is earning more than Rs.5 lakhs from his job, but he
was neglected to maintain the Petitioners and the
Petitioners were unable to maintain themselves and till
today the Petitioners are depending on their old aged
parents and the said parents are facing their own
problem.
31. Now coming to crucial aspect about the income of
respondent no.1. On perusal of the pleadings as well as
affidavit of assets and liabilities of the petitioner no.1, it
is stated that the petitioner no.1 is a BE graduate,
in-turn the respondent no.1 is also BE graduate and
working in IT company and earning salary of
Rs.1,50,000/- per month. It is the specific contention
of the respondent no.1 that the petitioner no.1 is a
Computer Engineer Graduate with BE degree and have
worked as main teacher in Chrysalis High School,
White Field, Bengaluru and she was earning gross
salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.2,60,000/-
along with perks. Being a computer Science
Engineering graduate and having software skill set, she
is capable of earning more than double salary of what
33
C.Misc. 75/2016.
she earned. In the assets and liabilities filed by the
respondent no.1 the respondent no.1 also narrated
that he is working as a Staff Engineer and earning
Rs.2,05,000/- per month and the petitioner No-1 is
working as a Teacher and earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. In support of it, during the course of cross
examination, the petitioner no.1 admits that ;
ನಾನು ಬಿಇ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪದವಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
ನಾನು ಪದವೀಧರೆ ಯಾಗಿದ್ದು ನನಗೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಮಧುರೈಯ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ
ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಮಧುರೈ ಮತ್ತು ಮಧುರೈಯ
ಅಕ್ಕಪಕ್ಕ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳಿವೆ ಮತ್ತು 3-4 ಪ್ಲಾಟ್ಗಳನ್ನು
ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 3 ಅಂತಸ್ತಿನ ಪ್ಲಾಟನ್ನು
ಖರೀದಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
As deposed by the PW.1 herself she is a BE graduate
and before and after her marriage she was working and
earning, but she is not stated in her assets and
liabilities about her work, but as she admitted in her
cross examination that she was working. As deposed by
the PW.1, presently she is residing with her parents
34
C.Misc. 75/2016.
house and parents of the petitioner no.1 are well
versed. The petitioner no.2 who is daughter of
petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 is residing with
the sister's house of petitioner no.1.
32. After separation of the petitioner no.1 and
respondent no.1, the petitioner no.2 under the care
and custody of the petitioner no.1, but with regard to
educational expenses of her daughter who was
perusing her study within this passage of time, the
respondent no.1 tried to look after the well fare of his
child by sending money orders to the petitioner no.1.
The same is admitted by the PW.1 in her cross
examination.
ಎದುರುದಾರರಿಂದ ಒಂದು ಬಾರಿ ಸೆಪ್ಟೆಂಬರ್ 2015
ರಂದು ಮನಿಆರ್ಡರ್ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೆೇನೆ.
ಮಧುರೈನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದಾಗಲೂ ಸಹ ಒಂದು ಬಾರಿ
ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದ ಒಂದು ಮನಿಆರ್ಡರ್
ನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
The said version of the PW-1 shows that even the
respondent No-1 sending the money orders to the
35
C.Misc. 75/2016.
petitioner No-1 to look after the petitioner No-2 the
petitioner No-1 refusing to receive the same. On
reading of Section 20 and 21 of the 'Act' it is clear that
not only aggrieved person, but any child or children
may be granted relief. As such the relief can be granted
to the child for its benefit. The court has to keep in
mind the interest and the welfare of the child.
Therefore, orders as regard to the maintenance or the
welfare of the 'children' can be passed by taking
consideration of the status of the parties.
33. As admitted by the both the parties, the
respondent no.1 who being the father of the petitioner
no.2 and husband of the petitioner no.1 he was ready
and willing to bear expenditure of the child. In the
cross examination of RW.1 he clearly admits that;
"ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿರುವುದಕ್ಕಿಂತ
ಮುಂಚಿತವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ತದನಂತರವು ಸಹ ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ
ವಿದ್ಯಾಭ್ಯಾಸದ ಖರ್ಚು ವೆಚ್ಚಗಳನ್ನು ನಾನೇ
ಭರಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ
ನಂತರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಆದೇಶದ ಮೇರೆಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಗಳ
ವಿದ್ಯಾಭ್ಯಾಸದ ಖರ್ಚನ್ನು ನೀಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ."
