Bangalore District Court
In Crl.A. Abdul Rasool @ Farhad Pasha vs In Crl.A Smt.Nageen Taj D/O on 14 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61)
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2016
:Present:
Sri B.Jayantha Kumar, B.A.,Law, LL.M.
LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Crl. Appeal. No. 923/2014
&
Crl. Appeal. No. 1077/2014
Appellant in Crl.A. Abdul Rasool @ Farhad Pasha
923/2014:- S/o Abdul Majeed
Aged about 36 years
No.G/61, Mudlappa Cross
Doddamavalli
Bangalore.
(Represented by Sri.Ahmed S.N. and
Associates, Advocates)
Appellant in Crl.A. Smt.Nageen Taj D/o
1077/2014 Late Mohammed Rizwanulla
Aged about 26 years
No.67/3, Near G.M.Temple
Matadahalli, R.T.Nagar
Bangalore.
Vs.
Respondent in Crl.A Smt.Nageen Taj D/o
923/2014:- Late Mohammed Rizwanulla
Aged about 26 years
2 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
No.67/3, Near G.M.Temple
Matadahalli, R.T.Nagar
Bangalore.
(Represented by Sri Mohammed Shafi.S.
Advocate)
Respondent in Crl.A. Abdul Rasool @ Farhad Pasha
1077/2014 S/o Abdul Majeed
Aged about 36 years
No.G/61, Mudlappa Cross
Doddamavalli
Bangalore.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Crl. Appeal No.923/2014 is filed by the appellant Abdul
Rasool @ Farhad Pasha against Smt.Nageen Taj u/sec.29 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and
Crl.Appeal No.1077/2014 is filed by the appellant
Smt.Nageen Taj against Abdul Rasool @ Farhad Pasha
u/sec.29 of PWDV Act, 2005. (Hereinafter referred to as
'PWDV Act')
2. The appellant in Crl.A.923/2014 is the respondent
No.1 and respondent is the petitioner and Appellant in
3 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
Crl.A.1077/2014 is the petitioner and respondent is the
respondent No.1 in Crl. Misc.No.131/2012 on the file of
MMTC III, Bengaluru. Herein afterwards, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks assigned to them before the
lower court.
3. The appellant in Crl.A.923/2014 has challenged
the correctness and legality of the order passed by the lower
court allowing the petition partly filed U/s.12 of PWDV Act
and granting compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for emotional abuse
and the appellant in Crl.A.1077/2014 has challenged the
correctness and legality of the order passed by the lower
court granting compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and sought for
enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs.24 lakhs.
4. Both these appeals arising out of the same order
passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.131/2012 dt.
01.07.2014 and hence, both these appeals are clubbed
together to pass common judgment.
4 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner Smt.Nageen Taj filed petition before the
lower court seeking various reliefs under Sec.12, 19, 20 and
22 of PWDV Act against her husband Abdul Rasool @ Farhad
Pasha seeking direction to the respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.2 lakhs paid at the time of marriage by the parents to the
petitioner; to reimburse the expenses on arrangement of
dinner of Rs.1,00,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- on rent of Shadi
Mahal; to reimburse amount spent on the respondent
towards purchase of clothes and prior to marriage expenses
Rs.25,000/-; direct the respondent to return back all the
belongings like wooden double cot, mattress, almirah,
dressing table, woven, dekchas Sets, steel utensil set,
crockery, gold necklace of 25 grams, ear rings 15 grams,
small ear rings with dollar 10 grams, two gold rings and ear
rings presented by sister and direct the respondent to pay
total damages/compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for causing
5 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
physical, mental harassment, agony, economical, emotional
tortures and to direct the respondents to pay litigation
expenses.
6. In the petition, petitioner has stated that her
marriage with respondent No.1 was solemnized on
25.06.2011 as per muslim law and shariath and customs
applicable to the parties in presence of Jamayath Sulthan
Shah Masjid, Shivajinagar, Bangalore and prompt dower of
17.70 grams of gold bangles were paid by respondent No.1.
