Bangalore District Court
Divyanshu Mishra vs Smt.Ashu Bhatia on 14 June, 2021
0 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2021
PRESENT
Sri.B.G.Pramoda, B.A.L., LL.B.,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012
Crl.A.No.645/2012
Appellant : Divyanshu Mishra, S/o. Suryamani
Mishra, Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No. 51, Siris Road, DLT
Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana 122
002.
(by Sri.MSP, Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondent : Smt.Ashu Bhatia, W/o. Divyanshu
Mishra, Aged about 48 years,
Residing at 'E' 41/5, DRDO Phase II,
C.V.Raman Nagar P.O. Bangalore.
( By Sri.SGS, Advocate)
Crl.A.No.633/2012
Appellant : Smt.Ashu Bhatia, Aged about 48
years, W/o. Divyanshu Mishra, R/at
C/o.Sumangali Seva Ashrama,
Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore.
Also at :
R/at No.E-41/5, DRDO Phase-II.
1 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
Kaggadasapura, C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore.
(by Sri.SGP, Advocate)
-V/S-
Respondents: 1) Divyanshu Mishra, S/o. Suryamani
Mishra, Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No. 51, Siris Road, DLT
Phase III, Gurgaon, Haryana 122
002.
2) Smt.Savithridevi, W/o.Suryamani
Mishra, Major
3) Suryamani Mishra, Major, Father's
name not known
Both are residing at No.34,
Gopalnagar, Supari Street, Behind
Radhakant Temple, Kidwainagar,
Kanpur-21.
(By Sri.KM, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by both the appellants challenging the same judgment passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-VI, Bangalore city, in Crl.M.No.129/2011 dated 17.9.2012. In Crl.A.645/2012, memo was filed by the respondent of the said case praying to club the said petition and Crl.M.633/12. The said memo was allowed and both the appeals are ordered to be 2 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 clubbed together and it was ordered to dispose off both the appeals simultaneously. As such, both the appeals are heard together and common judgment is passed on both the appeals.
2. Appellant of Crl.Appeal No.633/12 was the petitioner before the trial court. The Respondents of the said appeal were the respondents before the trial court.
Appellants of Crl.Appeal No.345/12 were the respondents before the trial court and the respondent of the said appeal was the petitioner before the trial court.
3. The rank of the parties to both the appeals are hereinafter referred to with the same rank as assigned to them before the trial court to avoid repetition of facts.
4. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before trial court which leads to file these two appeals in brief are as follows:-
4(a). The petitioner Ashu Bhatia had fled Crl.M. 129/2011 before the Trial Court u/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against respondent NO.1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the respondent NO.1 and her marriage 3 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 with the respondent No.1 was took place on 13.4.2002 at Bangalore city in accordance with Hindu Rights and customs after she got divorce from her 1 st husband. It is further case of the petitioner that she has got one son by name Kunal from her first husband. The respondent No.1 was younger to her. It is further case of the petitioner that she met respondent No.1 in the year 1995 through common friends. The respondent no.1 being impressed by the cultural background of the petitioner, has proposed the petitioner and has started to convince her to accept his love for her. The petitioner has explained the respondent NO.1 about her constraints in the life. The respondent NO.1 convinced the petitioner by making her to believe that these constraints will not come on the way of their marriage and made her to consent for marriage. Finally, the petitioner has agreed to marry respondent No.1 hoping that the second chance would enable her to have a better family life.
4(b). It is further case of the petitioner before the trial court that after the marriage, respondent No.1 has subjected her to extreme physical violence and he has stated to physically assault her right from 3 rd day of their 4 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 marriage while they were on their honeymoon. It is further case of the petitioner that during 7 years of her marriage with respondent No.1, the respondent NO.1 was physically assaulted her on nearly 35 to 40 occasions with increasing intensity over smallest issues. It is further case of the petitioner that in the first year of her marriage, Respondent No.1 inflicted an injury on her stomach with knife. During August 2008, the respondent No.1 threw the petitioner on the bed, sat on her stomach, strangling her neck with one hand and with other endlessly boxing her. The said incident took placed about 15 to 20 minutes. The respondent No.1 has assaulted the petitioner not only at home, but also in public places at Bangalore and Delhi. The respondent No.1 has further contended before the trial court that the petitioner has subjected her to verbal and emotional abuses also during 7 years of her marriage by stating that the petitioner was worthless human-being and also abused her with foul languages. He has also stated to the petitioner that she is a black soul and her father should have strangle her when she were born. The respondent No.1 used to humiliate the petitioner in front of his friends. It is further 5 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 case of the petitioner that due to the physical and mental harassment given by respondent NO.1, she is suffering from trauma and she had taken treatment by Psychiatrist. The Psychiatrist told the petitioner that if there had been delay of one week in approaching him, she would have had to be hospitalized.
4(c). It is further case of the petitioner before the trial court that the 1st respondent was unemployed at the time of marriage and she was looking after all the household expenses at that time. She was paying the rent of the rented premises in which they were residing together. The petitioner also paid credit card payments and LIC policy payments of respondent NO.1 at many times. The petitioner had also sponsored all the expenditures towards trips abroad for family holidays to Maritius in May 2006 and Australia in May 2008. The petitioner has also taken care of her expenditure of trip to Hongkong and U.S. The respondent NO.1 has also broken many household articles of the house during his rages. Hence, the petitioner has contended before the trial court that the respondent No.1 and other respondents have subjected her to various types 6 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 of domestic violences as stared by her in detail in her petition apart from those which are referred above. The petitioner in her petition has stated in detail about several incidents of domestic violences given by the respondent No.1 and other respondents apart from those what is stated above. As such, the petitioner has prayed before the trial court to direct the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.1,50,00,000/- as compensation along with other reliefs.
4(d). The respondents have appeared before the Trial Court and Respondent No.1 has filed his objection statement on his behalf and on behalf of other respondents. The respondent NO.1 in his objection statement has admitted the contention of the petitioner that he is the husband of the petitioner. But the respondent No.1 has specifically denied all the allegations made by the petitioner against him and respondent No.2 and 3 regarding exercise of mental, physical, verbal and economic abuses by them against the petitioner as stated in the petition. The respondent No.1 has also specifically denied all the allegations of specific instances of domestic violences as 7 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 stated in the petition. The respondent No.1 has contended that he wanted to postpone the marriage with petitioner as he was in search of job. The petitioner has made the respondent to consent for marriage saying that she has permanent job. It is the petitioner who did not behave with him and his parents properly. The respondent No.1 further contended that during the honeymoon trip, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 started to dictate her and she committed mistake by marrying him. The petitioner had subjected respondent NO.1 to cruelty. She used to be till late night in drunken mood at parties by giving Kunal at home and she used to dance with others also. The respondent No.1 has contended in his objection that he used to contribute out of his savings for household expenses. He has also took the petitioner to U.S.A. trip and gifted many valuables. When the respondent NO.1 further contended that when his parents had come to Bangalore with his sister for treatment to her sister for mental disease, the petitioner harassed them. The petitioner was in the habit of passing silly comments on colleagues of respondent NO.1. The respondent NO.1 has further contended in his 8 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 objection that he had joined Fire Capital Company in Gurgaon keeping in mind the welfare of Kunal and keeping in mind that the petitioner could take transfer to DRDO, Head Quarter Delhi. The respondent NO.1 has further contended that he and petitioner both have met one marriage counselor Mr.Ranjith. The petitioner failed to follow up the instructions. Many times, the petitioner threatened the respondent NO.1 saying that she will file false dowry harassment case and domestic violence case. The respondent NO.1 has further contended that the petitioner has never suffered health complications and depression. The respondent NO.1 was subjected to untold cruelty. The petitioner did not tolerated the connections of the respondent NO.1 with his parents and siblings. He has also contended that he has been depositing Rs.1,00,000/- per month for house hold expenses of the petitioner and Kunal. He has never subjected the petitioner to any type of violence. It is further contended by respondent NO.1 that the petitioner has got permanent and pensionable job having gross salary of Rs.82,745/-. She is also residing in the 3 bed government quarters having nominal rent of 9 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 Rs.697/- p.m. The petitioner has also got comprehensive medical coverage for herself and her son Kunal. Hence, the respondent NO.1 has contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed in the petition. The respondent NO.1 has also contended that on account of mental cruelty given by the petitioner, he has filed the petition seeking divorce against the petitioner. On these among other grounds, as stated in detail in the objection of respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
4(e). Before the trial court, both the petitioner and respondents have adduced their respective oral evidence as PW.1 and RW.1. The petitioner has produced 64 documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.64. Respondents have produced 27 documents and got them as Ex.D.1 to D.27. One document is marked with consent as Ex.C.1 before the trial court.