36
C.Misc. 75/2016.
More over, during the passage of time, the respondent
no.1 was paid the maintenance amount to the
petitioners as awarded by this court and also he is
ready to extend expenses of the child. As such, the
respondent no.1 show his bonafide by providing some
assistance to the child so that the child was brought up
which the child requires.
34. Since the petitioner no.1 sought for relief of
maintenance u/sec.20 of PWDV Act. Hence, it is
necessary to take a shelter of provision u/sec. 20 of the
Act.
Section 20 has been enacted for the purpose of
providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is
incapable of supporting himself or herself inspite of
sincere efforts made by him or herself.
A spouse who is well qualified to get the service
immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain
idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by
relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the
nature of pendent lite alimony. The law does not expect
37
C.Misc. 75/2016.
the increasing number of such idle persons who by
remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze
out the adversary by implementing the provisions of
law suitable to their purpose.
In the present case the petitioner no.1 is BE Graduate
and she is a well qualified woman possessing
qualification like BE Computer Science Engineering.
After her marriage, she was serving as Teacher in
Chrysalis High School, White Field, Bengaluru. It
impliedly means that she was possessing sufficient
experience. Then how such a lady can remain without
service? It really put a big question which is to be
answered by petitioner no.1 with sufficient cogent and
believable evidence by proving, but petitioner No-1
failed to prove the same. When the petitioner No-1
fighting for the matrimonial dispute, cannot be
permitted to sit idle and to put her burden on the
husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from
him during pendency of such matrimonial petition.
Section 20 is not meant for creating an army of such
38
C.Misc. 75/2016.
idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a
'dole' to be awarded by her husband who has got a
grievance against her and who has gone to the Court
for seeking a relief against her. The case may be vice
versa also. If a husband well qualified, sufficient
enough to earn, sit idle and puts his burden on the
wife and waits for a 'dole' to be awarded by remaining
entangled in litigation. That is also not permissible. The
law does not help indolent as well idles so also does not
want an army of self made lazy idles. Everyone has to
earn for the purpose of maintenance of himself or
herself, at least, has to make sincere efforts in that
direction. If this criteria is not applied, if this attitude is
not adopted, there would be atendency growing
amongst such litigants to prolong such litigation and to
milk out the adversary who happens to be a spouse,
Section 20. It is indirectly against healthiness of the
society. It has enacted for needy persons who in spite
of sincere efforts and sufficient effort are unable to
support and maintain themselves and are required to
39
C.Misc. 75/2016.
fight out the litigation jeopardizing their hard earned
income by toiling working hours.
In the present case, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had
been awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as
pendent lite alimony. The petitioner no.1 is well
qualified woman once upon time she is serving as
Teacher in a reputed school, obviously, she having a
acquainted service as a Teacher, then how come she sit
in the home that too without made any efforts to get a
job as per her qualifications. This smells of oblique
intention of putting extra financial burden on the
husband, such attempts are to be discouraged. The
petitioner no.1 who being BE graduate having degree in
the Computer Engineering she may get the job and she
may earn. But, the petitioner no.2 who being the minor
who is under the care of the petitioner no.1 needs
maintenance from the hands of respondent no.1.
Admittedly, the respondent no.1 is having monthly
income of Rs.1,50,000/- per month in the year 2016.
While on the time of filing of assets and liabilities the
40
C.Misc. 75/2016.
salary of the respondent no.1 is Rs.2,05,000/- per
month. Now it is enhanced upto Rs.5,00,000/- as
such it is an admitted fact that both the petitioner no.1
and respondent no.1 are the BE graduates, it is their
bounden duty to get the job and earn and to maintain
the petitioner no.2 as per their status.
35. Thus taking into consideration of sources of income
of the respondent no.1, it is not justified for the
petitioner to seek monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/-
per month to the petitioners. On going through entire
materials on record, the petitioner no.1 has failed to
established her case i.e., the respondent no.1 has
willfully neglected the petitioner and child to maintain
them and also caused Domestic Violence against the
petitioners.
