Bangalore District Court
T.R. Prathima vs Byanna. R on 23 November, 2024
KABC080000642014
Presented on : 06-01-2014
Registered on : 06-01-2014
Decided on : 23-11-2024
Duration : 10 years, 10 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.05/2014
Petitioner : Smt.Prathima T.R.
W/o Byanna R
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.No.678, 8th Cross,
9th Main, 1st Phase, 2nd Block,
H.B.R. Layout, Brindavananagar,
Bangalore - 560 043.
V/s
Respondent : Sri.Byanna R
S/o Ramappa,
Aged about 40 years,
C-76 Kaiga Township,
Mallapura PO, Karwar,
Uttar Kannada - 581 1400.
2
Crl.Misc.5/2014
Office Address :
Byanna R
T/M O & M,
Employee No.1616081,
Nuclear Power Corporation India
Ltd.,
Kaiga, Karwar,
Uttar Kannada - 581 400.
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under; The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.06.1999 and from the wed lock they have 2 children. Further she submitted that, after the marriage she started living with her husband and after years of tolerating physical and mental humiliations, disrespect and harassment through respondent i.e., not letting her to talk to her parents, or making any occasional telephone calls, wearing minimum traditional clothes, flowers, bangles etc. and respondent used to beat her using electric wires, footwear, and anything that he found around him in front of children by pointing out each and everything she 3 Crl.Misc.5/2014 did. Further she submitted that, respondent had never been happy with the petitioner's parents or her brother coming to visit her all the way from Bangalore to Kaiga Township. Further she submitted that, respondent has sold the washing machine though being very much aware the petitioner has the skin rashes and allergies with soap powder and respondent is insisting petitioner to wash by hand and respondent has taken petitioner's gold mangala suthra chain and gold ring weighing about 50 grams. Further she submitted that, even after a lots of tolerance, respondent did not change, respondent has chased petitioner to Bangalore and threatened to give divorce. Hence, these have been brought to the notice of Mahila Sahaya Vani at Police Commissioner's office, Bangalore and Karnataka State Women Commission, Bangalore on 22.05.2007 and they have issued a notice to the respondent . Instead of coming to said authority respondent came along with his friends and relatives to petitioner's parent's house at Bangalore and apologized convinced everyone that he will not repeat the same and promised everyone that he will take very good care of petitioner. Further she submitted that, when the petitioner's parents visited petitioner and respondent house, the respondent created ruckus and started beating the petitioner abusing in filthy language in front 4 Crl.Misc.5/2014 of her parents and he threw the petitioner out of the house and threatened her with dire consequences if the petitioner returns home. Having no alternative she approached local jurisdictional police at Mallapur police station on 28.04.2008. Further she submitted that, respondent behaviour never changed even after the police advised, the respondent started ill treating the petitioner again. For that again she given a complaint to Station Director NPCIL on 22.07.2010 and at that time also respondent apologized in front of the authorities but soon he when reached home back respondent had never changed himself instead he continues to behave the same with petitioner.
3. Further she submitted that, from 17.10.2013 respondent stopped providing food or any requirements for home nor giving money to buy groceries nor is buying anything for her to eat. Further she has given a written complaint dated 30.10.2013 before Station Director, Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd. Further she submitted that, even after giving written complaint to concerned authorities the respondent did not change. The respondent threw the petitioner and her children out of the house for lodging the complaint to his employer. Immediately, the petitioner informed the 5 Crl.Misc.5/2014 same to her parents. In the severe cold night the petitioner and her children stayed outside the respondent's house the whole night. In the morning when the parents reached, they tried to convince the respondent but in vain. With no alternative she came to Bangalore with her parents. Further she submitted that, respondent is working as T/M O & M, Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd., Kaiga, Karwar, Uttar Kannada and drawing more than Rs.40,000/- as salary per month. Further she submitted that, she has no basic amenities and is in a very critical condition to make her living in a dignified way, having no sources of maintain her. On all these grounds she has filed this petition.