The parents of petitioner have printed wedding invitation and
expenses were incurred from both sides towards
arrangements of dinner, purchase of jewellery, clothes and
utensils. About one month after the marriage she lived
happily in the matrimonial house of respondents. Thereafter,
on one way or the other, she was subjected to harassment,
cruelties, pinpricks, mental torture at the hands of
respondents and abusing her that her prayer in room
6 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
upstairs amounts to idol worship and as such she should not
perform her prayer in room upstairs where she sleeps, but
she should come and pray in open hall in ground floor. Said
ill-treatment unwanted harassment disreputes humiliation,
domestic violence were given by all the respondents and the
respondent No.4 used to call the petitioner and order to
serve him tea, coffee in his room after breakfast by abusing
in filthy language in un-parliamentary words. The
respondents No.3 and 5 strongly supporting the respondents
and respondents used to demand the petitioner to bring
washing machine, LCD Colour TV, Sofa sets, dining table set
and further cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 21.10.2011, the
respondents have assembled and with ulterior motive forced
the petitioner to call her parents and relatives to the
matrimonial house. Accordingly, the petitioner obliged to call
her parents, her sister Mubeen Taj, her two brothers-in-law
Abdul Shafi and Akram Pasha, brother Irfanulla and they
7 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
assembled in matrimonial house before the respondents
started blaming by using filthy and un-parliamentary
language calling the petitioner as a widower, beggar, etc.,
and physically handled her and her mother and asked her
sister Smt.Mubeen Taj to remove Burkha and quarreled with
them. On 30.08.2011 and 21.02.2012, the respondent No.1
assaulted the petitioner before her parents and brother-in-
law Abdul Shafi and others in the house at the time of
panchayath. On 1.11.2011 at about 8.00 p.m, the
respondent No.1, his elder brother Noushad, sisters of
respondent No.3 by name Nasima and Yasmin with their
respective husbands came to the house of petitioner at
Matadahalli to hold panchayath. She has further stated that
she had filed petition before Shah Vali Ulla Mosque, putting
forth with some grievance. The Committee of Shah Vali Ulla
Mosque has summoned the parties, but while the
proceedings were about to complete, the father of the
8 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
petitioner died on 2.4.2012 due to heart attack and the
respondent No.1 used the delicate weapon of talak and sent
the same immediately about five days after the death of the
father of petitioner. On 28.4.2012, the petitioner's brother
Akram Pasha also expired. Petitioner has contended that
R.T.Nagar Police summoned her to the police station on
12.3.2012 on the complaint filed by respondent No.1 and she
has filed complaint before Halsoor Gate Police station on
14.4.2012 and she being aggrieved person suffered mental
torture, agony, physical assault, emotional distress, pinpricks
and humiliation, disrespects meted out by the respondents
and hence, she filed petition claiming reliefs under the
provisions of PWDV Act.
7. The lower court called for domestic incidence
report and issued notice to the respondents. The
respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed
statement of objections. In the statement of objections,
9 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
respondents have contended that the petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondents have
denied allegations made by the petitioner in the petition and
they have further contended that they neither demanded the
petitioner's parents to purchase jewelry, clothes or utensils.
They have further contended that the parents of the
petitioner are financially week and looking to their conditions
they asked them to perform the wedding in front of their
house. But the parents of petitioner did not agree for that.
Hardly 100 invitees from both sides attended the wedding in
Gulisthan Shadi Mahal. They have further contended that the
petitioner's parents had arranged lunch only for the invitees.