4(f). The learned Magistrate after perusing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, and after hearing the arguments of learned counsels for both parties and after perusing the petition, objection and other materials on record, was pleased to 10 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 pass judgment vide order dated 17.9.2012. The learned Magistrate partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and directed the respondent NO.1 to take compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- to the petitioner along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said impugned judgment of the learned Magistrate has preferred Crl.A.633/2012 so far as not granting the other reliefs sought for by her and so far as awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- only.
The grounds of appeal as urged by the appellant of Crl.A.633/2012 in the appeal memorandum in nutshell are as follows:
(a) The impugned judgment is not sustainable in law, facts and evidence on record.
(b) The impugned order so far as it relates to respondent No.2 and 3 cannot be sustainable as the operative portion does not state that the proceedings against R.2 and R.3 is dismissed.11 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
(c) The learned Magistrate is erred in not granting any of the reliefs sought for by the appellant u/s.18, 19(f), 19(6) and 20 of P.W.D.V. Act.
(d) The learned Magistrate erred in granting only a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation u/s.22 of D.V.Act against a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant.
(e) The learned Magistrate erred in granting only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that appellant has defended many litigations instituted by the respondents.
The trial court ought to have awarded litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(f). The trial court is erred in holding that the respondents have not committed any domestic violence of physical or emotional nature on the appellant by applying rule of strict proof.
(g) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the detailed evidence given by the appellant and the 64 documents produced by her which proves beyond any 12 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 doubt that the respondent No.1 had subjected the appellant to domestic violence.
(h) The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that suggestions made in the cross examination and denied have no evidenciary value.
(I) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant in the petition as well as in her evidence has made clear allegations of verbal and emotional abuse against the parents of respondent NO.1 i.e. respondent NO.2 and 3. The respondent No.2 and 3 have not denied the said allegations by adducing their evidence. As such, the learned Magistrate is erred in not drawing an adverse inference against them.
(j) The learned Magistrate has dealt rather cryptically with the case against respondent No.2 and 3 in para-22 of impugned judgment, the finding of the trial court that case against respondent No.2 and 3 is not proved, is not sustainable in facts and in law.
(k) The learned Magistrate is erred in observing that nature of the allegations made by the appellant against her 13 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 in laws or incidents which normally happens in a family where children marry against the will and wish of parents.
(l) The learned Magistrate also erred in observing para No.23 of judgment that both the parties were educated and financially independent and the fact that the appellant was older than the 1st respondent, it could have lead to the difference of opinion on trivial issues and heated discussion and that in such cases, such things will normally happens in married life. The said findings are based on personal beliefs and they cannot be the basis of judicial determination of whether there was or was not any domestic violence.
(m) The learned Magistrate has apparently either not seen the pleadings and evidence in their entirety or not understood the same contextually before holding that the allegation of economic abuse is not true.
(n) Eventhough the learned Magistrate observed that "in the present case, it is not possible to calculate actual loss suffered by the petitioner due to act of respondent NO.1". The learned Magistrate is erred in holding that "the 14 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 ends of justice can be met directing respondent NO.1 atleast to part with his one year income"
(o) Eventhough the learned Magistrate has accepted the contention of the appellant that the respondent NO.1 is having income of more than Rs.75,00,000/- per annum, the Magistrate is erred in taking into account only the admission of respondent no.1 to show that his salary is only Rs.45,00,000/- per annum. The learned Magistrate has failed to draw adverse inference against respondent NO.1 for not producing material bank accounts.
(p) The learned Magistrate has also failed to consider the admission given by respondent No.1 that he was paying Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards household and maintenance expenses. The learned Magistrate is erred in awarding monthly maintenance to the appellant.
(q) The learned trial judge has reduced 7 years of violence and abuse, physical and mental to mere manhandling which is unsustainable.
(r) The learned Magistrate also not claimed medical expenses incurred and claimed by the appellant. 15 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 On these among other grounds, as stated in the appeal memorandum, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and prayed to grant all the reliefs as sought for by her before the trial court.
6. The grounds of appeal as urged by the appellant of CrlA.645/2012 in the appeal memorandum in nutshell are as follows:
(a) The impugned judgment is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case.
(b) Though the learned Magistrate holds that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of physical, verbal and economic violence against the respondent, gravely erred in coming to conclusion that the respondent No.1 has subjected the petitioner to mental domestic violence.
(c) The appellant had expressed his desires to have children and the respondent had agreed to the same. It was the respondent who has denied child to the appellant which would amount to cruelty. The learned Magistrate has failed to note the same and appreciate it in its proper perspective. 16 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
(e) It was the unilateral dispute of the respondent not to change her sirname and the learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record regarding subject matter of change of name as alleged in the petition.
(d) The learned Magistrate has gravely erred in observing that the respondent was not in a position to comply the demand due on her own constraints, though there was absolutely no material placed on record to show what the constraints were.
(f) The learned Magistrate gravely erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant and respondent last stayed together till January 2009, during which time, there is absolutely no material placed on record to show that the respondent was subjected to domestic violence.
(g) The learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the fact that the petitioner has produced the medical certificate issued by private medical practitioner dated 27.11.2019 and other medical records produced at Ex.P.12 to 21 are for the period from March 2009 onwards and the learned Magistrate erroneously come to the 17 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 conclusion that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty.
(h) The appellant is the person who was subjected to mental cruelty by the respondent and the appellant has produced sufficient cogent evidence to substantiate the same. But the learned Magistrate has erroneously concluded that the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective.
(I) The learned Magistrate without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective has erroneously come to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled for compensation and damages for mental torture and emotional distress.
Eventhough it is the appellant who has been subjected to mental cruelty, torture and emotional distress.
(j) The yearly income as stated by appellant was pre- tax earning for one year and his take home salary was not less. The appellant would be in the highest tax bracket and the learned Magistrate has not appreciated this aspect in its proper perspective and erroneously directed the appellant to 18 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 pay Rs.45,00,000/- to the respondent towards compensation.
(k) The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the fact that appellant being the eldest son will have to provide for his aged old parents who have no source of income of their own except the pension of his father as school teacher. As such, impugned order of the learned Magistrate leads to miscarriage of justice.
(l) The learned Magistrate has also erred in not appreciating the fact that the respondent has filed the petition before the trial court with intention of harassing the appellant and to extract as much money as possible and to enrich herself at the cost of appellant as a counter-blast to the divorce petition filed by the appellant in the family court bearing M.C.No.1808/09.
On these among other grounds, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner u/s.12 of P.W.D.V. Act,
7. The respondent of Crl.A.633/2012 has filed objections to the said appeal by taking similar contentions 19 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 as taken by him in the Appeal filed by him. The respondent of Crl.A.645/2012 has also filed objections to the said appeal by taking similar contentions taken by her in the appeal filed by her.
