Bangalore District Court
Smt Teja S vs Sri Anand Kumar.M.S on 25 January, 2024
1
Crl.Mis.187/2021
JUDGMENT
KABC070044222021 Presented on : 02-12-2021 Registered on : 02-12-2021 Decided on : 25-01-2024 Duration : 2 years, 1 months, 23 days IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT - V, BENGALURU Present : Vishwanath Savadi, B.A., LL.B.,(Hon's) M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU Crl.Misc.No.187/2021 DATED THIS THE 2 5 t h DAY OF J A N U A R Y 2024 Petitioner: Smt.Teja.S, W/o.Anand Kumar.M.S, D/o.Shivalingaiah, Aged about 27 years, R/at.No.118, 5th Cross, 5th Main, 8th Main Road, Saneguravanahalli, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru - 560 079.
(By Sri.R.G.K., Advocate) V/s Respondents: 1. Sri.Anand Kumar.M.S, S/o.Shivanna, Aged about 35 years, Working at Mind Fin Services, No.10, 1st Floor, 2nd Main Road, Krishna Block, 2 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru - 560
020.
2. Shivanna, S/o.Katakaiah, Aged about 67 years.
3. Smt.Siddamma.K.S, W/o.Shivanna, Aged about 54 years.
4. Harish Kumar.M.S. S/o.Shivanna, Aged about 34 years.
5. Boramma, W/o.Chikkaidaiah, Aged about 70 years.
All are permanently residing at Kadahalli Village & Post, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara - 562
126. (By Sri.S.M.N., Advocate) (The names of respondent No.2 to 5 have been deleted vide order dated 18.02.2022) JU DG M E NT The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as under:
The petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent No.1. The marriage of the petitioner took place on 02.05.2019 at 3 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT Shubharam Kalyana Mantapa in Bengaluru with the respondent No.1 in the presence of relatives and friends of both the family members as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave 250 grams of gold ornaments and Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry to respondent No.1 and spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were living happily in the matrimonial house, after which, the petitioner found that there were some abnormal movements and activities and dowry harassment from the respondents and not co-operating in all the paths of the petitioner. At the time of marriage, the 1st respondent had informed the parents of the petitioner that he was a Government Employee working in the Bagalkot Rural Water Supply Department and was married to the petitioner and later, she came to know that he was not a Government Employee but he was working as a daily wage employee in the said department. When the same was enquired by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had verbally abused the 4 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT petitioner and assaulted her in order to get more dowry. The 1 st respondent used to go to clubs in order to play cards and he had a habit of cricket betting in the match and in this regard, the 1st respondent had raised loan to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and the persons who lent loan to him used to come to petitioner's house and forced the 1 st respondent to return the amount and at that time, the respondents had demanded the petitioner to pay the balance dowry amount. Further, she submits that, the 1st respondent was not talking properly to the petitioner properly and was always wants bring balance dowry amount and he was not looking after the petitioner as a dutiful wife. The respondents No.2 to 5 used to come to the house of the petitioner and forced her to bring additional dowry and they were instigating the 1st respondent to beat the petitioner and the 1st respondent was assaulting the petitioner and used to give mental and physical torture to her. As per the demand of 1st respondent, the relatives of the petitioner have transferred the amount of Rs.11,00,000/- to the petitioner's account and then she paid it to the 1st respondent. Further, she submits 5 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT that, the respondents started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically and demanded her to bring an additional dowry and when the same not heeded by the petitioner, the respondents have picked up quarrel and abused the petitioner in filthy language and the petitioner herself had left the matrimonial home on 16.11.2020. When the petitioner was residing in her parental house at that time also, the respondents used to call her over phone and used to demand her to bring additional dowry. On 18.11.2020, the respondents come near the house of the petitioner and quarreled and demanded additional dowry. On 07.11.2021, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Basaveshwaranagara Police Station and the said police have registered a case in their Cr.No.235/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 354, 420, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., against the respondents and the said case is pending for consideration on the file of Hon'ble V ACMM, Bengaluru. With these averments, petitioner prayed to allow the petition.6
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
3. After service of notice the respondent No.1 has appeared before the Court through his Counsel and filed objection denying entire case of the petitioner, except the relationship. The respondent has contended that, the petitioner had not respected any family members of the respondent or participated in any social events. The respondent has not committed cruelty or caused any domestic violence. The parents of the petitioner are also responsible for the break-up between the petitioner and the respondent. The intention of the parents of the petitioner was that he should be with them and take care of them, but when the respondent refused to do so, the petitioner started creating difficulties in the matrimonial house and she was threatening to commit suicide and causing mental agony to the respondent and his family members. It is further contended that, petitioner is gainful employee and has received a salary of more than Rs.20,000/-. With these con- tentions, he prayed to reject the petition.
4. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has deposed as PW.1 and produced the documents at 7 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 and closed her side. The respondent has deposed as RW.1 and produced the document as Ex.R.1 and closed his side.
5. Perused the material on record, Domestic Incident Report and affidavit of assets and liabilities of the parties. Heard both sides arguments.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioner prove that petitioner has been subjected to cruelty of domestic violence and neglected by the respondent ?
2. Whether the petitioner further prove that, the respondents having sufficient means and have deserted the petitioner?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance?
4. What order?
7. The findings of this Court on the above points are as under :
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : In the Partly Affirmative;
8
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021
JUDGMENT
Point No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 & 2 : It is specific case of the
petitioner that, petitioner being legally wedded wife of
respondent has been subjected to cruelty and domestic violence by the respondent. She contended that, her marriage was solemnized on 02.05.2019 at Shubharam Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru, as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of relatives and friends of both the family members. During the stay of petitioner in the house of respondents, the respondent has given ill-treatment to the petitioner and drove out the petitioner without providing any maintenance.
9. The petitioner averred in the petition about the ill-treatment and domestic violence committed by the respondent and also deposed as PW-1 by reiterating the petition averments and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.32. PW-1 deposed about the ill-treatment given by the respondents during her stay in the house of respondents. The petitioner has 9 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT produced the Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card, Ex.P.2 is the 17 marriage photos and other photographs, Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of FIR and certified copy of complaint in Cr.No.235/2021, Ex.P.4 to 28 is the Certified copy of Bank Account Statements of the petitioner, Ex.P.29 is the Record of rights of Sy.No.193/1, Ex.P.30 is the Record of rights of Sy.No.193/10, Ex.P.31 is the Record of rights of Sy.No.143 and Ex.P.32 is the Certified copy of order sheet, charge sheet in C.C.No.20799/2022. On perusal of these documents, relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute and it is also not disputed that, the Basaveshwanagara Police have filed a charge sheet against the respondent No.1 and his family members for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 506, 354, 420 of IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the Hon'ble 4 th Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru has taken cognizance against the respondent No.1 and his family members as per vide order dated 28.06.2022.
10
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
10. The respondent has appeared before the Court and filed objections denying the case of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 in order to establish his defense he himself got examined as RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination in chief, wherein he has deposed in consonance with the averments of the objection and in support of his oral evidence he has got marked Ex.R.1. Ex.R.1 is the Copy of Federal Bank Statement of the respondent.
11. PW.1 thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. PW.1 admitted that the respondents were relatives of her mother and that the marriage proposal came from her aunt. She denied the suggestion that, her family had every information of the respondent's family. She has stated that she was living with the respondent in Bagalkote since 16-11-2020 and due to domestic violence committed by the respondent, she left her matrimonial home in Bagalkote and came to Bengaluru and come to her parent's house. She denied the suggestion that, even though the 11 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT respondent has provided a separate house at Bengaluru as per your wish, she did not go there. She deposed that, during the Gowri Festival, the respondent asked for money for run the cement business. She denied the suggestion that the respondent had never assaulted her.
12. PW.1 deposed that, her mother did not transfer an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in a single payment, but her mother transferred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to her bank account on several dates. "Between 03.03.2020 to 13.10.2020, the respondent transferred around of Rs.5,79,600/- to your Axis Bank Account and Bank of India about which I am not aware of it,'' the witness says. She has admitted that, she has stated in Para No.13 of the evidence affidavit that, her father and relative have transferred around Rs.11,00,000/- to her account due to the dowry demand of the respondent. When PW.1 was asked a specific question about the date on which the above money was transferred to her account, she stated that the amount Rs.11,00,000/- will not be transferred at once, but will transferred in a phased manner. She denied the suggestion 12 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT that, her parents and relatives had not transferred any amount to her account.
13. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, she was spending more and buying cloths, stationary and unnecessary items. She denied the suggestion that, she was taking money from her parents into her account as the respondent's salary was not enough for her needs. She denied the suggestion that, the respondent would transfer money to her account to meet her needs and desires. She denied the suggestion that, she herself was harassing the respondent for money and left the house as he did not pay any amount, but she volunteers that, she left the matrimonial home due to the respondent's dowry demand. She denied the suggestion that, the respondent was unable to meet the requested payment and requested his brother to transfer the amount to her account, but when there was no money to pay the house rent in Bagalkote, at that time, his brother transferred an amount to her account, say witness volunteers. 13
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
14. The counsel for the respondent put a specific question to PW.1, on 16.11.2020, you left the house in Bagalkote and then the respondent came to your house and called you, you asked for money. For that reason, on 17.12.2020, the respondent transferred an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his brother's account to her account, but witness replied, she does not know why he transferred the money. She denied the suggestion that, she did not go to Bagalkote, even though the money was transferred to her account and you insisted to make a house in Bengaluru. PW.1 deposed that, due to the bad habits of the respondent, he left the job. She denied the suggestion that, the respondent did not have any bad habits. She denied the suggestion that, they have not given gold ornaments weighing 250 grams to the respondent at the time of marriage. She admitted that, she was working as data entry operation and was getting a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that, she is deposing falsely before this Court and filed a false case against the respondent.