The petitioner's parents forced the respondent No.1 to accept
a wrist watch and suit cloth presented by them, as per
custom. Respondent No.1 has denied that the petitioner was
subjected to mental cruelty and harassment from them. He
has further contended that on the date of marriage, a gold
10 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
finger ring worth more than Rs.7,000/- was put to the
petitioner and he has borrowed loan of Rs.1,35,000/- from
Cifi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., and Rs.2,48,600/-
from Barclays Investments and Loans (India) Ltd., for the
expenses of his marriage i.e., for purchase of gold jewelry
and clothing etc. He has contended that as on the date of
wedding, in addition to prompt dower paid by the respondent
No.1 by way of gold bangles weighing 25.440 grams worth
Rs.57,929 and one gold locket weighing 07 grams worth
Rs.1,25,019/- and also a gold finger ring weighing 2.760
grams worth Rs.7064/- and the respondents No.6 and 7 gave
five gold finger rings weighing 15 grams and also sarees and
dress materials worth Rs.50,000/-. The respondent No.1
bought and gave the petitioner a Nokia mobile. All these
jewelry, clothing and mobile phone are still in the possession
of the petitioner. Respondents have further contended that in
the month of December 2011, the petitioner on her own filed
11 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
a requisition before the religious committee of Sha Waliulla
Mosque to get release from the marriage tie of the
respondent No.1 demanding Khula. On summoning by the
said committee, the respondent No.1 appeared before them
and gave his statement. Petitioner never complained to the
committee against any of the respondents of any violence
and cruelty. He has further contended that the committee
advised her to live with the respondent No.1 in a separate
house. But she refused the advice of the committee and
requested them to ask the respondent No.1 to pronounce
triple talak at one stretch and release her from his
matrimonial tie. He has further contended that the
committee asked him to divorce the petitioner by
pronouncing triple talak and hence, he divorced the
petitioner by pronouncing triple talak before the witnesses
and then reduced the factum of divorce on a paper and a
copy of the talaknama was sent to the petitioner for her
12 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
future utility with a DD for Rs.1,500/- as maintenance
amount for iddath period. He has further contended that he
is not working as inventory manager in cross word or
anywhere else and as such question of drawing salary much
less more than Rs.25,000/- does not arise and hence, prayed
for dismissal of the petition.
8. Before the lower court, the petitioner
Smt.Nageen Taj examined herself as PW1 and examined two
independent witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. Respondent himself examined as DW1 and
got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
9. The lower court after hearing the arguments of
learned counsel for petitioner and respondents, has passed
the impugned order granting the relief of compensation of
Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner.
13 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the
respondent No.1 Abdul Rasool @ Rarhad Pasha preferred
appeal in Crl.A.No.923/2014 on the ground that the
impugned order passed by the lower court is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and opposed to law.
The learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion
that the respondent could not prove her case of domestic
violence, but erred in allowing the petition and directing the
appellant to pay the compensation and cost. The sentimental
abuse or sentimental cruelty does not find a place in the
definition of Sec.3 of D.V.Act and hence, the learned
Magistrate has erred in passing the impugned order. There is
delay of 6 days in preferring the appeal and hence, prayed to
set aside the order passed by the lower court.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order,
granting only Rs.2 lakhs, the petitioner Smt.Nageen Taj
preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.1077/2014 on the ground that
14 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
the impugned order is bad in law and learned Magistrate
failed to consider the facts narrated in the petition. The
respondent is earning member and has income more than
Rs.25,000/- p.m. from salary and family is having monthly
income over Rs.2,50,000/- from various sources and the
family is having property worth more than Rs.1,70,00,000/-
and hence, there is no embargo to grant the order as prayed
in the petition. The learned Magistrate has only granted a
meager compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and the same is liable to
be modified by enhancing the compensation amount by
considering the averments made in the petition. The
petitioner has proved that she has been subjected to
emotional abuse, domestic violence at the hands of the
respondent. Learned Magistrate has failed to consider the
present social status of the appellant, which she has
established by adducing her evidence. The learned
Magistrate has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary
15 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
evidence in its proper perspective. The petitioner/appellant
has no income sources to maintain herself and she was
depending on her old age parents for food and clothes.