8. After service of notice of the appeal bearing No.633/2012 to the respondent, lower record was called for. After receipt of lower court record, the matter was posted for arguments by clubbing both the appeals.
9. Heard the arguments of the Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents of both the appeals. The learned counsel for the appellants of both the appeals have filed their written arguments. Perused the appeal memorandum of both the appeals, written arguments, lower court records and other materials on record.
10. Having done so, the following points will arise for my consideration:
Point No.(i) Whether the appellant of Crl.A.633/12 proves that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and facts so far as awarding compensation of only Rs.45,00,000/- to her along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and rejecting the other reliefs as sought for by her?20 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 Point No.(ii) Whether appellant of Crl.A.645/12 proves that the trial court is erred in directing him to pay compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the petitioner? Point No.(iii) Whether the interference of this court is required with the impugned order of the trial court?
Point No.(iv) Whether Criminal appeal bearing No.633/12 is deserves to be allowed?
Point No.(v) Whether Criminal appeal bearing No.64512 is deserves to be allowed?
Point No.(vi) What order?
11. My answer to the aforesaid points are as follows:
(1) Point No.(i) .. Partly in Affirmative (2) Point No.(ii) .. In the Negative (3) Point No.(iii) .. Partly in Affirmative (4) Point No.(iv) .. Partly in Affirmative (5) Point No.(v) .. In the Negative (6) Point No.(vi) .. As per final order for the following:
R EAS O N S
12. Point No.(i)_to (iii):- These three points are interrelated to each other and as such, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
13. Crl.M.No.129/11 was filed by the petitioner u/s.12 of P.W.D.V. Act against the respondent by contending that 21 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents and hence, she has prayed for the reliefs as provided u/s.18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act from the respondents. U/s.12 of the said Act, an aggrieved person or protection officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate praying for one or more relief under the said Act. The petitioner has presented the application before the trial court in the capacity as aggrieved person.
14. Sec.2(a) of the P.W.D.V. Act provides for definition of aggrieved person. According to Sec.2(a), "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" is an aggrieved person. In view of aforesaid provision, in order to maintain the petitioner u/s.12 of the Act, aggrieved person must be a woman and she must have been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and she must have been subjected to any Act of domestic violence by the respondent.
22 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
15. The petitioner is a woman and hence, one of the essential requirement of Sec.12 is fulfilled. The term domestic relationship is defined u/s.2(f) of the P.W.D.V. Act. It provides as follows:
"Domestic relationship means 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."
16. In the petition before the Trial Court, the petitioner has contended that she is the wife of respondent No.1 and her marriage with him was solemnized on 30.4.2002 after dissolution of her 1st marriage by decree of divorce. It is also the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 and 3 are her in-laws. It is also the contention of the petitioner that after the marriage, she and her son who was born out of wedlock from her first husband were living with respondent No.1 in the shared household in Bangalore and also in Gurgaon. She has further contended that during her stay with respondent No.1 and other respondents in the 23 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 shared household, the respondents have subjected her to domestic violence.
17. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner is the wife of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and 3 are the parents of the respondent No.1. They have also not disputed the fact that the respondent No.1 and petitioner were living together as husband and wife in Bangalore and Gurgaon in shared household. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondent NO.2 and 3 have also subjected her to domestic violence when they came to the house of respondent NO.1. Whether the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents or not as alleged in the petition will be discussed later in detail. But for the purpose of maintainability of petition u/s.12 of the Act, it can be come to the conclusion that the petitioner was lived with the respondents in shared household. Both the petitioner and respondent No.1 were related by marriage. Under these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has proved that there exists domestic relationship between herself and the respondents.
24 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
18. The petitioner is a woman and she has proved that she has been in domestic relationship in respondents. The petitioner has also alleged that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondents when she lived in shared household with the respondents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner will became aggrieved person within the meaning of Sec.2(a) of P.W.D.V.Act and as such, her petition u/s.12 of the said Act is sustainable under law. Now, let us examine whether the petitioner has proved her allegations that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondents or not.
19. Sec.3 of the Domestic Violence Act provides for the definition of Domestic Violence. The said Section reads as follows:
"Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case, it-
(a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse, or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other 25 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security, or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (h); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the aggrieved person."
20. The petitioner before the trial court has alleged the commission of physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse against the respondents. The petitioner in order to prove that the respondents have subjected her to aforesaid types of domestic violence, has adduced her oral evidence before the Trial Court as PW.1. PW.1 in her examination in chief filed by way of affidavit has reiterated the entire facts and allegations stated in her petition. It is not necessary to reproduce entire examination in chief of PW.1. It is sufficient to note down the main allegations made by PW.1 regarding the manner how she was subjected to physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.
26 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
21. Regarding physical abuse, PW.1 has deposed that she was subjected to extreme physical violence and she has been physically assaulted by the respondent No.1 right from 3rd day of their marriage while they were and their honeymoon trip to Ooty. When they were on their way to Ooty, the respondent No.1 was looked to be disturbed. When they reached Ooty, the petitioner had asked the respondent NO.1 why he looked disturbed during the travel, the respondent No.1 felt angry and pushed her to the wall and slapped her across the face. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that each day, the respondent No.1 became increasingly abusive and aggressive. During first year of marriage, on one day, the respondent No.1 has inflicted an injury on her stomach with knife and the scar has continued even today. She has also deposed that the respondent NO.1 has not only assaulted her at home, but also in public. On one occasion, while she and respondent NO.1 and brother of respondent No.1 were travelling in Bangalore, respondent No.1 started severely boxing her on her face and stomach while driving the car. He has also slapped her while travelling in a train from Lucknow to 27 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 Delhi in the year 2007 and her son witnessed the said incident. PW.1 also deposed in her evidence that in U.S. while purchasing gift to respondent No.2 and 3 when she had suggested different gift item than what was selected by respondent NO.1, the respondent NO.1 had suddenly flew into a rage against petitioner and abused her with extremely abusive language and slapped on her several times. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that immediately after marriage, when the respondent NO.1 has failed in her earlier business, she had suggested to respondent NO.1 that he should concentrate on securing another employment as he had no complete business plan, respondent No.1 responded to said positive suggestion by abusing her and striking on her face causing bleeding injuries to her nose. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that during her seven years of stay with respondent No.1, he has physically assaulted her on umpteen occasions. On such occasions, the respondent No.1 was resorted to slapped her, kicked her, spitted on her face, pulled her hairs, strangling neck etc., PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that during August 2008, respondent NO.1 threw 28 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 her on the bed, sat on her stomach, strangled her neck with one hand and with other endlessly boxing her. The said incident took place about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she has been put to physical abuse on several occasions by the respondent NO.1.
22. Regarding verbal and emotional abuse, P.W.1 has deposed in her evidence that respondent No.1 many times called her as Kunti, Kamini, selfish bitch, prostitute etc., and also told her she is black soul and her father should have strangled her when she was born. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that respondent No.1 has humiliated her in front of his friends saying that she have 'verbal diarea' and she is his 'maid No.1'. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that respondent No.1 would even refused to came near her when she ate non-vegetarian food saying that he smelt murda fish. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that some days after the marriage, respondent No.1 started resenting and taunting her for keeping her maiden name eventhough she continued to use the maiden name for official purpose and even she started signing as 'Ashu Mishra' for other purposes. PW.1 has also deposed 29 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 in her evidence that respondent No.1 was taunted her regularly for the reasons that her brother did not attended the marriage. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that six years after the marriage, respondent No.1 started pressurizing her to give up her job and to have a baby at the age of 45 years. On the said issues, the respondent No.1 aided by respondent NO.2 and 3 have put her to constant domestic abuse and mental harassment. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that due to the verbal and emotional abuse of the respondents, she had undergone for mental depression. She has also took treatment with Psychiatric. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that the respondent No.1 not only emotionally, psychologically and mentally caused damage to her but also to her son Kunal Bhatia. Hence, PW.1 has stated in her evidence that in the manner stated above, she has been subjected to emotional, verbal and mental abuse by the respondents.