14
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
15. The RW.1 thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. RW.1 admitted that, parents of the petitioner had performed their marriage. He deposed that, he was not aware that the petitioner's parents had spent Rs.15,00,000/- on the marriage. He deposed that, at the time of marriage, the petitioner parents gave him a chain and a ring. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, he had demanded a dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner's family. He denied the suggestion that, petitioner's parents had given Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry as per his demand. He denied the suggestion that, similarly after marriage, the remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- should be given. He deposed that, parents of the petitioner at the time of marriage had given a Mangalasutra Pendent, earrings and a ring to the petitioner at the time of engagement. He denied the suggestion that, petitioner's parents had given him around 250 grams of jewellery as per his demand. He denied the suggestion that, he had lied to the petitioner that, he was working as a permanent Government employee instead of stating the true fact that, he was working 15 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT on an outsourced basis at the time of marriage to the petitioner. He deposed that, now works as a Data Entry Operator on outsourced basis in Sathanur and at present draws a salary of Rs.17,300/-.
16. PW.1 denied the suggestion that, after he took the petitioner to Bagalkote, he was verbally abusing the petitioner for not bringing dowry. He denied the suggestion that, the petitioner knew that you are working on contract basis only after the petitioner went to Bagalkote, witness volunteers that, he had told her before the marriage. He denied the suggestion that, petitioner's father, mother, and family members transferred the dowry several times to him through the petitioner's bank account and that he received. He denied the suggestion that, when they were in Bagalkote, his family used to come and harass the petitioner to get more dowry. He denied the suggestion that, on 16.11.2020 petitioner came to the Bengaluru due to torture given by him. He denied the suggestion that, after the petitioner came to her parent's house on 18.11.2020, he and his parents went to the petitioner's 16 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT house and demanded more dowry again. He denied the suggestion that, he repeatedly asked for money for set up a cement business. He denied the suggestion that, he was addicted to cricket betting with his friends. He denied the suggestion that, he has incurred a lot of debt by betting on cricket. He denied the suggestion that, when he was not at home for that reason, the borrowers used to come near the house and give trouble to the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that, due to his bad habits, RWSSD removed him from job. He denied the suggestion that, he had pledged the ornaments of the petitioner to repay the loan due to cricket betting and he further denied the suggestion that, ornaments of the petitioner, which he had pledged, was taken over by the parents of the petitioner on payment of money, so that they could be auctioned. He admitted that, the Basaveshwaranagara Police have filed a charge sheet against him.
17. PW.1 admitted that, he has not paid any maintenance to the petitioner so far. He denied the suggestion 17 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT that, the transactions appearing in Ex.R.1 produced by him had drawn money using the petitioner ATM's card and the petitioner had not withdrawn the money. He denied the suggestion that he had received a dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner so far. He denied the suggestion that, he did not maintain physical contact with the petitioner, because she did not give the dowry money. But he admitted that, unable to bear that kind of violence, the petitioner filed a divorce case against him in the Family Court. He denied the suggestion that, he is giving false evidence by filing false affidavit.
18. On appreciation of cross-examination of both the parties and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, there is no material on record to show that, parents of the petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to perform the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, 250 grams of gold ornaments and Rs.5,00,000/- give to the respondent as a dowry at the time of marriage. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is not holds good. 18
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
19. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.16 and Ex.R.1 are the Bank Account Statements of the petitioner and the respondent respectively. On perusal of these bank statements, it reveals that, some of the amounts was transferred from the petitioner's account to the respondent's account and on the contrary some amount was transferred from the respondent's account to the petitioner's account. It is pertinent to note here that, when the petitioner and the respondent lived in a shared household, the most of amount was transferred respondent's account from the petitioner's account. Just transferring the amount from one account to another does not amounts to dowry. Therefore, those account transactions cannot be related to the dowry demand made by the respondent. Moreover, producing the account statements of each party and showing the transaction between the two parties, it is not enough to say that all the transactions are related to dowry demand.
20. The petitioner contended that, the respondent is having a habit of playing cricket betting and because of that, she left the company of the respondent. To substantiate this 19 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT contention, there is no evidence to show that, the respondent had a habit of cricket betting. Another contention of the petitioner that, the respondent did not have any physical contact with the petitioner, as the petitioner did not bring any additional dowry. Any personal matters of the parties take place in the four corners of the wall. Therefore, the court cannot expect evidence with respect to the personal matters of the parties.