Hence, prayed to modify the impugned order by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.24 lakhs by
allowing this appeal.
12. In both the Appeals, the appellants have filed
application U/s.5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay in filing the Appeal. In Crl.A.923/2014, the appellant
Abdul Rasool @ Rarhad Pasha sought for condonation of
delay of six days in filing of the Appeal. The appellant
Smt.Nageen Taj in Crl.A.1077/2014 has sought for
condonation of delay of twenty seven days in filing the
appeal.
13. In Crl.A.923/2014, the appellant/respondent No.1
filed his affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 and contended that
he applied for certified copy of the judgment and order and it
16 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
was delivered to him only on 15.7.2014. In the mean time,
his mother fell ill and he was taking her care and hence, he
could not instruct his counsel to prepare and file the appeal
and as such there is delay of six days in preferring the
appeal. Hence, prayed for condonation of delay.
14. In Crl.A.1077/2014, the appellant/petitioner
Smt.Nageen Taj filed her affidavit in support of I.A.No.1 and
contended that she obtained the certified copy of the
impugned order on 3.7.2014 and thereafter she was
completely bed ridden. When she contacted her counsel, he
advised her to prefer criminal appeal to challenge the
judgment. Due to financial constraints, she was unable to
contact her counsel in time and later arranging the funds,
she approached her counsel and gave instructions to prefer
this appeal. Hence, there is delay of 27 days in preferring the
appeal. Hence, prayed for condonation of delay.
17 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
15. Lower court records secured. I have heard the
arguments of learned counsel for appellant and respondent
in both the appeals.
16. In the light of the contentions taken up in the
memorandum of appeal, the points that arise for my
determination are as follows;
1) Whether the appellant in
Crl.A.923/2014 has made out
grounds to condone the delay in
filing the appeal?
2) Whether the appellant in
Crl.A.1077/2014 has made out
grounds to condone the delay in
filing the appeal?
3) Whether divorced women can seek
reliefs against her ex-husband
U/s.18 to 23 of PWDV Act?
18 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
4) Whether the petitioner proves that
she is the victim of domestic
violence by the respondent No.1?
5) Whether the petitioner is entitled
to the claim relief in the petition
filed U/s.12 of the Act?
6) Whether the lower court has
committed any error of law and
facts in directing the respondent
No.1 to pay compensation of
Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner?
7) What order?
17. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative
Point No.5 : In the Affirmative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
19 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
Point No.7 : As per final order
REASONS
18. Point No.1 and 2:- Appellant in Crl.A.923/2014
i.e., Abdul Rasool @ Rarhad Pasha filed I.A.No.1 U/s.5 of
Limitation Act seeking condonation delay of six days in filing
the appeal. In his affidavit filed in support of the said
application, he has contended that he obtained certified copy
on 15.7.2014 and in the mean time, his mother fell ill and he
was taking care of her and because of which, he could not
instruct his counsel to prepare and file the appeal and hence,
delay is caused and prayed for condonation of delay.
19. Appellant in Crl.A.1077/2014 i.e., Smt.Nageen Taj
filed I.A.No.1 U/s.5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation
delay of 27 days in filing the appeal. In her affidavit filed in
support of the said application, she has contended that she
obtained certified copy on 03.07.2014 and thereafter she was
completely bed ridden and could not contact her counsel and
20 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
when she contacted her counsel, he advised her to prefer
Crl. Appeal, but due to financial constraints, she was unable
to contact her counsel and later after arranging the funds,
she approached her counsel and gave instructions to prefer
this appeal and hence, there is delay of 27 days in preferring
the appeal and prayed for condonation of delay.
20. Learned counsel for petitioner Abdul Rasool @
Rarhad Pasha relied upon the decisions reported in 2012
Cri.L.J. 2142 (K.M.Revanasiddeshwara Vs. Smt.K.M.Shylaja).