23. Regarding economical abuse, PW.1 in her examination in chief has deposed that respondent No.1 has compelled her to meet all household expenses including rent, housing society maintenance, maintenance of home, 30 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 electricity bill, residential phone bill, mobile bill of respondent No.1, credit card bill of respondent No.1, LIC policy premium of respondent NO.1 etc., PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence about the details of expenditure incurred by her for the aforesaid purposes in para NO.18(c) of chief examination. PW.1 has further deposed in her chief examination that the respondent No.1 as part of his obligation to shared household expenses was paying Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. and how abandoned his matrimonial obligation including his obligation to pay for shared household eventhough he has greater financial stability and strength than her. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that she is now unable to meet her medical expenses, personal expenses, household expenses, cost of her son's education, investing in immovable property and to maintain the lifestyle to which they are entitled. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that respondent No.1 has took her car and continued to use the said car and she has been paying the EMI of the car. PW.1 has also deposed in her evidence that salary of respondent NO.1 has increased more than three fold and he should pay her atleast 31 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. to enable her to lead in the same standard as if she and respondent NO.1 had been together.
24. The petitioner apart from adducing her oral evidence has also produced sixty four documents before the trial court and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to P.64. She has produced the doctor certificate and some medical bills in order to show that she took treatment for her mental depression. But, she has not adduced the evidence of the doctor who has treated her in order to know whether she really took treatment for mental depression and whether she had sustained mental depression on account of the alleged physical and mental abuses by the respondents.
25. The respondent No.1 has also adduced his oral evidence before the Trial Court as R.W.1. He has denied all the allegations made against him and respondent No.2 and 3 by the petitioner in her evidence regarding subjecting her to domestic violence. He has stated that all those allegations are false and baseless. RW.1 has deposed in his evidence that he and his family members were always courteous towards the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent NO.1 in his evidence has made allegations 32 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 against the petitioner stating that she was cold to his family members and disrespected them as they were from a small town. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that during stay in Ooty, the petitioner continued abusing and insulting him and his family members and she has stated that her whole life was now going to be dictated by the presence of his parents and she did big mistake in marrying him. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that the petitioner herself has subjected him to extreme cruelty and made his life miserable. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that the petitioner used to threat him by stating that she would have sent him and his whole family behind bars by filing domestic violence and dowry harassment cases. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that he was managing the house from his savings and some contribution from petitioner in the salary he was contributing 80% of the household expenses. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that he was subjected to mental harassment on account of the petitioner loosing her temper over trivial issues. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that he has never physically assaulted or verbally and emotionally 33 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 abused the petitioner or economically abused the petitioner at any point of time. RW.1 has further stated in his evidence that since the petitioner has been subjected him to untold misery and cruelty, he has filed divorce petition before Family Court in Bangalore in M.C.No.1808/09 and hence, the petitioner had filed the application before the Trial Court as a counter-blast to divorce petition. Hence, RW.1 has prayed to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner u/s.12 of P.W.D.V. Act.
26. The learned Trial Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties has opined that no sufficient evidence is placed by the petitioner before the court to show that the respondent No.1 has subjected her to physical violence. It is observed by the learned Trial Judge that the petitioner has not cross- examined the respondent NO.1 about the allegations of physical or verbal abuse by putting suggestions about the said allegations to RW.1 in cross-examination. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the said omission on the part of the petitioner supports the case of respondent no.1 that he has not committed any physical or verbal abuse. The 34 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 learned Trial Judge has also observed that the petitioner has not proved the allegations about economic abuse. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that the nature of the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.2 and 3 are that such an incidents are normally happens in the family when children marry against the Will and wish of parents and such incidents cannot be termed as domestic violence and no case is made out by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and 3.
27. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that the petitioner is highly educated, enjoyed financial independence, she is more experienced and 9 years older than respondent No.1, and as such, these factors might have lead to difference of opinion on trivial issues and might have lead to heated discussions etc., It is further held that it will normally happens in married life and such incidents alleged in the petition nd evidence of P.W.1 cannot be considered as domestic violence u/s.3 of the P.W.D.V. Act. But, the learned Trial Judge has also observed that the act of respondent NO.1 in demanding the petitioner to change her sirname and compelling her for child after lapse of 6 35 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 years of their marriage, inspite of knowing that the petitioner is not in a position to comply the said demand due to her own constraints, prove the fact that respondent No.1 has subjected the petitioner to mental agony and thereby, committed domestic violence u/s.3 of the Act. It is the said finding of the trial court and granting compensation to the petitioner for committing domestic violence, the respondent No.1 has challenged in Crl.A.645/12. The petitioner in Crl.A.633/2012 has challenged the finding of the Trial Court by holding that she has failed to prove physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse and also challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial court and the order of trial court refusing to grant other reliefs as prayed for by her.
28. As it is discussed earlier, before the Trial Court, the petitioner and respondent No.1 have adduced their oral evidence only. They have not adduced evidence of any witnesses in corroboration to their oral evidence. There is only self serving statements of petitioner and respondent No.1 making allegations against each other. As such, it has 36 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 to be adjudicated whose evidence has to be believed and to whose evidence much weightage has to be given. The standard of proof in domestic violence act cases is not similar to that of standard to proof that required in ordinary civil cases and criminal cases. The cases instituted under domestic violence cases cannot be considered as purely civil cases or purely criminal cases. They are quasi criminal in nature. Though the D.V. Act cases are quasi criminal in nature, the standard of proof of proving the allegation beyond reasonable doubt cannot be made applicable. Further, the standard of proof applied to civil cases i.e. preponderance of probabilities also cannot be made strictly applicable to the D.V. Act cases. The object and purpose of enacting the P.W.D.V. Act has to be looked into. It is a social legislature enacted with object to grant statutory protection to victims of violence of domestic sector who had no proprietary right. As such, to the D.V.Act cases, instead of applying standard of proof which is applied to civil and criminal cases, rather the standard "preponderance of evidence has to be applied". Under this standard, the victim can establish her case in convincing the trier of fact, 37 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 the Judge, that the evidence establishes that is more probable that the incident occurred than it does not occur. The term preponderance of evidence is that in weighing the evidence presented by both the parties, if court gives greater weightage to one party than other, that is, that one's evidence is more convincing than the other, that party will prevail.
29. Usually, the domestic violence would take place mainly within the four corners of house when the aggrieved party lives in shared household along with the respondents. As such, no corroborative evidence can be insisted for the evidence of the aggrieved party with respect to certain types of the domestic violence which exclusively took place within the four corners of the house. But some of the allegations requires corroboration by other evidence. In case of physical abuses causing severe bodily injury which is harmful to the aggrieved party, some corroborative evidence is required. Eventhough the petitioner has alleged that due to physical violence inflicted by the respondent No.1, she has sustained physical injury many times, she has not produced any medical certificate to substantiate the said 38 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 fact. Further, no police complaint was also given by her by alleging the commission of physical violence on her. Hence, as it is rightly observed by the learned Trial Judge, the sole testimony of petitioner that respondent No.1 has inflicted her bodily injuries cannot be accepted without corroborative evidence of Doctor or other witnesses.
