Bangalore District Court
Sumit Chatterjee S/O Ajith Kumar vs Reshma Fathima D/O Chand Pasha on 16 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-26).
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2015.
Present
Sri G.K. GOKHALE, M.A., LL.B.(Spl.),
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.4399/2012
Plaintiff: Sumit Chatterjee s/o Ajith Kumar
Chatterjee, 32 years, r/at # C-107
Prakruthi Medows, Amruthahalli
Byatarayanapura, Bangalore-560 092.
(By Sri Siddartha B. Muchandi, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendant: Reshma Fathima d/o Chand Pasha
24 years, r/at # 2/1, 3rd Street
3rd Cross, Bharathinagar
Bangalore-560 051.
(By Sri B.R. Patil, Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit 22-06-2012
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 03-01-2014
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 16-10-2015
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
03 03 24
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying for grant of relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from contacting, 2 O.S.No.4399/2012 disturbing, interfering or causing any inconvenience to the plaintiff, his relatives, friends, colleagues, employers and telecasting any material about the plaintiff in any media.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that:-
The plaintiff is a permanent resident of West Bengal. He is working in Bangalore International Airport. The plaintiff's marriage was solemnized with Soumita on 20.06.2011 at Godhuli Lodge, Tamlibandh, Bankura, West Bengal. Thereafter their marriage is registered. On 10.04.2012, the defendant Reshma Fathima d/o Chand Pasha, r/at Bharathinagar filed a criminal complaint against him in Crime No.71/2012 before Bharathinagar Police Station for offence punishable u/s 420 & 417 of IPC. During 2008, they became friends and later the plaintiff stated that he was in love with the defendant and proposed to her for marriage and if she refused, he would commit suicide by lying down on the railway line and hence she agreed. That on 11.12.2008, the plaintiff took the defendant to a temple at Yelahanka and tied a mangalasutra, to which there are no witnesses and also 3 O.S.No.4399/2012 assured that he would marry as per the rituals in the presence of others. The plaintiff was residing with his friends in a room and his parents are residing at Kolkata.
The defendant went to Kolkata and the plaintiff stated that he had married another girl under compulsion and that he would reside with defendant at Bangalore and after returning to Bangalore, the plaintiff and defendant went to a Hotel and the plaintiff was good with the defendant. That for the last two months, the plaintiff has changed his number and he is not speaking to the defendant and it is alleged that thereby the plaintiff has deceived the defendant. The plaintiff has nothing to do with her and all the allegations in the complaint are false. The plaintiff was arrested and he was in custody from 15.04.2012 to 18.04.2012 and later released on bail. After causing so much harassment, the defendant continued to trouble the plaintiff in one way or another. She has been making several phone calls each day and threatening the plaintiff. On 08.06.2012 at about 12.00 pm., the defendant and the reporters of TV9 & News9 TV Channels in the presence of members of some woman organization came to the plaintiff's house at 4 O.S.No.4399/2012 Amruthahalli. They entered the plaintiff's house forcibly and the defendant started abusing and assaulting the plaintiff on his face and the news reporters were encouraging the defendant and they were capturing the videos. The defendant was showing a photograph of the plaintiff and her which is a manipulated photograph and she was also showing some stamp papers upon which the defendant has forged some signatures and she was showing it as if it was plaintiff's signatures. The plaintiff has not signed any document at all, so the defendant has clearly forged the signatures. The plaintiff immediately called up police number 100 and Police of Amruthahalli came and sent them back. The TV9 & News9 TV Channels have telecasted the program. In that regard, the plaintiff has approached the Police of Byatarayanapura informing the said incident. But however the Police have acknowledged the complaint as NCR No.131/2012 but did not initiate any action, so the plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for appropriate action. Even after he plaintiff has been getting several phone calls continuously from the defendant through her mobile no.974240064 and she is 5 O.S.No.4399/2012 constantly scolding and harassing the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant. If the defendant is not restrained, she will continue to indulge in such illegal activities and the media and so- called women organisations will continue to support her without ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the matter causing grave injustice to the plaintiff. Hence, this suit for permanent injunction.