4. After the registration of the petition this Court has issued notice to the respondent and he appeared through his counsel and filed objection to the main petition. In the objection statement of he admits the marriage with the petitioner and 2 children born from the wed lock. Further he denied all the allegation made in the petition against him. Further he contended that, he is having lot of love and affection about his wife and his children, the petitioner instead of leading happy married life with the respondent and she is not interested to 6 Crl.Misc.5/2014 reside with the respondent, she wants to harass the respondent and she deserted the petitioner and residing where it is suitable to her. On all these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 27. the respondent himself examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 9.
6. Heard petitioner's side. Respondent filed written arguments.
7. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
8. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
7Crl.Misc.5/2014 Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship between herself and respondent, she was residing with the respondent in a shared household, the domestic violence was caused by the respondent upon her. The respondent has neglected the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent is capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
10. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that, the petitioner and the respondent are in domestic relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent were residing together till the date of separation. Hence, they have resided together in a shared household. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
8Crl.Misc.5/2014
11. In this case it is an admitted fact that respondent is working at NPCIL Kaiga, Karwar District. It is the allegation of the petitioner that, soon after marriage respondent started harassing her by not letting her talk to her parents, make occasional phone calls to them, whering minimum traditional clothes, flowers, bangles etc., It is alleged that, he used to beat her using anything found around the house in front of the children and he was not comfortable with the parents of the petitioner visiting them. He used to hit her with anything found around the house. Hence, petitioner on 22.05.2007 lodged a complaint to Mahila Sahayavani at Police Commissioners office, Bangalore and Karnataka State Women Commission and they have issued notice to the respondent. However, the respondent apologized to the petitioner and promised that he will take good care of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner rejoined the respondent at Kaiga, Karwar District. But respondent continued his behaviour hence she has filed a complaint to Mallapur police station on 28.04.2008. To prove her allegations, petitioner has got marked the complaint dated 22.05.2007 given to Karnataka Women Commission as Ex.P.4, the notice issued by Family Counseling center, Commissioner of Police Bangalore to her and the respondent as Ex.P.5. It is further alleged by 9 Crl.Misc.5/2014 the petitioner that, even after complaining to Mallapur police the respondent did not change his behavious hence she has complained to station director, NPCIL and in this regard a meeting was held with the respondent and few union members of NPCIL at NPCIL guest house and respondent was warned regarding his behaviour. She has alleged that, respondent has apologized but soon after they reached back home respondent continued his behaviour. She has alleged that, she has tolerated the behavior of the respondent for 3 years but on 17.10.2013 respondent stopped providing her with food or any requirements for the home. Hence, she has given a complaint on 30.10.2013 to Station Director, NPCIL. It is alleged that, the respondent threw her and her children out of the house for lodging complaint against him and thereafter with no other alternative petitioner had to return to her parental home. In order to prove these allegations petitioner has got marked the acknowledgment issued with respect to her complaint by Mallapur police station as Ex.P.6. Respondent has not denied the complaints lodged by the petitioner. The respondent himself has confronted complaint dated 30.10.2013 given by the petitioner to Station Director in NPCIL and got it marked as Ex.R.1, during P.W.1's cross examination he has also produced complaint dated 10 Crl.Misc.5/2014 31.10.2013 given by the petitioner to Mallapur police station and got it marked as Ex.R.2. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent had a strained relationship at least from the year 2007. It is the contention of the respondent that, the petitioner's father and brother have a litigation and envious mind and they have instigated the petitioner to file several complaints before the police, Women's commission, Kaiga Management by invoking false allegations against the respondent. He has stated that, the allegations made against him is only illusion and it is made to harass him and they are false and frivolous in nature. In this regard the petitioner has been cross examined and it is elicited from her that, none of the complaints lodged by her have reached the Court. It is also elicited from her that in all the complaints lodged by her, the concerned authorities have enquired her and respondent and they have advised both of them to sort out their issues and lead the marital life. It is also elicited from her that she has lodged a complaint against the respondent for dowry harassment at Hennur police station but the police have enquired with her and the respondent and they have advised them and close the complaint. P.W.1 in her cross examination has admitted that, respondent has not been convicted based on complaints lodged by her. It is the contention 11 Crl.Misc.5/2014 of the respondent that, the difference of opinion between the petitioner and the respondent is with respect to minor issues like cooking, doing pooja, drawing rangoli etc., and the petitioner has lodged multiple complaints against the respondent for these reasons. In this regard the counsel for the respondent is relying on cross examination of the petitioner dated 05.06.2024 wherein it is elicited from the petitioner that " ಎದುರುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಮಕ್ಕಳನ್ನು ಕಂಡರೆ ಅಗಾಧವಾದ ಪ್ರೀತಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾಳಜಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿರುವಂತೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಇಲಾಖೆಗೆ ದೂರನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ .
ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೂರು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ .
ಒಂದು ಮನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಣ್ಣಪುಟ್ಟ ತಪ್ಪುಗಳು ಆಗುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅಥವಾ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲದೆಯೇಾ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ನಡುವೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ತಪ್ಪುಗಳು ಆಗಿರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ನಡುವೆ ನಾನು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ರಂಗೋಲಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಬೈಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ, ಹೋಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ, ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಪೂಜೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಮನಸ್ತಾಪಗಳು ಆಗಿರುತ್ತವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ನಾನು ರಂಗೋಲಿ ಹಾಕಿದರೆ, ಪೂಜೆ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರಿಗೆ ಆಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
12. Further in order to prove his contentions the counsel for the respondent has confronted 9 letters written by the petitioner to the respondent which are marked collectively as Ex.R.6. The said 9 letters are 12 Crl.Misc.5/2014 basically apology letters written by the petitioner wherein she has stated that;
a) I will light Agarbathi in front of god early in morning.
b) I will keep the home clean.
c) I will give you the list of each and every thing that is necessary for that month.
d) I will take the responsibility of my house.
e) I will not go to park without my husband permission.
f) I am not allowed to shape my eyebrows, to apply lipstick or eyeliner.
g) I will not go on to terrace.
h) I will not laugh when my husband is talking with his friends.
i) I will obey all my husbands order.
j) I will not care bout my beauty than my children's beauty.
k) ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ವಿಚಾರ ಮಾತನಾಡಬಾರದು ಅಂತ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.
l) ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳು ತವರು ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತೇನೆ.
m) ವಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಬಾರಿ ಫೋನ್ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ.
13Crl.Misc.5/2014
13. With respect to these letters petitioner has stated in her cross examination that she has written these letters on the direction of the respondent in order to carry on with the matrimonial life and to reduce the quarrel between them. This statement which is an explanation for the letter given by P.W.1 is not denied by the counsel for the respondent.
14. In the petition it is the specific allegation of the petitioner that, the respondent used to humiliate her, disrespect her and harass her by not letting her talk to her parents, wearing minimum traditional clothes, flowers, bangles etc., and he was not comfortable with her parents visiting her at least once in a year and he was not allowing her to go visit her parents once in a year though she sought his permission. Even in the complaint lodged by her as per Ex.R.1, Ex.P.4 petitioner has made the same allegations. Ex.R.6 letters which are admitted by both the petitioner and respondent substantiate the allegations of the petitioner in Ex.P.4 and Ex.R.1. From the perusal of the 9 letters marked as Ex.R.6, it is clear that the respondent was controlling every movement of the petitioner and he was controlling every aspect of the house. He was expecting her to conduct herself as per his wishes. It is not denied that 14 Crl.Misc.5/2014 the respondent has asked the petitioner to write Ex.R.6 letters. These letters date from the year 2000 to 2012. In each and every letter the petitioner has undertaken she will not do certain activities like going to park, going to friends houses, taking care of one's own physical appearance, laughing etc., She has even stated that, she will "obey her husband's orders". She has stated in letter dated 02.04.2003 "ನೀವು ಹೇಳಿದ ಹಾಗೇ ಕೇಳುತ್ತೀನಿ" She has stated in the same letter "ಯಾರ ಮನೆಗೂ ಹೋಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ" She has also stated that "ತರಕಾರಿ ತರುವುದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕೆಲಸ ನೀವು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು"
She has stated in the letter of the year 2002 that "I will not go to Deepa's house if my friends call me to go somewhere with them I will not go with them". These letters clearly reveal that the respondent was trying to control each and every aspect of the petitioner's life. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner and respondent were residing in Kaiga Township at Karwar. Admittedly, the petitioner hails from Bangalore and the respondent is from Devanahalli. Both were residing very far away from their respective families. The petitioner being a housewife and residing in a township would in normal course would like to be in contact with her family have friends and it is normal to meet friends, go for walks to the park, to care about one's own appearance. But the 15 Crl.Misc.5/2014 letters in Ex.R.6 reveal that the petitioner was not allowed even to do these normal activities. Even the most mundane activity like going to the terrace was restricted by the respondent. In letter dated 04.03.2006 petitioner has stated that, she will not see or talk or laugh with any other men, she has also stated that, she will not think in any bad way of other men. She has further stated that, she is obeying and will obey her husband's each and every orders. Respondent has not alleged that, the petitioner was too friendly with other men or anything of that sort. Under such circumstance, getting the petitioner to write that she will not see or talk or laugh with other men shows that the respondent was suspicious by nature and he wanted to control the petitioner. The petitioner has clearly alleged about suspicious nature of the respondent in Ex.P.4 complaint submitted to State Women Commission and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore. Hence, Ex.R.6 letters clearly prove the allegations of the petitioner .