30. But the petitioner has made allegations in her evidence that the respondent No.1 had slapped her, pushed her, and physically assaulted her many times without causing any bodily injuries. The said evidence of PW.1 cannot be disbelieved on the ground that there is no corroboration for the same. Such incidents might have occurred when the petitioner and respondents were alone in the shared household. There is possibility that no person would have witnessed the said incident. Further, the petitioner might have also not informed the same to anyone. As such, only on the ground that the petitioner has adduced any corroborative evidence of any witness, the aforesaid allegations of physical abuse cannot be disbelieved.
39 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
31. The learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that the petitioner has not suggested each and every instances of physical violence as alleged in her evidence to RW.1 in his cross examination. Hence, the learned Trial Judge has observed that the said omission on the part of the petitioner proves the contention of the respondent No.1 that he had not subjected the petitioner to physical violence. But the said finding of the learned Trial Judge is not proper. PW.1 on oath has stated about how the respondent No.1 has subjected her to physical abuse. PW.1 in her chief examination has also stated about how respondent No.1 has insulted her and humiliated her by abusing her with filthy language and by making certain taunted comments which are mentioned in detail in her chief examination. Further, PW.1 has also stated about how respondent No.1 had ridiculed her. When petitioner has stated in her chief examination on oath about how she was put to domestic violence by way of physical and verbal abuse from respondent No.1, same cannot be disbelieved only for the reasons that she had not suggested the same to RW.1 in the cross examination. It is further respondents 40 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 adduce rebuttal evidence regarding the allegations made by the petitioner in her chief examination. The allegation regarding verbal and emotional abuses as stated by PW.1 in her chief examination also does not require any corroboration. As it is stated earlier, verbal and emotional abuses would also take place within the four corners of house and the aggrieved party alone would face the same and as such, her evidence about the same cannot be discarded only on the ground that there is no corroboration for the same.
32. The definition of domestic violence u/s.3 of the P.W.D.V.Act is wide enough. The explanation given in the said Section to physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse is also wide enough. Many of the instances stated by PW.1 in her chief examination regarding she being subjected to physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse from respondent NO.1 are included in the definition of the domestic violence and they will come within the ambit of explanation given to the term physical abuse and verbal and emotional abuse. As such, I am of the opinion that the trial court is erred in holding that the petitioner has failed 41 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 to prove that the respondent NO.1 has subjected her to physical, verbal and emotional abuses.
33. Explanation (iv) to Section 3 of D.V.Act, provides what economic abuse includes -
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance.
(b) disposal of household effects, any alteration of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person, and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. 42 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
34. The petitioner has not made any allegations against the respondent No.1 regarding the deprivation of any economic or financial resources by the respondent NO.1 to which she is entitled under Law or under order of any Court. She has also not made any allegations of disposal of movable or immovable properties by respondents in which, she has got interest. She has also not made any allegations regarding prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which she is entitled to use and enjoy.
35. But the petitioner has made allegation against the respondent No.1 that he has compelled her to meet out all the household expenses including rent, house society maintenance, electricity bill, phone bill, mobile bill and credit card bill of respondent No.1, LIC premium of respondent NO.1 etc., The allegations of economic abuse has to be proved by the aggrieved party by adducing corroborative evidence. The sole testimony of the aggrieved party alone in this regard cannot be believed. She has to produced sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the 43 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 respondent has subjected her to economic abuse as stated in explanation (iv) to Sec.3 of P.W.D.V. Act.
36. RW.1 in his evidence has stated that he used to contribute for household expenses. PW.1 in her cross examination, has also admitted about contribution made by respondent No.1 for some times towards household expenses. PW.1 in her cross examination has admitted that after the marriage, she has withdrawn lesser amount from her salary. She has also admitted that she has invested major portion of her salary to PF and other savings. The petitioner is a permanent employee and she has got good job. Voluntary Contribution of any portion of her salary to any household necessities cannot be termed as economic abuse by respondents within the meaning of Sec.3 of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner is permanent employee of DRDO and her financial condition is also good and as per her contention she has also financially supported the respondent NO.1 when he lost job. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the contribution made by the petitioner towards household necessity cannot be considered as economic abuse. If she had made any 44 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 expenses as stated by her in the evidence might have been made by her out of her concern or love and affection to the family. The petitioner has not adduced any sufficient evidence to show that she has incurred household expenses only due to compulsion or threat of respondents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the respondents have subjected her to economic abuse as provided under explanation (iv) to Sec.3 of D.V.Act. As such, the learned Trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there are no sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of economic abuse by the respondents to the petitioner.
37. As stated earlier, in order to maintain the petition u/s.12 of D.V.Act, it is sufficient if the aggrieved party prove that she was subjected to any type of domestic violence u/s.3 of the Act. The petitioner has proved before the trial court that she was subjected to physical, verbal and economic abuse and also mental abuse by the respondents. In order to get the relief under the said provision, it is sufficient to prove that the aggrieved party is subjected to one or several types of domestic violence as provided u/s.3 45 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 of the Act. Since the petitioner has proved that she was subjected to some types of domestic violence as stated above, she is entitled to get one or any relief as provided under the Act. For what relief the petitioner is entitled will be discussed later.
38. The respondents have also filed Crl.A.No. 645/2012 challenging the finding of the Trial Court that they have subjected the petitioner to domestic violence and as such, they are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. As it is stated earlier, the respondent No.1 has adduced his oral evidence before the trial court by denying all the allegations made by the petitioner against him and other respondents. Similarly, he has also made allegations against the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has subjected him to harassment, Except the oral evidence of RW.1, there is no evidence of any witnesses to corroborate his evidence. The documents produced by respondent No.1 at Ex.D.1 to 26 are not sufficient to prove the allegations made by respondent NO.1 against the petitioner. They are not concerning to any such allegations made by the respondents against the petitioner.
46 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
39. Eventhough the respondent NO.1 has made allegations in his evidence that the petitioner has abused and insulted his family members and disrespected his parents, the petitioner has not examined his parents or any of his relatives to prove the said allegations. The respondent No.1 has also alleged that the petitioner used to threaten him and his family members by stating that she will send them behind Bars by filing domestic violence and the dowry harassment cases and subjected them to extreme cruelty and made his life miserable. In order to prove these allegations also, the respondent No.1 has not adduced any corroborative evidence. There are no sufficient evidence to prove the said allegations.
40. It is to be noted here that eventhough the petitioner has made serious allegations against the respondents stating that they have subjected her to physical abuse and assaulted her physically by causing bodily injuries, she has not filed any police complaint against the respondents. If the petitioner had an intention of harassing the respondent No.1 and his family members, she might have lodged police complaint regarding the said 47 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 harassment. But, she did not do so. Further, she has also not filed any petition for maintenance or petition under D.V.Act against the respondents. It is the respondent No.1 who has filed petition for divorce against the petitioner by making some allegations. The petitioner has filed the present petition only after the respondent No.1 has filed the divorce petition. If the petitioner had an intention of harassing the respondents, she might have also filed criminal complaint against the respondents. She has not filed any police complaint or any other cases against the respondents except the present petitioner. As such, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has filed the present petition as counter-blast to divorce petition cannot be acceptable one. Neither parties have produced any documents pertaining to M.C. petition. Whether the allegations made by the respondents is true or not has to be decided in the said divorce petition.
41. It seems that the respondent No.1 has made allegations against the petitioner in his objections statement to counter the allegations made by petitioner against him and for the purpose of M.C. petition filed by him. Under 48 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no greater weightage or importance can be given to the allegations made by R.W.1 against the petitioner in his evidence.
42. It is to be noted here that the petition before the trial court against the respondents is under P.W.D.V.Act. By looking to the purpose and object of said enactment, certainly more weightage has to be given to the evidence of aggrieved party i.e. the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the evidence of the petitioner is more convincing than the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contention of the respondents that the trial court is erred in not accepting his evidence cannot be acceptable one. The finding of the trial court that the respondents have failed to prove their allegations made against respondent No.1 is proper. As such, no interference of this court is required with the said findings of the trial court.