3. The defendant has filed written statement, stating that the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that the matter relates to husband and wife. Therefore, there is no express bar under section 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act 1984. Under the circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed forthwith for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has furnished incorrect address of the defendant and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order 6 Rule 14 CPC. The averments made in para-3 is true and correct. The defendant came to know about he alleged marriage of the plaintiff with one Ms.Soumita, which is the root cause for filing of the above suit. The documents 1 to 3 are denied and subject to proof. It is true that the complaint was lodged against 6 O.S.No.4399/2012 the plaintiff before jurisdictional police but the averments in the complaint are true in nature in view of the fact that the plaintiff was in love with this defendant since 2008 culminated in their marriage on 25.07.2011 before the Notary Mr.Prakash. He has also furnished the marriage affidavit. Even much prior to their marriage they were not only in love but also had relationship with each other. The plaintiff after having enjoyed the defendant for all these years knowing fully well that the defendant belongs to a different community has resorted to leave the defendant in doledrums and has tried to contract for a second marriage forcing the defendant to initiate criminal proceedings as per document No.4 & 5 produced by the plaintiff. It is true that the defendant has approached the TV9 News reporters to get justice. The defendant is a qualified girl with high morals and therefore approached the concerned authorities for getting justice, but never created any scenes as alleged by the plaintiff. It is true that the defendant has approached the Women Welfare Organisation to get justice. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. There is suppression of material facts. The suit is liable to be dismissed. The 7 O.S.No.4399/2012 plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. In view of the developments, the defendant is also making arrangements to file a petition before the concerned family court for restitution of conjugal rights for enforcing marital obligations. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the averments of plaint and written statement, the following issues are framed:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his marriage was solemnized with one Soumita on 20.06.2011 at Godhuli Lodge, Tamilbandh, Bankura at West Bengal as stated in para-4 of the plaint?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendant ventured to file the false criminal complaint against the plaintiff in Cr.No.71/2012 before Bharathi Nagar Police Station?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is attempting to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff as stated in the plaint?
4) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is attempting to cause inconvenience to friends, relatives, colleagues and employees of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint?8 O.S.No.4399/2012
5) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant is attempting to telecast material about the plaintiff in the media as staed in the plaint?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of the permanent injunction as prayed for?
7) What decree or order?
5. In regard to prove the case, the plaintiff examined P.W.1 & P.W.2 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The defendant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence nor cross-examined P.W.1.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows: -
Issue No.1:- In the affirmative; Issue No.2:- In the negative;
Issue No.3:- In the negative;
Issue No.4:- In the negative;
Issue No.5:- In the negative;
Issue No.6:- Partly in the affirmative; Issue No.7:- As per final order, for the following:-9 O.S.No.4399/2012
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1 TO 6:- The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendant for contacting, disturbing, interfering or causing any inconvenience to the plaintiff, relatives, friends, colleagues and employers of the plaintiff and restraining the defendant from telecasting any material about the plaintiff in any media. The defendant though has filed written statement has not examined any witnesses. She has stated in her written statement that she has admitted the marriage of the plaintiff with Soumita on 20.06.2011 at Godhuli Lodge, Tamilbandh,Bankura,West Bengal. As per the contention of the defendant, she has married plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff has taken second marriage without her knowledge. I nthat regard she has lodged the complaint against the plaintiff before jurisdictional police. The plaintiff is in love with defendant since 2008 culminating in their marriage on 25.07.2011 before Notary Mr.Prakash. In that regard, she has furnished marriage affidavit produced as document No.1. Even much prior to their marriage they were not only in love but also had relationship with each other. The plaintiff after having 10 O.S.No.4399/2012 enjoyed the defendant for all these years knowing fully well that the defendant belongs to a different community has resorted to leave the defendant in doledrums and has tried to contract for a second marriage forcing the defendant to initiate criminal proceedings as per document No.4 & 5 produced by the plaintiff. It is true that the defendant has approached the TV9 News reporters to get justice. The defendant is a qualified girl with high morals and therefore approached the concerned authorities for getting justice, but never created any scenes as alleged by the plaintiff. It is true that the defendant has approached the Women Welfare Organisation to get justice. The plaintiff tried to cheat the defendant by trying to marry for the second time during subsistence of the marriage with the defendant.