36. The petitioner in her petition claimed several
reliefs. Further, so, in the presence of sufficient
materials the petitioner no.2 who being the minor child
of the petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 is entitled
for the relief of Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance till
41
C.Misc. 75/2016.
she attain the age of majority. Hence, this court answer
the point no.3 are partly in the affirmative.
37. Point No.4: In view of the findings on the above
point nos.1 to 3 and the reasons stated therein, this
court proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner no.2 namely Kum. V.Supritha from the date of this order till she attains age of majority.
Further, the respondent no.1
directed to pay the
educational/academic expenses of the petitioner no.2 namely Kum. V.Supritha as prayed in the petition upon producing the receipts by the petitioner's side to that effect till 42 C.Misc. 75/2016.
completion of the education of the petitioner no.2.
The case against the respondents nos.2 to 5 is hereby dismissed.
With regard to other reliefs sought by the petitioners u/sec. 18, 19 and 22 of PWDV Act is hereby dismissed.
Office is directed to issue free copy of the Judgement to the petitioners.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of January 2026).
(Smt. Manju. S) JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW-1 K. Sukanya PW-2 Kamatchi. M
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 Marriage invitation Ex.P.2 Information letter given by the SRO Varthur Ex.P.3 Receipt dtd: 6.01.2017 Ex.P. 4 Certified copy of sale deed dtd: 15.5.2013 43 C.Misc. 75/2016.
Ex.P.5 Memorandum of deposit dtd: 20.03.2015 Ex.P.6 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.7 Jewels purchase receipts Ex.P.8 School fee receipts Ex.P.9 Medical bills and prescriptions Ex.P.10 X-ray report Ex.P.11 Mail Conversation details Ex.P.12 Certificate u/sec. 65 (b) of Evidence Act List of witnesses examined for Respondent:-
RW.1 Varatharajan List of documents marked for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 School receipt
Ex.R.2 Certified copy of order sheet in
Crl.P.No.6842/2016
Ex.R.3 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.R.4 Certified copy of complaint
Ex.R.5 Certified copy of statement of RW.1
Ex.R.6 Postal receipts
Ex.R.7 Certificate u/sec. 65 (b) of Evidence Act
Ex.R.8 SBI Bank statement of respondent no.1
Ex.R.9 LIC housing finance statement of respondent
no.1
Ex.R.10 Letter dtd: 10.03.2015
Ex.R.11 Joint SBI Bank statement of respondent no.1
and petitioner no.1
44
C.Misc. 75/2016.
Ex.R.12 Reply dtd: 27.11.2019 Ex.R.13 Copies of petition in HMOP no.135/2019. Ex.R.14 HDFC bank statement Ex.R.15 ICICI Prudential policy paid receipts Ex.R.16 Certified copy of Offer cum acceptance letter dtd: 13.05.2014 Certified copy of letter of confirmation and Ex.R.17 increment letter dtd: 31.03.2015 Ex.R.18 Certified copy of medical prescription of petitioner no.2 Ex.R.19 Certified copy of complaint dtd: 23.9.2013 Ex.R.20 Certified copy of complaint dtd: 14.11.2015 Ex.R.21 Certified copy of order sheet in TP no.
420/2022 Ex.R.22 Acknowledgments dtd: 19.9.2015 Ex.R.23 Copy of petitioner's statement Ex.R.24 Copy of complaint dated: 06.07.2013 Ex.R.25 Certified copy of bank statement of petitioner's father Ex.R.26 Certified copy of Judgment in CC no.
2083/2017 Ex.R.27 Medical documents of parents of respondent no.1 Ex.R.28 Certificate u/sec. 65 (b) of Evidence Act Ex.R.29 Lap top bill Ex.R.30 Auction on line copy Ex.R.31 Bank notice dated: 02.11.2019 Ex.R.32 Photos Ex.R.33 CD Ex.R.34 45 C.Misc. 75/2016.
Certified copy of order in HMOP no. 135/2019 and its translated copy (Smt. Manju. S) JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.