43. Further, the petitioner has made main allegations against respondent No.1 only. In her entire examination in chief, her main allegation is only against respondent NO.1. 49 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 She has stated that respondent NO.2 and 3 have abated respondent NO.1 to harass her. She has also stated that the respondent No.2 and 3 have also abused her. But, respondent No.2 and 3 were not residing with the respondent No.1 and petitioner. They were residing at Kanpur. They have come to Bangalore only for some period and they have stayed with respondent No.1 and petitioner. There are no sufficient materials to show that the respondent NO.2 and 3 have subjected the petitioner to domestic violence during their stay with respondent No.1. The evidence of P.W.1 alone regarding the allegations made against the respondent No.2 and 3 cannot be completely believed. The respondent No.1 has also made counter allegations against the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has disrespected his parents and she has also harassed them. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of domestic violence against respondent No.2 and 3. There are no sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner was lived with respondent NO.2 and 3 in the 50 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 shared household and in the shared household the respondent No.2 and 3 have subjected her to domestic violence. Hence, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings of the trial court that the petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of domestic violence against respondent No.2 and 3.
44. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has proved that respondent NO.1 has subjected her to domestic violence within the meaning of Sec.3 of P.W.D.V.Act and she is entitled for the reliefs under the said Act. As such, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the said findings of the trial court. I am of the view that the petitioner has proved that she is the aggrieved person provided u/s.2(a) of D.V.Act and as such, she is entitled to claim any reliefs as provided under the said Act. Now, let us examine for what reliefs, the petitioner is entitled to get.
45. The petitioner in her petition before the trial court has sought for the relief of protection order as provided under Sec.18 of the Domestic Violence Act, prohibiting the 51 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 respondents from repeating any acts of Domestic Violence against the petitioner and from aiding or abeting in the commission of acts of domestic violence against the petitioner as mentioned in the application. The learned Trial Judge in the impugned order at page No.28 has observed that the petitioner has not pleaded specifically which act of respondent No.1, the petitioner wants to restrain and as such, the leanred Trial Judge has refused to grant the relief provided u/s.18 of P.W.D.V. Act. Sec.18 of the said Act provides for, protection order. It is to be noted here that breach of protection order is punishable u/s.31 of the said Act. As such, what protection order is required by the petitioner has to be specifically pleaded. The petitioner has generally sought for the relief u/s.18 of the Act restraining the respondents from committing any acts of domestic violence or aiding or abeting in commission of such acts. Since protection order is enforceable, unless specific acts for which, petitioner wants the injunction order or protection order is mentioned in the prayer, general prayer as sought for by the petitioner as provided u/s.18(a) and (b) cannot be granted. What act of domestic violence has to be 52 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 prevented is not specifically claimed by the petitioner. As such, I am of the opinion that the trial court has rightly refused to grant relief of protection order as sought for by the petitioner. Unless it is mentioned for which specific act, protection order is granted, the same cannot be executable under the said Act. Hence, the relief of protection order as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
46. The petitioner has also sought for the relief of residence order as provided u/s.19(f) and 19(6) of P.W.D.V. Act. Sec.19(f) provides for passing a residence order directing the respondent to secure same level of alternative accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in shared household or to pay rent for the same. Sec.19(6) provides that while making an order under sub-section (1) of Sec.19, the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligation relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to financial needs and resources of parties. The petitioner has sought for rent of Rs.16,000/- p.m. towards rent for shared household. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing in three bed room house given by her Department. The petitioner is not seeking any alternative 53 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 accommodation. The petitioner is working as Senior Scientist in DRDO, Bangalore. The respondent has not driven the petitioner from any shared household. Hence, the question of payment of rent as prayed for by the petitioner does not arises. Further, the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that she is paying house rent of Rs.16,000/- p.m. Further, as stated earlier, u/s.19(6) of the Act, the financial needs and resources of the parties has to be looked into before granting any relief under the said section. The petitioner is drawing salary of Rs.82,745/- during the year 2012. She is also having separate designated residential quarters. There is no financial burden on the petitioner to pay the rent of the premises in which, she is now residing. The petitioner is also not seeking any alternative accommodation from the respondent. Since the petitioner is a Senior Scientist, she should have recent residential accommodation of her department. Hence, I am of the opinion that no relief u/s.19 of P.W.D.V. Act can be granted. The learned Trial Judge has rightly refused to grant the relief under the said section. 54 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
47. The petitioner has also sought for monetary relief u/s.20 of P.W.D.V.Act. She has sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- for her and her son and educational expenses of her son. She has also sought for medical expenses of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner. The learned Trial Judge has refused to grant the said monetary reliefs as prayed for by the petitioner by considering the fact that the petitioner is having permanent employment and she is having sufficient source of income.
48. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Judge is erred in rejecting the maintenance amount to the petitioner. He has also argued that even working woman are also entitled to get maintenance amount from husband. In support of his arguments, he has also relied upon several rulings in his written arguments. He has also contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also held that maintenance cannot be denied to the wife under D.V.Act on the ground that she is employed.
49. As it is stated earlier, the petitioner is working as Senior Scientist in DRDO, Bangalore. She is permanent 55 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 central government employee. As admitted by petitioner, her salary during 2012 is Rs.82,745/-. More than 8 years is over from the date of her evidence before the trial court. The salary and perquisites of the petitioner might have been considerably raised on account of her higher post. It is also the case of the petitioner that while she was residing with the respondent No.1 in shared household, she was not depended upon respondent No.1 financially. She herself has stated that she has helped the respondent NO.1 financially when he lost job and when he was under financial crisis.
50. The learned Trial Judge in his judgment observed that protection of woman from D.V. Act, will not give any new right of maintenance to a woman which is not available to her under Hindu Law and u/s.125 of Cr.P.C., Under the said provisions, the wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband only if she has no sufficient source of income for her livelihood and even if she is working, her income is not sufficient to maintain herself.
51. But in the present case, the petitioner has got sufficient source of income for her livelihood. She is in good employment. She has been put in service of more than 20 56 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 years in DRDO, Bangalore. It cannot be said that her income is not sufficient to maintain her and her son. Eventhough it is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife and children, the maintenance has to be awarded only if the wife is not able to look after her maintenance by her income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Megha Khandelvala vs. Rajath Khandelvala vide order dt.10.5.2019 in Crl.Appeal arising out of Special (Crl) No.6422/2018 has held that husband has to pay maintenance even if wife is well educated and qualified.
52. It is to be noted here that capacity to earn and actually earning are two different things. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Binita Dass vs. Uttam Kumar in Crl.Revision Petition 659/17 vide order dt.9.8.2019 has observed the capacity to earn and actually earning are two different things. The Hon'ble High Court has held that compensation cannot be denied on the ground that the wife has earning capacity or is a qualified person. But in the case before the trial court, the trial court has rejected the claim of maintenance by the petitioner on the ground that she is actually working and on the ground that she has got 57 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 sufficient income for her livelihood. The trial court has not denied the maintenance amount on the ground that the petitioner has got earning capacity or she is a qualified person.
52. Further, it is to be noted here that in this petition, the petitioner was earlier filed an application praying for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from the respondents. This court has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner is working and she is getting good salary. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of this court has filed criminal revision petition bearing No.784/14 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 31.7.2018 was pleased to dismiss the said revision petition. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that since the petitioner is employed and since she is getting good salary, she cannot claim maintenance from her husband. Further, the Hon'ble High Court has also held that the petitioner's contention that the income of the petitioner is not sufficient to maintain her status cannot be acceptable one. In view of the said order of the Hon'ble 58 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 High Court of Karnataka also, the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance amount from the respondent No.1 as prayed for.
