Delhi District Court
Smt. R ..................... ... vs S. Kharab And Ors. ... on 13 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MM (MAHILA COURT02)
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: NEHA, DJS.
IN THE MATTER OF
CC No. 4998947/16
PS: J.P. Kalan
Smt. R ..................... (COMPLAINANT)
VERSUS
S. Kharab and Ors. ..................... (RESPONDENTS)
Date of Institution : 03.09.2011
Date of reserving of order : 16.11.2018
Date of Judgment : 13.12.2018
APPLICATION U/s 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the petition filed by the aggrieved person under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'D. V. Act') filed against the respondents.
2. Brief facts as per the petition are that the complainant got married to the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2009 and her sister was CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 1 of 15 married to the brother of respondent no.1 according to Hindu Rites & Customs. Her parents spent the amount as per their capacity in the marriage and gifted all the household items including gold and silver ornaments. The parents spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/ after arranging loan from family and friends. After 15 days of marriage, the inlaws started abusing, harassing and taunting the complainant regularly and they used instigate the respondent no. 1 to beat the complainant. Respondent no. 1 used to come home fully drunk and used to regularly beat her.
3. On 11.06.2009, respondent no. 1 demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and a Santro car from the complainant on the instigation of his uncle and father. When the complainant showed inability as her father had incurred huge expenditure in the marriage, the respondent no. 1 became violent and started abusing and severely beating the complainant with stick/baton. Due to severe beating, the complainant was severely hurt and was unable to carry out her personal work. Thereafter, she was confined in a room and was not given food for two days. After repeated requests, on the third day the respondent no.1 gave some eatables. On 13.06.2009 respondent no.1 open the door and allowed her to come out on the strict condition that she should bring Rs. 5 lacs and a santro car. On 15.06.2009 respondent no.1, before returning to duty, instructed his family members not to give food to the complainant till she brings Rs. 5 lacs and a santro car.
4. The complainant was harassed for not bringing Rs. 5 lakhs and a Santro car on all the festivals. On 01.10.2009 when the respondent CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 2 of 15 no.1 came, all respondents started beating the complainant, abused her and taunted her. On 03.01.2010, her motherinlaw and fatherinlaw instigated respondent no.1 to teach the complainant a lesson and upon their instigation, she was mercilessly beaten. On 07.01.2010, respondent no. 1 along with motherinlaw, fatherinlaw, brotherin law and his uncle and aunt got together and started abusing, beating and taunting the complainant and dragged her out of the house. She was thrown out of the house due to nonfulfillment of demand. Despite several requests, neither respondent no.1 nor his family members agreed to call the complainant back to matrimonial house. Thereafter, a panchayat was held and a settlement was arrived between the parties and respondent no. 1 took the complainant to the matrimonial home on 21.11.2010. The behaviour of respondents was normal for one month.
5. On 02.01.2011 at around 9 pm, uncle of respondent no.1 came in the complainant's room. He was smelling of liquor and he started misbehaving with the complainant. Suddenly the complainant got courage to escape out of the clutches of uncle in law and she came out of the room. On 05.01.2011 respondent no. 1 came on leave and as usual without even listening a word he started beating the complainant and snatched all the ornaments.
6. On 08.01.2011, respondent no. 1 along with all inlaws got together and started mercilessly beating the complainant and her sister with fistblow, leg/foot blow, danda etc. and taunted and dragged them out of the house. The complainant alongwith her sister went to the CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 3 of 15 govt. hospital at Village Jaffarpur, Delhi for their medical examination but to their utter shock and surprise, they found that their uncle in law had already met the Doctors. When complainant and her sister went for their treatment, the doctors refused to entertain them and asked them to go away. Thereafter, they went to PS Jaffarpur to lodge complaint but again they were astonished to find uncle in law. The complainant filed a complaint against the respondents on 28.06.2011 before CAW Cell. Thereafter, this petition.
7. Vide order dated 03.09.2011, respondents no. 1, 4 and 6 (husband, fatherinlaw and uncle in law) were summoned. The respondents appeared and filed their reply.
