Delhi District Court
Mst. Tabassum Begum vs Sh. Azmat Ullah on 12 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, MAHILLA COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
CC no. 343/6/11
PS Chandni Mahal
U/s 12 of D V Act
Mst. Tabassum Begum
W/o Sh. Azmat Ullah @ Azmat Gulrez,
D/o Fida Mohd.
R/o H.No. 2379, Kucha Meer Ashik,
Chitli Qabar, Delhi.
... Applicant
Vs.
1. Sh. Azmat Ullah
S/o Sh. Qudratullah
2. Smt. Akhlaq Begum
W/o Sh. Qudratullah
3. Parvez Ullah
S/o Sh. Qudratullah
4. Aisha Begum
W/o Zahid
D/o Qudratullah
All Residents of:-
H. No. 2302, Chhata Momgran,
Chitli Qabar, Delhi.
5. Mst. Sultana Begum
W/o Sh. Fazil
6. Shahida
W/o Sh. Mustafa
CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 1/10
7. Farzana
W/o Sh. Saeed
All Residents of:-
2302, Chhata Momgran,
Chitli Qabar, Delhi.
... Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 12.07.2011 Date of Final Argument : 04.08.2014 Date of decision of case : 12.08.2014 EX-PARTE JUDGMENT 1 This judgment shall decide the application under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the applicant against the respondents.
Applicant's version:-
2. The applicant married respondent no.1 on 20.09.2006 according to Muslim Rites and Ceremonies. The family members of the applicant had spent a huge amount of money even beyond their status. The mehar was fixed at Rs.15,000/-. It was the second marriage of the applicant and her previous husband, Sh. Yaseen Khan, had expired on 25.01.2003 due to heart attack. The applicant also had one daughter namely Tahreem at the time of marriage. Respondent no.1 and his family members agreed to look after and maintain the said daughter Tahreem and also agreed to treat her as his own daughter. But after some time of the marriage, the said respondent no.1 backed out of his commitment and refused to look after and CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 2/10 maintain the said daughter and also started picking up quarrels with the applicant. Thus, being compelled by the circumstances, just after one month of the marriage, the applicant sent the said daughter to live with her mother.
3. After the marriage, applicant and respondent no.1 started living together as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock, a daughter namely Mahira was born on 27.07.2007. After three months of marriage, respondents started harassing and taunting the applicant for bringing less dowry. Not only this, respondent no. 2 (mother-in-law) started harassing, torturing and humiliating the applicant. She started throwing polythene bags containing garbage into the room of the applicant and also used to throw eatables out of the kitchen. When the applicant raised objections to this conduct of respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 (dewar) started abusing and insulting the applicant and also threatened to beat her and throw acid on her face. He used to show undue favours towards the other respondents.
4. In the month of May 2007, when the applicant was on her family way, respondent no. 1 refused to bear the expenses of the treatment and delivery of the child and asked her to go to her parental home. Accordingly, the applicant was left at her parental house. Thereafter, a female child Mahira was born on 27.07.2007 and the information was sent to the respondents but they did not pay any heed and rather sent a message that by giving birth to a female child, they have burdened the family of the respondents and they wanted only a male child.
CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 3/10
5. The family of the applicant made a complaint to Mohalla Sudhar Samiti and there both the parties were called and the matter was compromised. Since February 2008, the couple alongwith the child started living together. However, the daughter born out of the first wedlock of the applicant was not allowed to live there. There was no improvement in the attitude and behaviour of respondent no.1 and his family members. After some days, respondent no.1 stopped going to work and directed the applicant to daily go to her mother's house and bring meals from there.
6. On 15.03.2009, the applicant asked respondent no. 1 to bring milk for the child but he did not purchase milk from the market and brought some milk from the neighbourhood. When the applicant objected as to why he had brought milk from the neighbour, respondent no. 1 became furious and tried to hang the child with ceiling fan to which the applicant resisted and at this, respondent no. 1 caught hold of the applicant from hair and started beating her. In the meantime, respondent nos. 2 & 3 got annoyed and also gave beatings to the applicant. When the circumstances aggravated and became beyond the tolerance, the applicant made phone call to her brothers and her brothers came but respondent nos. 2 & 3 and other family members started quarelling with her brothers and asked them to take the applicant with them and also raised demand of Rs.1 lakh for the business of handicrafts, one motorcycle and one flat and on refusal, they got annoyed. The brothers of the applicant took the applicant with them and brought her to her parental home. Since then, the child is living with her.
7. In the month of March, 2011 the child became seriously ill and CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 4/10 was admitted to Shanti hospital, Delhi and a lot of money was spent upon the treatment. Intimation was sent to the respondents about the treatment but none of them turned up to see the applicant or the child.
8. The respondents and their associates continued to extend threats to the applicant. Reports regarding their illegal activities/threats etc. have been made by the applicant including the complaint dated 08.05.2011 to SHO, PS Chandni Mahal and also to CAW Cell on 09.05.2011 but the same are of no use.
9. During the stay of the applicant at her matrimonial home, respondents committed intolerable acts of cruelty upon the applicant and caused her mental and physical torture and agony. The applicant, alongwith her daughter, is living at her parental home but the respondents are threatening her for dire consequences and also threatening to kill her or harm her.