15. Petitioner in her cross examination has admitted that, none of the complaints filed by her have led to the conviction of the respondent. She has also admitted that, the police, management of the respondent's company, State Women Commission all 16 Crl.Misc.5/2014 have advised her and the respondent to adjust and carry on with the matrimonial life and not taken any action on the complaints. Even though it is true that none of the authorities have taken any action against the respondent on the complaint of the petitioner Ex.R.6 letters prove that the petitioner was subjected to continuous mental harassment and mental abuse by the respondent. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that these letters would have been written by the petitioner after a quarrel between the petitioner and respondent about the petitioner doing or not doing certain things. After the quarrel she would be compelled write the letters. As already stated petitioner has written these kinds of letters from the year 2002 to the year 2012. Hence, it shows that these quarrels were happening constantly between the petitioner and respondent and it was also occurring in front of the children. Hence, it is proved that there was a acrimonious atmosphere in the house due to the attitude of the respondent who was expecting each and every thing to happen according to his wishes. In the cross examination of the petitioner it is elicited as follows;
ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಃ ನೀವು ರೆಂಗೊಲಿ ಹಾಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ, ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿಗೆ ಬೈಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ, ಪೂಜೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೋ 17 Crl.Misc.5/2014 ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ತಾಯಿ ಮನೆಗೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದರೊ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ ಈ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ನಡುವೆ ಮನಸ್ತಾಪ ಪದೇ ಪದೇ ಬರುತ್ತಿತ್ತು?
ಉತ್ತರಃ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ತಾಯಿ ಮನೆಗೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರೇ ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೊಗಬೇಕಿತ್ತು ನಾನೊಬ್ಬಳೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಆಗುತ್ತಿರಲ್ಲಿ, ಒಟ್ಟಾರೆ ನಮ್ಮಿಬ್ಬರ ನಡುವೆ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಮನಸ್ತಾಪ ಬರುತ್ತಿತ್ತು.
ಇಂತ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನೀವು ಏನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಿರಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನಾನೇ ಅನುಸರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವರು."
16. It is further elicited from her that "ಎದುರುದಾರರು ಸಾಲ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅಥವಾ ಬೇರೆ ಮಹಿಳೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅಥವಾ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಗಂಭೀರ ಆರೋಪಗಳು ಎದುರುದಾರರ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ಮೇಲೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿದ ಸಣ್ಣ ಪುಟ್ಟ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ಗಂಭೀರ ವಿಷಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಮನಸ್ತಾಪ ಆಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ನೋಡಿದಂತೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಗಂಭೀರ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಎದುರುದಾರರಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ." Even though, the petitioner has admitted that, the respondent did not have any serious problem and she has admitted that the issues between herself and respondent are common issues in all household the way the respondent has handled these common issues and problem is the harassment caused by him to the petitioner. Although, it is true that in all households there are differences of opinions between spouses, they are usually resolved by mutual understanding and discussion by giving respect to each other. But Ex.R.6/letters reveal that, respondent has 18 Crl.Misc.5/2014 attempted to resolve the issue by controlling the petitioner and asking her to obey his orders. In a modern society husband and wife are equal and they have equal role in a marriage. The very fact that, the petitioner has written in the letter that she will "obey" each and every "order" of the respondent shows that respondent felt he was superior to the petitioner and he did not want to resolve issues by mutual discussion and understanding with respecting the petitioner's wishes thereby causing mental agony to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is able to prove that she was subjected to mental abuse as defined U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act.