8. In the reply, the respondents have denied the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that the complainant has committed cruelty upon the respondent no.1 and she left her matrimonial house without any reason. Thereafter, she filed present application to extort money from the respondent no.1.
9. The application of the complainant for interim relief was disposed of on 13.12.2012. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for complainant's evidence.
10. The complainant examined herself in evidence as CW1. CW1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A and relied on documents i.e. Adhar Card as Ex.CW/1, bill of articles given in marriage as Ex.CW1/2, photocopy of complaint to Commissioner of Police as Mark A, photocopy of marriage card as Mark B, photocopy CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 4 of 15 of FIR No. 02/12, PS J P Kalan as Mark C, photocopy of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. sent by PS J P Kalan as Mark D, photocopy of pay slips of respondent no. 1 as Mark E, photocopy of complaints to office of respondent no. 1 as Mark F and photocopy of letters of CAW Cell/DCP/ACP as Mark G.
11. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant and CE was closed vide order dated 15.11.2017. Thereafter, matter was fixed for respondent's evidence. The respondents examined three witnesses in defence.
12. RW1/ respondent no.1 has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
13. RW2 Sh. Rajpal has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW2/A.
14. RW3 Sh. Chander Mohan has tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW3/A.
15. No other witness was examined by the respondents. Therefore, respondent's evidence was closed vide order dated 24.09.2018. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has categorically stated that she was treated with cruelty and beaten and harassed by the respondents in the matrimonial house for dowry. The allegations have been proved by the complainant in her evidence and therefore, she is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 5 of 15 petition.
17. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has argued that the complainant has not filed any complaint to show that any such incident ever took place. The complainant has made contradictory statements in her affidavit and during her cross examination. The statement made by the complainant during her cross examination prove that she was never subjected to domestic violence as alleged by her. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief and petition may be dismissed.
18. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.
19. The complainant has prayed for Protection Order U/s 18 of DV Act, Residence Order U/s 19 of DV Act, Monetary reliefs U/s 20 of DV Act, Custody order U/s 21 and Compensation Order u/s 22 of DV Act. It is clear from the provisions of the DV Act that order can be passed under the D V Act only if the court is satisfied that the domestic violence has taken place. It is also settled that in order to claim any relief under the DV Act, the complainant has to show that she was in domestic relationship with the respondents.
20. The complainant has filed the present petition against her husband, father in law and uncle in law. In the petition as well as in the evidence by way of affidavit, the complainant has stated that after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house where she was harassed by all respondents. The averments made in the petition prima facie CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 6 of 15 show that there has been domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondents.
21. Now, this Court shall decide whether the complainant has been able to prove that she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents.
22. The complainant has alleged that after 15 days of marriage and thereafter on several occasions, she was abused, taunted, beaten and harassed to fulfill demand of Rs. 5 Lacs and a Santro car by the respondents. In the evidence way of affidavit, the complainant has stated that after 15 days of marriage, she was taunted by the inlaws and her husband/ respondent no.1 was instigated by his family members to beat the complainant. Her husband used to come home after consuming liquor and he used to mercilessly beat her. She has further stated that on 11.06.2009, the respondent no.1 had demanded Rs. 5 Lac and a Santro car and when she expressed inability of her parents to fulfill the demand, respondent no.1 had mercilessly beaten her due to which she was severely hurt and was unable to do her personal work. She was also allegedly confined in a room and was not given food for two days.
23. The complainant was allegedly beaten by the husband at the instigation of the inlaws to fulfill demand of Rs. 5 lacs and a car. She was also allegedly confined in a room and starved for two days.
24. In the crossexamination, the complainant has deposed that for the first time, the demand was made on 11.06.2009 in presence of her CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 7 of 15 husband's chacha, dever, motherinlaw and fatherinlaw. The demand was made by her husband and his chacha. Her husband and her husband's chacha had beaten her in the abovesaid incident. She has further stated that after her marriage, she stayed in her matrimonial home for about one month. When her husband went to his place of posting, after some days she was forcefully sent to her parental home. Thereafter, she was stayed for about 34 months at her parental home.