9. It is an admitted fact that the defendant has filed a complaint against the plaintiff. The Police have registered the case in crime No.71/2012 against the plaintiff punishable u/s 417 & 420 of IPC. This document is also filed by the plaintiff before the Court. The plaintiff is originally coming from West Bengal. He is working in International Airport. He was working as Security at 11 O.S.No.4399/2012 Baggage Makeup Area and it is alleged that during 2008, he became friend with defendant and later they were in love with each other and proposed to her for marriage and if she refused, he would commit suicide by lying on the railway line and hence, on 11.12.2008, the plaintiff took the defendant to a Temple at Yelahanka and tied a mangalasutra, to which there are no witnesses and also assured that he would marry as per the rituals in the presence of others. This contention is taken by the defendant in the complaint. That is also stated by the defendant in the written statement and plaintiff has also deposed before the Court. Now the plaintiff has taken second marriage. The suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has to approach the family court. Now the defendant has taken contention regarding marriage, she has filed a Xerox copy of marriage affidavit. She has not filed any original affidavit. The friendship of plaintiff and defendant is admitted. Both are working in the same place. They lived together for 3 years. Thereafter the plaintiff has taken second marriage in his native place. The plaintiff and defendant belong to different caste. On perusal of the plaint averments and evidence, the 12 O.S.No.4399/2012 plaintiff has never denied their friendship. This shows that the parties have lived together in one roof. There is no original document to show the marriage of plaintiff and defendant, except Xerox copy of marriage affidavit. In that regard, the defendant has already filed police complaint. Case is registered against the plaintiff, which is pending. In the present, the plaintiff is not manhandling her. The defendant has manhandled the plaintiff as per the photographs produced before the Court. The defendant has to take legal course against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced so many decisions. In regarding defamatory statement in public against the plaintiff. I have gone through the said decisions. Those decisions are for defamatory statement. In this case, it is alleged that there is relationship of plaintiff and defendant as husband and wife. Though plaintiff and defendant has married in the Temple, nobody has been witnessed this marriage. Without having any relationship, any person cannot file a complaint. That has to be decided. In the present case, the plaintiff has not restricted the right of the defendant to file the complaint for her grievance. That has been decided by the Court as 13 O.S.No.4399/2012 per law. In the present case, the plaintiff cannot restrict the defendant to file complaint and approach the media for her genuine right. It is admitted fact that the defendant cannot take law into her own hands for threatening and writing any letters. If she is having any grievance, she has to file complaint before proper authority. Law cannot permit her to take law into her own hands. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved that his marriage was solemnized with one Soumita on 20.06.2011 at Godhuli Lodge, Tamilbandh, Bankura at West Bengal. It is also admitted by the defendant in her written statement that it is a second marriage. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in affirmative.
10. The plaintiff has taken contention that the defendant has filed criminal complaint against him before Bharathi Nagar Police Station. That is criminal proceedings whether the complaint is false or true can be decided by the Court. The right of defendant to file a complaint for her grievance before concerned police is not restricted by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in negative.
14 O.S.No.4399/2012
11. In regarding of the inconvenience to the plaintiff, the defendant has attempted to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff as stated in the plaint. The defendant cannot obstruct and cause inconvenience and take law into her own hands and cannot obstruct the plaintiff in the working place. She has already filed the complaint. That has to be decided by the Court. The plaintiff is examined himself and filed documents. He has also examined his wife. Though she is the wife of the plaintiff, she has also filed sworn affidavit. She has given evidence on behalf of plaintiff as P.W.2. Except the evidence of plaintiff and his wife, there is no independent witness is examined by the plaintiff. In that regard, filing of photograph is not sufficient to prove this issue. The plaintiff has not adduced any witness showing that the defendant is attempting to cause inconvenience to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer issue No.3 in negative.
12. In regarding of providing of issue No.4, the plaintiff has not examined any other relatives, friends or colleagues. He has also not produced any document in this regard. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in negative. 15 O.S.No.4399/2012
13. The plaintiff has taken contention that the defendant has attempted to telecast material about the plaintiff in the media. If really the material about the plaintiff has been telecasted, that has not been proved by the plaintiff. He has not furnished any documents before the Court. In regarding of telecast against the plaintiff, he has also not examined any other witnesses to prove this contention. If any defamatory statement is telecasted, the plaintiff has to file case against the defendant. He has not taken away the right of the defendant for approaching the media to express her grievance. If she has committed any offence, the plaintiff is at liberty to file complaint against her. He cannot restrict the defendant to file complaint and telecast her grievance. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved this issue. Accordingly, I answer issue No.5 in the negative.
14. In regarding of manhandling and assault is restricted to the defendant. She can approach the proper forum to take action against the plaintiff and she is not entitled to man handle the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction against the defendant that the 16 O.S.No.4399/2012 defendant is directing not to cause any inconvenience to the plaintiff either at plaintiff's house or any other place. Hence, I answer issue No.6 partly in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.7:- In view of my findings on above issues, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The defendant is hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from contacting, disturbing, interfering or causing any inconvenience to the plaintiff, friends, colleagues and employers of the plaintiff in any manner either at plaintiff's house or any other place.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him on computer, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of October, 2015).
(G.K. GOKHALE) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:-
PW.1 : Sumit Chatterjee PW.2: Soumita Chatterjee
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P1: Marriage invitation card
17 O.S.No.4399/2012
Ex.P2: FIR copy
Ex.P3: Statement of defendant
ExP4 to 8: Photos & CD
ExP9: Marriage certificate
ExP10: Complaint dt:14.06.2012
ExP11: Police endorsement
ExP12: Copy of ordersheet in PCR No.11496/12
ExP13: Copy of complaint in PCR No.11496/12
ExP14: FIR copy
ExP15: List of SMS
ExP16: Website print out
ExP17: CD
ExP18: Video CD
ExP19,20: Copies of notices
ExP21,22: Postal acknowledgements
List of witnesses examined and documents got
exhibited for defendant:-
Nil
(G.K. GOKHALE)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.