53. There is no dispute regarding the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that eventhough the working woman is entitled to get the maintenance amount. But in case of working woman who is having income, it has to be seen whether such income is sufficient for the wife to maintain herself and to lead dignified life as that of her husband or not. The petitioner is a senior scientist in DRDO and she is getting sufficient salary according to her status and good position. The petitioner has put in service for more than 20 years. Her standard of living has not been reduced due to the income which she is getting. She has got good position in the society than the respondent NO.1 on account of her occupation. Further, PW.1 in her cross- examination has admitted that her son was aged about 21 years and his education will be completed within one and half year. Her evidence was conducted in the year 2012. Now, her son would have completed her education and he might have doing job somewhere. As such, the contention 59 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 of the petitioner that she is in need of money for maintenance of herself and for the educational expenses of her son cannot be acceptable one. Under these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary relief of maintenance amount as prayed for by her. The trial court has rightly refused to grant the maintenance to the petitioner and as such, I do not find any interference by this court on the said finding.
54. The petitioner has also sought for medical expenses of Rs.20,000/- from the respondent No.1 for the injuries sustained by her for the domestic violence caused by respondent No.1. The petitioner has also produced certain medical bills as well as she has produced medical certificate to show that she has taken treatment for mental depression. The petitioner has proved that she was subjected to physical, verbal and emotional abuse by the respondents. As such, the petitioner might have mentally disturbed and she might have taken treatment for the same. The petitioner has not produced any medical bills to show that she has incurred medical expenses of Rs.20,000/-. Only on the ground that the petitioner has not 60 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 produced any medical bills, medical expenses cannot be denied to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has taken treatment, I am of the opinion that medical expenses of Rs.10,000/- can be granted to the petitioner. The learned Trial Judged erred in not awarding any amount to the petitioner towards medical expenses. Further, only on the ground that the petitioner has taken treatment from private doctor, eventhough she has got facility of taking treatment from Central Government health service, medical expenses cannot be denied to her. There are no sufficient materials to show that she has got reimbursed the medical expenses.
55. The petitioner has also sought for the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the respondents under Sec.22 of PWDV Act for the mental trauma, mental and physical injuries caused to her by respondent NO.1. Sec.22 of PWDV Act provides for payment of compensation and damages for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent in addition to the other reliefs granted under the said Act. The learned 61 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 Trial Judge after considering the income of the respondent No.1 and other factors, has awarded compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- to the petitioner u/s.22 of the P.W.D.V. Act.
56. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial court is erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- only. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the learned Trial Judge is erred in considering the annual income of respondent No.1 as Rs.45,00,000/- and coming to the conclusion that to meet the ends of justice, it is sufficient to award one year income of the respondent NO.1 as compensation to the petitioner.
57. I have perused the impugned order of the learned trial court. The discussion regarding awarding compensation is made in para NO.31 to 35. Since the petitioner has proved that the respondent No.1 has subjected her to domestic violence and since she has proved that she was put to mental torture and emotional distress, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation amount u/s.22 of the Act. Only on the ground that the petitioner is employed and she is having sufficient income, the 62 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 compensation to the petitioner for mental torture and emotional distress caused to her from the domestic violence cannot be denied. The monetary relief is rejected on the ground that she is having sufficient source of income for her livelihood. Granting of monetary relief is different from granting compensation amount u/s.22 of the Act. The petitioner has to be suitably compensated for the mental torture and emotionaly distress caused to her from the domestic violence. As such, the trial court is rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation u/s.22 of the Act. As such, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Trial Court.
58. The learned Trial Judge in para No.33 of the judgment has observed that it is not possible to calculate the actual loss suffered by petitioner due to the act of the respondent No.1. It is also observed by the trial court that the sufferings of petitioner cannot be compensated in terms of money. The learned Trial Judge has observed that the ends of justice can be meet by directing the respondent No.1 atleast to part with his one year income. The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the evidence of petitioner that 63 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 the respondent No.1 is having annual income of more than Rs.75,00,000/-. The learned Trial Judge has relied upon the admission of respondent No.1 and Ex.C-1 in order to come to the conclusion that the annual income of the petitioner is Rs.45,00,000/-.
59. The respondent No.1 in his appeal has conntended that the trial court is erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. He does not own any assets and he does not have savings of Rs.45,00,000/-. He has also contended that he is the tax payer and his take home salary is very less. The appellant has also contended that he is the eldest son of his parents. He has to look after his age old parents. They have no independent source of their own. His father is only getting pension as retired government school teacher. The respondent No.1 has also contended that the petitioner is having good salary and pensionable job and she has got invested large portion of her salary for savings. She has no financial liability and she is Class-I gazetted officer and she is leading comfortable life. Hence, the respondent No.1 has contended that the trial court is erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and prayed to allow his 64 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 appeal by setting aside the order of the trial court directing him to pay compensation amount to the petitioner.
60. Since it is already held that the petitioner has suffered mental torture and emotional distress, she is entitled to get compensation amount u/s.22 of the P.W.D.V. Act. The said Act does not define the manner in which, such compensation has to be derived and what parameters the Learned Magistrate shall follow. The determination of compensation has to be rational, to be done by a judicial approach. The object of awarding compensation u/s.22 of the Act is not to apply balm and the wounds. The court has to look into the actual mental torture and emotional distress suffered by the aggrieved person and also, it has to look into the financial capacity of the husband, the standard living of the husband and her needs etc., The term compensation provided u/s.22 has very wide cannotations. The quantum is at the discretion of the Magistrate and it is expected that it would depend upon peculiar facts of each case. The determination of compensation u/s.22 of the Act is not similar in all the cases.
65 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
61. In the present case, it is already discussed and held above that the respondent No.1 has subjected the petitioner to physical, mental, verbal and emotional abuses. It is to be noted here that admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.1 have met in the year 1995. As stated in the appeal memorandum of the respondent No.1, the appellant was aged about 22 years and the petitioner was aged about 32 years at that time. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 has pursuaded her to marry him eventhough she is younger than him. Further according to the petitioner, eventhough she was not willing to marry, the respondent No.1 as she is 10 years younger than him and since she has a son. The petitioner has also convinced the respondent No.1 that why she is not willing to marry him. According to the petitioner, eventhough the respondent NO.1 at the time of their marriage has agreed that he will not insist the petitioner to have her own child. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 have married in the year 2002 when the petitioner was aged about 38 years. The respondent No.1 eventhough has agreed that he will not insist the petitioner to have child, but in the year 2008 he 66 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 started insisting the petitioner to have child at the age of 45 years and put her to mental distress. He has also insisted the petitioner to change her sirname eventhough they have mutually agreed that he will not insist the same after marriage.
62. The respondent No.1 eventhough initially paying Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards household expenses, he has stopped paying the said maintenance amount. It is the duty of the respondent No.1 being the husband of petitioner to maintain her and her son and to provide all the basic necessities to them and to make them to live in a dignified manner irrespective of the fact that the petitioner is employed and she is having independent source of income. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is living separately from the petitioner. Nowhere in the entire appeal memorandum, the respondent NO.1 has contended that he has been contributing to the petitioner towards household expenses and other needs of the petitioner and her son. The monetary relief to the petitioner was refused on the ground that the petitioner is having sufficient source of income. It seems that the respondent NO.1 is avoiding his 67 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 statutory responsibility as husband to look after the petitioner and her son by taking undue advantage of the fact that the petitioner is gainfully employed.