Keeping in view of the principles laid down in the said
decision, I am of the opinion that both the petitioner and
respondent No.1 have made out grounds to condone the
delay in filing the appeal. Hence, it is just and proper to allow
both the applications filed by the petitioner and respondent
No.1 U/s.5 of the Limitation act and condone the delay in
filing the appeal and accordingly, I answer point No.1 and 2
in Affirmative.
21 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
21. Point No.3:- Learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 has vehemently argued that the petitioner is divorced
wife of respondent No.1 and therefore, she cannot seek relief
against her ex-husband under the provisions of PWDV Act.
In support of his argument, he has relied upon the decisions
reported in:-
1) 2014(4) Crimes 374 (Delhi) (Poonam Vs.
V.P.Sharma)
2) 2012 Cri.L.J.1958 (Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs.
Smt.Shalini Gupta)
3) 2012 Cri.L.J. 309 (Supreme Court) (Inderjit Singh
Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and another)
4) 2013 Cri.L.J.(NOC) 468 (All.) (Jiyaul Hasan Vs. State
of U.P. and another).
22. I have gone through all these decisions. In these
decisions, the word "aggrieved person" interpreted in the
sense that the divorced women cannot maintain petition
under the provisions of D.V.Act on the ground that the use of
the word is any woman 'who is' or 'has been' and the
22 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
legislature has not used the word 'who was' or 'had been'
and this means, the domestic relationship has to be in the
present and not in the past.
23. But in the decision of Poonam Vs. V.P.Sharma,
divorce was obtained on 03.05.2003 before coming into force
of PWDV Act. In the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs.
Smt.Shalini Gupta, the parties were living separately since
19997 and the petitioner is divorced wife. In the case of
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and another, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that parties had already
obtained decree for divorce by mutual consent and unless
decree for divorce passed by Civil Court is set aside,
complaint U/s.12 of the D.V.Act is not maintainable. But it is
pertinent to note that subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal
Mansoori and another reported in (2014)10 SCC 736 has
held as follows:-
23 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
B. Crimes against women and children -
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- Ss.12,2(a), (f) & (s), 3, 18 to 23 and 26 - "Aggrieved
person" - Who is - Divorced wife, held, included -
Application U/s.12 seeking relief under Ss.18 to 23 filed
by appellant muslim wife against husband after
obtaining divorce - Held, maintainable - If domestic
violence had taken place when wife lived together in
shared household with her husband through
relationship in nature of marriage, held, application
would be maintainable - act of domestic violence once
committed, subsequent decree of divorce, would not
absolve husband from his liability for offence (though in
present case, the alleged divorce not really found to
have taken place) - Cr.P.C., 1973 - S.125- Words and
Phrases - "Aggrieved person", "domestic relationship"
and "shared household".
24. In this decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
clearly held that if domestic violence had taken place when
wife lived together in shared household with her husband
through relationship in the nature of marriage, the
24 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
application would be maintainable and act of domestic
violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce,
would not absolve husband from his liability for offence of
D.V.Act. For determination of the issue, it is necessary to
notice the relationship between petitioner and respondent
No.1 in this case. It is not in dispute that the respondent
No.1 got married the petitioner on 25.6.2011 and since then
their relationship was domestic relationship as defined
U/s.2(f) of the Act. Both of them had lived together in shared
household as defined U/s.2(s) of the Act, when they were
related by marriage. So under these circumstances, it cannot
be said that the petitioner cannot seek the relief under the
provisions of PWDV Act. Hence, the petition filed by the
petitioner under provisions of PWDV Act is absolutely
maintainable and accordingly, I answer Point no.3 in the
Affirmative.