17. Another contention of respondent is that, he has already given permanent alimony to the petitioner by executing sale deed in favour of petitioner's father with respect to a house site property which the petitioner's father sold within a span of 4 months in favour of one Padmavathi. He has contended that, the respondent has given the said property as full and final settlement of compensation or as permanent alimony to petitioner hence she has not filed any proceedings U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC or Sec.24 of Hindu Marriage Act. In order to prove this contention he has got marked Ex.R.4 which is the sale deed dated 04.09.2007 executed by the respondent 19 Crl.Misc.5/2014 in favour of the petitioner's father with respect to a vacant site measuring 30*40 feet at Kaval Byrasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk. He has also got marked Ex.R.5 which is sale deed dated 25.01.2008 executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of one Padmavathi with respect to the vacant site mentioned in Ex.R.4. Petitioner in her cross examination has admitted Ex.R.4. In her cross examination dated 28.12.2023 in para 2 she has stated that, there was misunderstanding and quarrel between her father and the respondent since 2004. By relying on this statement made by the petitioner the counsel for the respondent has argued that the very fact that the respondent has executed a sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner in 2007 amidst quarrel between them and the fact that the father of the petitioner sold the said property in a span of 4 months of Ex.R.4 shows that, sale deed was executed as permanent alimony to the petitioner. But perusal of Ex.R.4 and 5 nowhere reveals that, the sale deed was executed nominally and it was being given as permanent alimony to the petitioner. Further it is an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondent continued to reside together till October 2013. If at all the respondent had given permanent alimony in form of property to petitioner there was no reason for the petitioner to continue 20 Crl.Misc.5/2014 residing with the respondent till October 2013. Hence, this contention of the respondent is not proved. From overall considerational evidence it is clear that respondent has committed domestic violence against the petitioner. Hence, point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for herself and her children. Admittedly, both the children have attained majority. The petitioner in her assets and liability affidavit has stated that, her qualification is MA., B.Ed., and she has completed the same in the year 2022. She has stated that, she requires Rs.25,000/- per month towards monthly expenses including rent, household expenses, medical bills, transportation, school fees of children etc., She has submitted that, she has been granted Rs.10,000/- interim maintenance in MC NO.1597/2016, Rs.7,000/- in the present proceedings. She has submitted that, arrears of interim maintenance in MC No.1597/2016 is Rs.50,000/- and arrears of maintenance in the present proceedings is Rs.4,99,000/- as on 17.03.2023. She has admitted that, the respondent has paid education expenses of her son only for the year 2022-23. She has submitted that she requires Rs.15,000/- towards food, clothing and medical 21 Crl.Misc.5/2014 expenses of the children and Rs.60,000/- per annum towards education expenses of the children. She has stated that, she has borrowed from her parents and brother for providing education to her children. She has stated that, she has taken loan of Rs.2 lakhs from her brother and Rs.2 lakhs from her parents. She has stated that, the respondent is a central government employee and he has salary above Rs.1 lakh per month and he has agricultural land measuring one acre in Sy.No.268/2 in Kasaba Hobli, Bidaluru Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. In this regard the petitioner has submitted the salary slip of the respondent for the moths of March, April, May 2015 as Ex.P.8. She has submitted the school fee receipts of the children as Ex.P.9 to 19. She has submitted the pay slip of the respondent for the months of March to May 2023 as Ex.P.21 to 23 which shows the salary of the respondent as Rs.1 lakh and above. She has submitted pay slip of the respondent for the months of July to September 2020 as Ex.P.24 to 26 which also shows the salary of the respondent at around