63. Due to the said act of the respondent NO.1, the petitioner might have undergone mental torture and emotional distress. The petitioner has to look after herself and her son without any financial assistance from the respondent NO.1. This fact also gives mental stress to the petitioner. Further, the respondent No.1 instead of looking after the petitioner and her son has also filed divorce petition praying for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner. This fact also gives lot of mental pressure and stress to the petitioner. On perusal of the status in internet, it is noticed that M.C.Petition No.1808/2009 came to be dismissed in the year 2013 itself. Eventhough the petitioner is suffering to manage her family, the respondent No.1 is not bothered to contribute anything to the welfare of the petitioner and her son since the date of disposal of the petition before the trial court to this date. All these facts and circumstances have to be looked into before 68 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 determining the quantum of compensation to be awarded by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner.
64. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 was having annual income of Rs.45,00,000/-. This fact is also clearly admitted by the respondent NO.1 in para NO.21 of his appeal memorandum. He has admitted that his salary was Rs.45,00,000/- before leaving from his job. Already, more than 10 years has been lapsed from the date of he relieving his earlier job. The respondent No.1 is highly educated person. As such, he might have got good job at present than his earlier job. His salary might have been increased considerably. As it is discussed earlier, respondent No.1 in his cross examination has admitted that he is getting more salary than the petitioner and it is four times higher than her salary. Only on the ground that in the Bank account of the respondent NO.1, there is no savings of Rs.45,00,000/- the contention of respondent No.1 that he has no assets worth of Rs.45,00,000/- and as such, he is not able to pay Rs.45,00,000/- to the petitioner is not acceptable one.
65. The respondent No.1 has failed to produce any sufficient documents regarding his exact income and also 69 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 about his actual employment. The respondent No.1 has also not produced income tax returns submitted by him as suggested during the course of cross examination. The respondent NO.1 has suppressed the material documents regarding his income and occupation. As such, as it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an adverse inference also can be drawn against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the fact that he is not held liable to pay any interim compensation amount in this appeal and he is not directed to pay any monetary relief to the petitioner including maintenance amount. The petitioner has contended that respondent No.1 has got annual income of more than Rs.75,00,000/-. But there are no sufficient evidence to prove the said fact. The petitioner has to be suitably compensated for the mental torture and emotional distress caused to her on account of domestic violence by respondent No.1.
66. As it is discussed earlier, there is no prescribed standard for calculating the compensation amount. It is purely the discretion of the learned Magistrate based upon 70 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Magistrate while considering the annual income of respondent No.1 as Rs.45,00,000/- awarded compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-. The observation of the learned trial court to award annual income of the respondent No.1 as compensation to the petitioner cannot be considered as non-judicious and irrational. By considering the fact that the petitioner was not awarded with monetary relief and by considering the conduct of the respondent NO.1 in shirking his responsibility of maintaining the petitioner and by looking into the fact that the respondent No.1 eventhough is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and son, is avoiding to take care of them and he is also denying them decent living by not providing basic necessities and love and care to them and by considering the fact that the respondent NO.1 without discharging his legal obligation as husband of the petitioner has subjected her to mental cruelty and by considering the fact that the respondent NO.1 is having income more than the income of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate would have awarded more compensation to the petitioner 71 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 than what is awarded by the impugned order. The mental torture and emotional distress of the petitioner cannot be make good only by awarding compensation amount. The mental torture and emotional distress which the petitioner has to suffer through out her life by marrying the respondent NO.1 has to be considered. Since the respondent NO.1 has refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner, the petitioner has to lead her life alone by looking after her son. This also gives lot of mental depression to her in future also. By considering all these facts and circumstances of the case and also by considering the position and income of the respondent NO.1, and also by considering the fact of mental torture and emotional distress caused on account of domestic violence by respondent No.1 and to be caused in future due to the same, I am of the opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Trial Judge can be enhanced to certain extent. I am of the opinion that to meet the ends of justice to both the parties, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 may be directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.55,00,000/- to the petitioner u/s.22 of 72 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012 c/w. 633/2012 P.W.D.V. Act. I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 would be capable of paying the said compensation amount since he is highly educated and since he is having good job and getting more salary than the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of trial court awarding compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- needs the interference of this court and it requires to be enhanced as stated above. I find no merits in the contention of the respondent No.1 that he is not in a position to pay the said amount cannot be acceptable. He is under legal obligation to pay to the petitioner. Only on the ground that the petitioner is employed and only on the ground that she is having sufficient source of income as contended by respondent NO.1, the respondent NO.1 cannot avoid his liability to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner u/s.22 of the P.W.D.V. Act. Sec.22 of the D.V.Act is nothing to do with the income of the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the compensation amount awarded by the learned Trial Court u/s.22 of P.W.D.V. Act is required to be enhanced from Rs.45,00,000/- to Rs.55,00,000/-. 73 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
67. The petitioner has also sought for litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent No.1. The learned Trial Judge has awarded Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner in her appeal has also challenged the said finding of their trial court. She has contended that the trial court ought to have awarded litigation expenses as prayed for by her in the petition. As it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss in contesting the petition filed by her before the trial court. The respondent NO.1 had also filed divorce petition against the petitioner. She has also suffered monetary loss in contesting the said petition. Further, respondent No.1 has also filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner has to defend the same. Further, the petitioner has also approached the Hon'ble Hight Court of Karnataka challenging the order of non payment of maintenance to her. Further, the petitioner has also suffered monetary loss in contesting this petition. By considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that awarding of Rs.5,000/- by the learned Trial Judge towards litigation expense seems to be very meagre. 74 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner.
68. The petitioner / appellant of Crl.A.633/2012 has proved that the Learned Trial Judge erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. But the appellant has failed to prove that impugned order in so far as rejecting her claim for monetary relief and protection order and residence order is unsustainable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in partly in affirmative. The respondent No.1/appellant of Crl.A.633/2012 has failed to prove that the trial court erred in directing him to pay compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, I answer point No.2 in Negative. The petitioner has proved that the interference of this court is required with some of the findings of the trial court as stated above. The interference of this court is not required to other findings as discussed above. Accordingly, I answer point No.3 in partly affirmative.
75 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012
69. Point No.(iv) and (v):- The petitioner has proved that the impugned order of the trial court is unsustainable so far as awarding of compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The compensation is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.55,00,000/- and litigation expenses is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to get medical expenses of Rs.10,000/-. As such, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner is deserves to be partly allowed by modifying the impugned order. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in partly Affirmative. It is already held and discussed above that there is no merits in the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/appellant of Crl.A.645/2012. It is held that the respondent NO.1 has failed to prove that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. As such, I am of the opinion that Crl.A.645/2012 is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer point No.5 in the Negative.
70. Point No.(vi):- In view of my findings on point No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
76 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 ORD ER Criminal Appeal bearing No.633/2012 filed by the appellant Smt.Ashu Bhatia u/s.29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The impugned order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate - Traffic Court-VI dated 17.9.2012 in Crl.Misc.No.129/2011 is hereby set aside and the same is modified as follows:
" The petition filed by the petitioner u/s.29 of P.W.D.V. Act is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent NO.1 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.55,00,000/- to the petitioner as provided u/s.22 of P.W.D.V. Act.
Further, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses of the petitioner as provided u/s.20(b) of P.W.D.V. Act.
Further, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner.
With respect to the claiming of other reliefs is concerned, the petition is hereby rejected."
The Crl.A.No.645/2012 filed by Divyanshu Mishra and others u/s.29 of P.W.D.V. Act is hereby dismissed.
The copy of the judgment is ordered to be kept in both the appeals.
77 Crl.A.Nos.645/2012
c/w. 633/2012 Send back the record of Crl.M.129/2011 to the trial court along with copy of the judgment of both the appeals.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of June, 2021).
(B.G.Pramoda) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.