25 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
25. Point No.4 to 6:- The petitioner has filed
petition U/s.12 of PWDV Act seeking various reliefs under the
Act. After the trial, the lower court has granted compensation
of Rs.2 lakhs for emotional abuse meted by the respondent
No.1 to the petitioner when she was living together in shared
household. It is the case of the petitioner that she was
subjected to harassment by the respondent No.1 and
respondent No.1 neglected her and respondent No.1
demanded dowry, washing machine, colour TV and other
household articles and cash of Rs.1 lakh. She has further
alleged that the respondent No.1 used to raise quarrel with
the parents of the petitioner and her sister and brother-in-
law. Petitioner has further alleged that the respondent No.1
is having sufficient income to pay the maintenance and
compensation.
26. The respondent No.1 has denied all the
allegations of domestic violence and he has further stated
26 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
that on the date of wedding, he gave two gold bangles and
gold necklace, gold locket, gold finger ring in all worth
Rs.2,08,000/- and gave nokia mobile phone to the petitioner.
He has further stated that the petitioner had not spent any
amount to the marriage and on the other hand, he borrowed
loan from Cifi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd., and Barclays
Investments and Loans (India) Ltd., to the tune of
Rs.3,88,600/- and spent for the marriage. He has further
stated that the petitioner very often go to her parents house
and did not return to the matrimonial house in spite of his
request and the petitioner is not at all interested to continue
her marital relationship with him and hence, he has stated
that he has not committed any offence. He has further
contended that he has already gave talak to the petitioner
and there is no domestic relationship with the petitioner and
therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs.
27 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
27. In this case, petitioner herself examined as PW1.
In her evidence, she has deposed that when she was living in
the matrimonial house, respondents used to harass her and
pinpricks her and restrain her to perform her prayer in the
room of the upstairs and they used to direct to come and
pray in the open hall in ground floor and the respondents
used to abuse her in filthy language using un-parliamentary
words and used to demand to bring washing machine, LCD
Colour TV, dining set, crokery set and cash of Rs.1 lakh.
During the course of cross-examination, the petitioner has
admitted that the respondents came to her house before the
marriage and they gave gold ring worth Rs.7,000/- and she
has admitted that the respondent No.1 has spent amount by
borrowing loan from City Co-operative Bank and Barclays
Investment and Loans (I) Ltd. She has admitted that the
respondent No.1 gave two gold bangles of approximately
17.70 grams and she admits that the respondent No.1 gave
28 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
gold worth 2,08,000/- and she admits that the respondent
No.1 gave talak.
28. Petitioner examined one Abdul Shafee @ Shafee
as PW2 and one Akram Pasha @ Akram as PW3. Both these
witnesses have stated about the harassment meted by the
respondents to the petitioner when the petitioner was living
with the respondent in the matrimonial house.
29. In support of the case of the petitioner, petitioner
has produced marriage certificate marked as Ex.P.1, reply
notice marked as Ex.P2, advance cash receipt marked as
Ex.P.3, two receipts marked as Ex.P.4 and 5, katha extract
marked as Ex.P.6, 'B' register extract of cars marked as
Ex.P.7 to 9, 'B' register extract of two wheelers marked as
Ex.P.10 and 11, lunch arrangement details at Ex.P.12, copy
of counter cum notice at Ex.P.13, marriage invitation card at
Ex.P.14, reception card at Ex.P.15, notice dt.16.7.2012 at
Ex.P.16, copy of legal notice at Ex.P.16, talaknama at
29 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
Ex.P.17, copy of talaknama in English at Ex.P.17(a), FIR in
Cr.No.40/2012 at Ex.P.18, copy of complaint at Ex.P.19,
complaint lodged before District Magistrate at Ex.P.20, copy
order sheet in Cr.No.104/2012 at Ex.P.21, copy of FIR in
Cr.No.104/2012 at Ex.P22, copy of charge sheet at Ex.P.23.