25. The testimony of the complainant makes it clear that the husband lived with her initially only for a period of one month after marriage and thereafter she was sent to her parental house. The marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2009. As per the testimony of the complainant, husband lived with her for one month i.e. till end of May 2009. If the husband had gone for his duty after one month of the marriage then it is difficult to believe that the complainant was severally beaten by the husband on 11.06.2009 or any demand was made by him.
26. Further, the complainant was allegedly severely hurt due to beating in the matrimonial house. She had admittedly gone to the parental house after one month of the marriage. There is no medical document either of government or private hospital to show that the complainant had taken any treatment for injuries as alleged. There is no explanation of the complainant as to why she did not get herself medically examined for alleged injuries when she was sent to her parental house after one month of the marriage. The circumstances create doubt over the allegations of demands or beating by CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 8 of 15 respondents in order to fulfill the demands.
27. The complainant has further stated in her affidavit that on 30.06.2009, uncleinlaw called respondent no.1 from his duty on 10 days leave and instigated him to pressurize the complainant to fulfill the demands. The respondent no.1 started beating the complainant till she became faint. He splashed water on her face and asked to get Rs. 5 Lac and a santro car from her father. She was taunted on each festival for not bringing Rs. 5 Lac and santro car.
28. The complainant has alleged that on 30.06.2009 and thereafter also, she was harassed and taunted for Rs. 5 Lac and santro car. She has stated that respondent no.1 had beaten her so much that she fainted.
29. In the crossexamination, the complainant has admitted that she had gone to her parental house after one month of the marriage and she lived in the parental house for 34 months until her husband / respondent no.1 came to her parental home to take her to matrimonial home. She has further stated that she could not say whether her husband came or not during this period of four months.
30. The evidence of the complainant makes it clear that the respondent no.1 had not come to the shared household for a period of four months after leaving for his duty in the month of May 2009. The complainant admittedly lived at her parental house for a period of four months after one month of the marriage. The evidence of the complainant makes it difficult to believe that any such incident took CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 9 of 15 place on 30.06.2009 or any other day thereafter.
31. The complainant has further alleged in her affidavit that 01.10.2009, when the respondent no.1 came on leave, he again started beating her mercilessly and other inlaws also taunted and harassed her.
32. In the crossexamination, the complainant has deposed that she lived in the matrimonial house for 15 days during this visit of the husband and thereafter, her devar dropped her at her parental house at the instance of uncle in law.
33. In the affidavit, the complainant has stated that she was beaten by the husband and in laws on 01.10.2009. She had admittedly gone to her parental house after 15 days of stay in the matrimonial house. There is no explanation of the complainant as to why no police complaint was filed during her stay in the parental house. There is also no explanation as to why her parents had not come to the matrimonial house to talk to the inlaws about the alleged demands and the harassments. It is difficult to believe that if the complainant would be mercilessly beaten by the husband and inlaws during her short stay in the matrimonial house, the parents of the complainant would not talk to the inlaws themselves or through mediator or file any complaint against alleged demands and harassment.
34. The complainant has further alleged in her affidavit that 03.01.2010, the parentsinlaw again instigated the respondent no.1 to teach the complainant a lesson and upon this, all respondents gave her CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 10 of 15 beating. Thereafter, again on 07.01.2010, all respondents had abused, taunted and beaten her and respondent no.1 had dragged her outside the house and threatened her not to return to the matrimonial house till the demand of Rs. 5 Lac and santro car was fulfilled.
35. The complainant has alleged that in January 2010, she was thrown out of the matrimonial house by the respondent no.1 to fulfill demand of Rs. 5 Lac and a santro car. However, in the cross examination, she has deposed that her husband came to the parental house in the month of January 2010 to take her to the matrimonial house and she was allowed to stay in matrimonial house for about 10 15 days. She has further stated that her husband again went to join his place of posting in the month of January 2010 and her devar dropped her at her parental home at the instance of her uncle in law. She stayed at her parental home for about 910 months.
36. The testimony of the complainant makes it clear that she was not thrown out of the matrimonial house by the husband/ respondent no.1 as alleged in para no. 9 of her evidence by way of affidavit. In the cross examination, she has stated that devar had dropped her at the parental home at the instance of uncle in law after the husband went to his place of posting. The statement made by the complainant in her cross examination is contradictory to the allegations made in the petition and evidence by way of affidavit and it creates doubt over the allegations that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house to fulfill the demands.
CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 11 of 1537. The complainant has further deposed that on 21.11.2010, she was taken to matrimonial home after settlement was arrived in a panchayat called by her parents. The respondents behaved properly with her for about one month but on 02.01.2011, respondent/unclein law came to her room in drunken condition and he started misbehaving with her. He also threatened her to get Rs.5 Lac and a santro car. She somehow saved herself and came out of the room.
38. The complainant has not deposed that the specific act done by her uncleinlaw which she had alleged as 'misbehaving'. Mere vague allegations are not sufficient to prove that the respondent no. 6/ uncle in law had misbehaved with the complainant. In the cross examination, the complainant has stated that when she had gone to matrimonial house after 910 months of stay in the parental house, she stayed there for about 20 days and again her devar had dropped her at her parental house till January 2011. She has further stated that the husband took her from her parental house to join in the matrimonial home in the month of January 2011. In the affidavit, she has stated that on 05.01.2013, the respondent no. 1 came on leave and thereafter, he started beating the complainant and snatched all her ornaments.
39. It is clear from the evidence of the complainant that she was brought to matrimonial house in November 2010 and after 20 days, she was again dropped at the parental house where she stayed till January 2011. The husband had come to her parental house to take her to the matrimonial house after return from the job on leave on 05.01.2011. If the complainant was staying in her parental house in the CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 12 of 15 month of January 2011 (until 05.01.2011), then it is difficult to believe that any incident of molestation took place on 02.01.2011 in the matrimonial house as alleged against uncleinlaw.
40. The complainant has further alleged that on 05.01.2011, the respondent no.1 came to the house on leave and started beating the complainant and also stanched her jewellery. Thereafter, again on 08.01.2011, all the respondents gave her merciless beating to the complainant and her sister and threw them out of the house due to nonfulfillment of demand of Rs. 5 Lac and a santro car. She and her sister went to government hospital for medical but uncleinlaw met with the doctors and the doctors refused to entertain them and told them to go away.
41. In the crossexamination, the complainant has deposed that she had given a written complaint to the police on the day when she finally left the matrimonial house. She has also stated that after the doctor refused to medically examine her and her sister, she had called her parents through telephone and she had also got herself privately examined.
42. There is no medical document of either private hospital or any prescription of private practitioner to prove that the complainant had taken any treatment for alleged injuries. There is also no written complaint dated 08.01.2011 on the record to show that any such complaint was lodged after the alleged incident. There is no explanation of the complainant as to why no PCR call was made nor CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 13 of 15 any complaint was made when she and her sister were mercilessly beaten on 08.01.2011 and they were also refused medical examination in govt. hospital and the local police also refused to get them medically examined.
43. It is clear from the testimony of the complainant that she lived in the matrimonial house for a period of 34 months in total and she lived in the parental house for rest of the time. She has deposed that she never got an opportunity to file complaint against the respondents. The complainant has admittedly stayed at her parental house for a long duration after every 1520 days of stay in the matrimonial house. This Court finds it difficult to believe that the complainant did not get an opportunity to file complaint against the respondents.
44. The complainant has stated in the cross examination that she was threatened by the husband not to lodge the complaint. However, perusal of evidence by way of affidavit and petition show that no such allegation of extension of threat has been made against the husband/ respondent no.1. The complainant has made material improvements in her statement which creates doubts over the allegations of demand and harassments/ beating. The complainant has not produced any cogent evidence to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondents.
45. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that complainant has failed to prove, on the preponderance of probability, that she was ever subjected to domestic violence by the CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 14 of 15 respondents. This Court is not satisfied that the complainant was harassed or treated with physical or mental cruelty or subjected to domestic violence by any of the respondents. Hence, this Court is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the complaint/petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Copy of judgment be given dasti to both parties. Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA Date:
2018.12.13 16:41:07 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (NEHA) th on 13 December, 2018 Metropolitan Magistrate Mahila Court02/Dwarka New Delhi CC No. 4998947/16 Page No. 15 of 15