Rs.80,000/- per month. She has submitted RTC of Sy.No.268 of Bidaluru Village, Devanahalli Taluk for the year 2015-16 where one acre is standing in the name of respondent and one acre in the name of his brother as Ex.P.28, she has 22 Crl.Misc.5/2014 submitted RTC of Sy.No.268/2 of Bidaluru Village, Devanahalli Taluk for the year 2022-23 wherein one acre is standing in the name of respondent as Ex.P.29. The respondent has been cross examined with respect to his income and in his cross examination he has stated that, his net salary is around Rs.55,700/-. The respondent has contended that, after himself and the petitioner separated he has transferred the school fees of the children to the bank account of the petitioner. But he has not submitted any documents to prove the same and he has admitted that he does not remember the name of his son's school. He has admitted that, he has not paid for his daughter's eye operation in December 2023. He has admitted that,he has not paid interim maintenance to the petitioner for past 10 months as he had to pay Rs.4.35 lakhs towards his son's Engineering seat in August 2023. He has stated that Ex.P.21 to 26 documents do not have the right side column reflecting deductions in his salary hence they are incorrect pay slips. He has admitted that, his family has medical reimbursement and yet he did not pay for the eye surgery of his daughter. Further respondent has explained his admission by stating that the eye surgery of his daughter is a cosmetic surgery and he cannot avail medical reimbursement for the same. He has admitted that, he has not submitted his 3 years 23 Crl.Misc.5/2014 bank stated as it is more than 700 pages. He has admitted that, he has a house at Karwar and he does not have any impediment to give the said house to the petitioner and children for their residence. Further he has admitted that, he does not have any impediment to pay past and future education expenses of the children. He has denied the suggestion that, arrears of interim maintenance on as 01.04.2024 is more than Rs.7 lakhs.
19. On the other hand the respondent has filed his assets and liability affidavit wherein he has stated that, he requires Rs.10,000/- for his monthly expenses. He has stated that, he has voluntarily contributed towards the children's education. He has stated that, his younger brother and mother are dependent on him and he requires Rs.20,000/- per month to maintain them. He has stated that, he has spent Rs.3,78,984/- per year for her son's education and he has given pocket money of Rs.2,000/- per month to the children. He has stated that, his monthly income is Rs.60,000/-. He has stated that, he owned a property and he has given it to the petitioner's father on 04.09.2007. He has stated that, he owns a property at Karwar. He has stated that, he has availed housing loan from SBI and the outstanding loan 24 Crl.Misc.5/2014 amount is Rs.23,51,269/- and he is paying EMI of Rs.28,600/- per month towards the housing loan.
20. It is the contention of the respondent that, petitioner is a MA. B.Ed., post graduate and she is capable of maintaining herself. Hence, he is not liable to pay any maintenance. In this regard in cross examination of P.W.1 dated 24.06.2023 petitioner has stated that, she has no problem to work and in cross examination dated 28.12.2023 she has stated that she will get job at school and she can teach high school children. Hence, it is contended that, petitioner can secure a job and respondent is not liable to maintain her. It is also contended by the respondent that, petitioner is getting income from many sources like teaching in educational institution and conducting tuition. In this regard in cross examination of respondent it is elicited that he has not submitted any documents to prove that the petitioner is working. He has stated that, the petitioner had put a whats app status about working in a school and on that basis he is stating that she is working. He has admitted that, he has not produced the alleged whats app status. Thus there is no cogent, believable evidence before the Court to believe petitioner is working. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shylaja V/s 25 Crl.Misc.5/2014 Khobanna has held that, there is difference between capability of earning and actually earning and has held that merely because the wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce maintenance awarded to the wife.