30. Respondent No.1 Abdul Rasool @ Rarhad Pasha
examined himself as RW1. In his affidavit filed in lieu of chief
examination, he has denied the case of the petitioner and he
has denied the allegations that he subjected the petitioner to
domestic violence. He has stated about the conduct of the
petitioner and also stated about expenses made for the
marriage. He was thoroughly cross-examined by the
petitioner. In support of his case, he has produced one
document marked as Ex.R.1 and this document is filed by the
respondent No.1 and got marked through PW1. This is a
letter given to Sha Valiulla Mosque and in this letter, she has
alleged that one brother-in-law says that she shall not
30 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
perform prayer and read Quran in the room, it should be
performed in the hall. The contention of the respondent No.1
is that the petitioner has not alleged any harassment or any
ill-treatment in this letter. But she has alleged that there was
quarrel for 2-3 times and her parents pacified and explained
and sent away. She has further alleged that her mother-in-
law speaks in different language words and on 21st October
morning, after serving breakfast and sending tiffin carrier,
brother-in-law started quarrelling with her that she is
performing pooja in the room and asked her to call her father
and mother, Irfan and abused her and her mother-in-law
also spoken saying the fate of her son was ruined. She has
further alleged that when her mother and father and Irfan
and sister came, her mother-in-law started quarrelling by
saying that what training given to widower and used the
word widower 2-3 times and said that she is not equal to her
foot wear and one brother-in-law abused in filthy language
31 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
and said that she is concubine and thrown a glass at her,
another brother-in-law pushed her mother, who fell down
and they locked the door and confined and key was kept and
when her two sister-in-law came, they also started abusing in
filthy language and her husband came and asked her father
and mother to go out of the house and cousin of her
husband also abused and manhandled her. So these are
allegations made by the petitioner before the Masjid. The
respondent has also produced the letter saying that he raised
loan in Cifi and Barclays finance Ltd., and those documents
are marked as Ex.P.2.
31. Now on perusal of entire oral evidence as well as
documentary evidence and domestic incident report, it is
clear that the petitioner was subjected to some ill-treatment
and harassment in her matrimonial house and the
respondent No.1 without informing the petitioner pronounced
talak and divorced the petitioner without any ground and all
32 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
these evidence clearly establishes that there was emotional
abuse and there was ill-treatment to the petitioner. Though
the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for
physical, mental harassment, the lower court granted Rs.2
lakhs as compensation. Now the petitioner has came up with
this appeal to raise the said compensation amount to Rs.24
lakhs. But she has not made out any sufficient grounds to
claim so much compensation of Rs.24 lakhs. Therefore,
whatever compensation award made by the lower court is
sufficient and no need to enhance the compensation. On the
other hand, respondent No.1 has not made out sufficient
grounds to set aside the order passed by the lower court.
The lower court has not granted any maintenance or other
reliefs claimed in the petition. The petitioner has only claimed
relief in the Appeal to modify the order to enhance the
compensation from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.24 lakhs. Under these
circumstances, the appeal filed by the petitioner and
33 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014
respondent No.1 are liable to be dismissed. The lower court
has not committed any error in awarding compensation of
Rs.2.00 lakhs. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 and 5 in the
Affirmative and Point No.6 in the Negative.
32. Point No.7:- In view of my findings on point
No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Appeals in Crl.A.No.923/2014 and Crl.A.No.1077/2014 filed by respective Appellants u/sec.29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are hereby dismissed.
I.A.No.1 filed by the appellants in Crl.A.No.923/2014 and Crl.A.No.1077/2014 U/s.5 of Limitation Act are hereby allowed. Delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned.
The Order passed by the III MMTC, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.131/2012 dated 01.07.2014 is hereby confirmed. 34 Crl. A. No. 923/2014
& 1077/2014 Original Judgment is ordered to be kept in Crl.A.No.923/2014 and copy of the same is ordered to be kept in Crl.A.1077/2014.
Send a copy of this judgment to the lower court along with LCR.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th January, 2015) (B.Jayantha Kumar) LX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Rrt*