10. Both the daughters of the applicant are students. The elder daughter Tahreem is studying in Khalsa Girls' Senior Secondary School, Delhi and the younger daughter Mahira is studying in Nursery Class and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is needed for their maintenance. The applicant is a house hold lady and does not own any movable or immovable property in her name, whereas respondent no. 1 is a man of means and is having sufficient means and sources with him. Respondent no.1 is doing work of handicrafts in his house and in the market and is also doing the printing work and his total income is about Rs.1 lakh. He has also given CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 5/10 handsome amount on interest and is getting about Rs.10,000/- per month as interest. Thus, his total income is about Rs.1,10,000/- per month.
11. The applicant has prayed for protection order under Section 18, residence order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20 directing respondent no.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance for herself as well as for both the daughters. The applicant has also prayed for returning of her Stridhan articles and valuables and further sought compensation of Rs.1 lac under Section 22.
12. Vide order dated 23.07.2011, Ld. Predecessor of this court issued summons upon respondent nos. 1 to 3 who filed their reply.
Version of respondent nos. 1 to 3:-
13. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 have denied all the averments made in the application and have stated that there is no husband and wife relationship between the applicant and respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 has already pronounced divorce upon the applicant according to Muslim Personal Law and Shariat by making three pronouncements of divorce in the presence of witnesses.
14. It is stated that the applicant has concealed the factum of divorce pronounced by respondent no.1. Besides, the applicant has concealed that she is having income of not less than Rs.31,000/- per month from her independent source. It is further stated that the applicant has sold CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 6/10 her share which she got from the family property of her parents. It is also stated that the applicant has purchased two flats of 50 Sq. yds in Kucha Mir Ashiq, Chitli Kabar, Delhi and has let out both these flats and is having rental income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Besides, the applicant has also got two houses from the properties of her first deceased husband and the applicant has also let out these properties to the tenants and is having rental income of Rs.15,000/- per month. It is further stated that the applicant is doing the work of handicraft on job work basis at her home and is earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The monthly income of the applicant from all sources is not less than Rs.31,000/- which is more than sufficient for her and for both the daughters.
15. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 has been doing some job work of handicraft of retail shopkeepers and is having monthly income of approximately Rs.2,500/- per month and the house in which he is residing is owned by his mother (respondent no.2). It is further stated that with this small income, he has been maintaining himself and his old aged blind mother. It is further stated that the applicant is competent to maintain herself and her daughters. The respondents have denied being in possession of any Stridhan articles/valuables of the applicant. They have prayed that for the above reasons, the application is liable to be dismissed.
16. After filing of the reply, the respondents stopped appearing and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.04.2014. Applicant examined herself as CW-1 and deposed on the lines of her application.
CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 7/10
17. Heard ex-parte final arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the applicant and perused the complete record file.
18. Applicant examined herself as CW-1. In order to support her contentions, CW1 deposed that domestic violence has been committed upon her by the respondents. CW1 has deposed that the respondent used to harass and taunt her and even demand dowry. The testimony of CW1 has remained unrebutted, uncontroverted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve her testimony. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed not to commit any act of domestic violence upon the applicant. The respondents are further prohibited from communicating with the applicant in any form including personal, oral, written, electronic or telephonic contact.
19. The applicant has also sought a residence order under Section
19. She has prayed that an order restraining the respondents from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of the applicant from the shared household be passed. She has further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as rent and that the respondents be directed to remove themselves from the shared household. She has also prayed that respondent no. 1 and his relatives be restrained from entering any portion of the shared household in which the applicant resides. She has further prayed that respondent no. 1 be directed to secure same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same if circumstances so require. However, the applicant has admitted in her application that she is not residing alongwith the CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 8/10 respondent in the shared household but at her parental house in Delhi. In view of this, she is not entitled to any residence order and the said relief is declined.
20. The applicant has sought monetary relief under Section 20. It is the case of respondent no.1 that he has already pronounced Talaq upon the applicant as per Muslim rites and ceremonies. However, this fact has been denied by the applicant in her rejoinder and even respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence to prove that valid Talaq has been pronounced upon the applicant. Thus, this court is not inclined to accept the plea of respondent no.1 that Talaq has taken place and it cannot be disputed that it is the moral obligation of respondent no. 1 to maintain the applicant who is his legally wedded wife and the minor daughters. The applicant has stated that Respondent no.1 is doing the work of handicrafts in his house and in the market and is also doing the printing work and his total income is about Rs.1 lakh. It is further stated that he has also given handsome amount on interest and is getting about Rs.10,000/- per month as interest. Thus, his total income is about Rs.1,10,000/- per month. However, she has not placed on record any document to prove his income. The respondent no.1 has also stated that the applicant is earning about Rs.31,000/- per month. However, he has not led any evidence to this effect. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 is a skilled labourer and thus, his income as per Minimum Wages Act is assessed at Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month for herself and her two minor daughters w.e.f the date of filing of the application i.e. 12.07.2011. The amount already paid shall stand CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 9/10 adjusted.
21. The applicant has also sought relief of compensation under Section 22. However, she has not placed on record any document or led any evidence to prove the damages to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Therefore, the said relief of compensation is declined.
22. The applicant has further prayed for the return of her Stridhan and dowry articles/valuables. However, she has not proved the list of Stridhan and dowry articles and hence, this relief is also declined.
With above said findings, present application is disposed off.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
on 12.08.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mahila Court, Central-01, Delhi
CC No. 343/6/11 Tabassum Begum Vs Azmatullah 10/10