21. The learned counsel appearing for respondent argued that, petitioner had not submitted any medical document in connection with the allegation of physical torture in Bagalkote and no FIR was lodged by the petitioner in this regard at any police station in Bagalkote. It is true that the petitioner has not filed any document to show the physical torture and any FIR in connection with physical torture. It is noted here that the PW.1 categorically deposed in her cross-examination that, she did not know where the police stations are in Bagalkote, so she did not go to police station. However, non-production of any medical document of physical 20 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT violence or non-filing of any FIR for physical violence at Bagalkote does not itself deny the fact that, physical violence did not take place. Moreover, the definition of domestic violence is very wide and not confine to the happening of physical violence only.
22. Since the respondent is the husband of the petitioner, there is no evidence to show that he has taken steps to bring his wife back to the matrimonial home, according to his statement, she has left the shared house without any reason. Now being a husband, it is his duty to provide all the basic necessitates, facility and care to the wife irrespective of where the petitioner is staying. As such, it is apparent that, he himself admitted that, he has not supported to his wife properly.
23. In the present case, this Court passed an order directing the respondent to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner. But there is no material on record to show that, the respondent paid the interim maintenance 21 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT amount to the petitioner as ordered by the Court. It is pertinent to note here that, the respondent/RW.1 in his cross-examination, has clearly admitted that, he has not paid any interim maintenance amount to the petitioner so far. Therefore, the denial of economic support as per the order of the Court to the wife constitutes domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act., and i.e., immaterial whether the parties are still residing in a shared household or not.
24. The evidence on record goes to show that, the petitioner lived together with her husband in a domestic relationship and there are sufficient evidence making out the essential ingredients of verbal, emotional and economic abuse, which fall in the definition of domestic violence as given in Section 3 of the PWDV Act. There is no any reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, petitioner has been subjected to cruelty and domestic violence by the respondent and he has neglected the petitioner without 22 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT providing any maintenance. With these observations, this Court answers the points No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
25. Point No.3 : As discussed above petitioners have proved that, petitioner has been subjected to cruelty by the respondent. The petitioner contended that, respondent has not provided any maintenance to herself and also not made arrangements for residence. The petitioner has stated that, the respondent is a Government Employee working at Bagalakote Rural Water Supply Department and had got married with the petitioner and thereafter she came to know that, he is not a Government Employee but he was working as a daily wage employee in the said department.
26. It is admitted by the petitioner/PW.1 in her cross-examination that, the petitioner was working as a Data Entry Operator and received of Rs.17,000/- per month as a salary. The respondent/RW.1 admitted in his cross examination that, he was working as a Data Entry Operator on contract basis and getting a salary of Rs.17,300/- per month. 23
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT The husband and wife both are working and received a more or less equal salary per month. It is relevant to refer our scriptures injuct "bharta rakshati yavvane..." literally meaning that, it is the duty of husband to provide maintenance to his dependent wife. That is how, our legislations too structured. It is the duty of the husband to provide maintenance irrespective of the wife's income.
27. After going through the entire materials, it is clear that, the petitioner is residing separately from the respondent husband. The respondent being the husband of the petitioner having responsibility of maintaining the petitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances and status of the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and she is not entitled for any monthly maintenance, as she is also working and is paid equally with the husband. Added, petitioner is also entitled to receive the interim maintenance award passed by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2022. Hence this Court answers Point No.3 accordingly. 24
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT
28. Point No.4 : In view of discussion held above, this Court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act., is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent is hereby restrained
from committing any domestic violence
against the petitioner.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) to the petitioner towards damages and compensation.
The petitioner is entitled to receive an interim maintenance amount passed by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2022.
However, the other reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is rejected.
Office is directed to supply the copy of the order to the petitioner free of cost. 25
Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court on this 25 th day of January 2024) VISHWANATH SAVADI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Teja.S. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER Ex.P.1 Marriage Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2 17 marriage photos and other photographs. Ex.P.3 Certified copy of FIR and certified copy of complaint in Cr.No.235/2021.
Ex.P.4 to 28 Certified copy of Bank Account Statements of the petitioner.
Ex.P.29 Record of rights of Sy.No.193/1. Ex.P.30 Record of rights of Sy.No.193/10. Ex.P.31 Record of rights of Sy.No.143. Ex.P.32 Certified copy of order sheet, charge sheet and other documents in C.C.No.20799/2022. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT R.W.1 Sri.Anand Kumar.M.S. 26 Crl.Mis.No.187/2021 JUDGMENT LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 Copy of Federal Bank Statement of the respondent.
VISHWANATH SAVADI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.