21. Respondent has not submitted his pay slip, IT returns or bank statements. The petitioner has submitted the pay slip of respondent as Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.21 to 26 as already discussed. The respondent in his cross examination has denied Ex.P.21 to 26 by stating that they do not bear the deduction column. But the seal affixed on Ex.P.21 to 26 reveal that the petitioner has obtained them from CPIO Kaiga Generating station. Ex.P.21 to 26 are certified copies submitted from the evidence produced in the Hon'ble Family Court in MC No.5097/2016 and they have been confronted to the respondent in the present proceedings. The respondent has admitted the pay slips in the cross examination at first instance and later stated that they do not bear the deductions column. If that was the case the respondent could have produced his own salary slip. But the respondent has chosen not to submit his salary slip or IT return or bank statement. Therefore, from this conduct of the respondent it appears that the respondent is 26 Crl.Misc.5/2014 intending to conceal his real income from the Court. Further the respondent has claimed that, he has availed a housing loan from SBI. But he has not submitted any documents in this regard. The income of the respondent is within his personal knowledge and as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the respondent ought to have submitted his salary details and he has failed to do so. U/Sec.106 of Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof of proving a fact which is especially within the knowledge of any person is upon such person. Therefore, the burden of proving his own income is on the respondent and respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proof. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent that he has sufficient income therefore to conceal the same and to avoid paying maintenance to the petitioner he has not submitted his complete salary details. As per Ex.P.21 to 26 the salary of the respondent appears to be around Rs.1 lakh per month. Even after deductions respondent is bound to have salary of around Rs.80 to 90 thousand. The respondent is currently aged 48 years and he still has 12 years of service and his salary is bound to increase and he is also bound to get promotions. These factors have to be considered while awarding maintenance to the petitioner.
27Crl.Misc.5/2014
22. On the other hand, petitioner has claimed educational expenses and other expenses for her children who attained majority during the pendency of the petition. Although interim maintenance was awarded to the petitioner and her children, now since the children have attained majority they cannot be granted monthly maintenance in this petition. Further it is also a settled position of law that, the maintenance awarded by the Court should not be in nature of penalty. The Court has to consider and balance the interest of both the parties. Respondent has contended that, his brother and his mother are dependent on him. But Ex.P.28 reveals that the brother of the respondent has one acre land in his name. Respondent in his cross examination has stated that, he gives financial assistance to his brother and his mother whenever required by them and they in turn give him food grains. This arrangement between the family members of the respondent cannot be termed as dependency on the respondent. Therefore, the respondent does not have any dependent other than the petitioner. As already stated the respondent has not submitted any documents to prove that he has a housing loan. Hence, his liability in this regard is also not proved.
28Crl.Misc.5/2014
23. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajanesh V/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court has to consider the status of the parties, earning capacity of the parties, needs and expenses of the petitioner, number of dependents on the respondent, expenses of the respondent, educational qualification of the parties, whether the petitioner has independent source and whether the same is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, standard of living as she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether she was working before marriage, cost of litigation for a non working wife etc., while ordering for maintenance. Considering all the above factors petitioner is entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month.
24. The petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent to pay compensation and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture suffered at the hands of the respondent and litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-. Sec.22 of PWDV Act states, Magistrate may grant compensation in addition to the other reliefs that may be granted under this Act and direct the respondent to pay compensation and damages for injuries including mental torture and emotional 29 Crl.Misc.5/2014 distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in point No.1 it is proved that the respondent has subjected the petitioner to domestic violence and she has incurred litigation expenses as well. Hence, U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, she is entitled for compensation. Hence, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation. Hence, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
25. Point No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as against respondent is allowed in part.
Respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month maintenance to the petitioner from the date of petition till 30 Crl.Misc.5/2014 her life time or till she gets re-married whichever is earlier.
Further, respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation within 3 months from this order.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of November 2024).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW.1 : Prathima T.R. DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Photos
Ex.P.2 : C.D.
Ex.P.3 : Marriage Invitation Card
Ex.P.4 Complaint
31
Crl.Misc.5/2014
Ex.P.5 : Notice
Ex.P.6-7 : 2 Police Acknowledgment
Ex.P.8 : Salary slip
Ex.P.9 to 19 : School fee paid book and receipts Ex.P.20 : Medical receipt Ex.P.21 : Uniform receipt WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
RW.1 Byanna R DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Ex.R.1 & 2 : 2 Complaints of the petitioner Ex.R.3 : Medical prescription Ex.R.4 & 5 : Sale Deeds Ex.R.6 : 9 Letters (Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.