Bangalore District Court
Smt. Nazneen Khanum vs Sri. Shaik Nizamuddin on 19 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT-VI, BENGALURU CITY.
Crl.Mis.No.3/2015
Dated : This the 19th day of March, 2018
Present : Smt. Triveni Iragar, M.Com, LL.B.,
Presiding Officer of M.M.T.C-VI
Petitioner : Smt. Nazneen Khanum,
D/o Azeez Khan,
W/o Shaik Nizamuddin,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.63/B, 1st Main,
12th Cross, Maruthinagar,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri. Shaik Nizamuddin,
S/o Shaik Hussain,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.63/B,
1st Main, 12th Cross,
Maruthinagar,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru - 560 064.
2. Smt. Mubeena @ Zahida,
W/o Md Ayaz,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Chamundi Nagar,
Near Shalini Bar,
R.T. Nagar Post,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
2 Crl.Misc.3/2015
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter it is referred as Domestic Violence Act), seeking various relief's under the above said Act.
The brief facts of the petitioners' case are as under:
2. The petitioner and 1st respondent marriage was solemnized on 15.05.1997 at Alhaj Mohammed Rasool, Shadi Mahal, M.R. Palyam, J.C. Nagar, Bengaluru in accordance with Sharaith Governed by Mohammedan Law. Out of the wed lock petitioner gave birth to two children namely Shaik Arajathuddin and Shaik Saqlainddin. Further petitioner states that after two months of marriage, 1st respondent started harassing torturing mentally and physically. Further petitioner states that one Smt. Sujath with her two children namely Archana and Rajesh came to her house and stated that 1st respondent is already married to her 5 years prior to her marriage. Further petitioner states that due to non tolerance of harassment mental and physical torture of the 1st respondent and Sujath she has tried to hang 3 Crl.Misc.3/2015 herself and admitted in Baptist hospital and case was registered in Hebbal Police Station at Bengaluru and after that 1st respondent has promised and requested to take back the complaint and promised her that he will not keep the relation with Sujatha but in vain 1st respondent has continued the relationship with Sujatha and he totally ignored her and her children.
3. Further petitioner states that respondent demanded 40 lakhs for purchase property. For that she has given Rs.15 laksh. In that amount respondent has purchased in his name a residential vacant site bearing No.58, carved out of lands Sy.No.10/1, measuring 6 acres 24 guntas situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and Sy.
No.60/1, measuring 2 acres 18 guntas, Sy.No.61/1 measuring 1 Acre and Sy.No.61/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas all lands vide conversion order No.B DIS ALN SR 4620, conversion order dated 08.05.1970 and BBMP Khatha No.718/58 situated at Venkatala and Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which form a common plot, 3rd allotment, 1st Main Road, 12th Cross, Maruthinagar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru -560064. Measuring East to West:33+40/2 feet, North to sough :60 4 Crl.Misc.3/2015 feet, Totally measuring 2190 square feet with all rights appurtenance whatsoever hereunder or underneath or above the surface and the same is bounded on the East by : road, West by : site No.59, North by : Road and South by : Site No.61. Further the petitioner states that respondent No.1 is a proprietor of Project Management Consultancy earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month apart from that he is doing real estate business getting Rs.2,00,000/- per month, apart from that he is capable of paying maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Further petitioner states that respondents have not shows any sympathy towards her nor provided her basic amenities not treated her as a human being and not allowed her to lead life peacefully. Hence, petitioner prays to allow her petition.
4. After the registration of the petition this Court has issued notice to the respondents. In pursuance of notice the respondents appeared before this Court through their counsel and filed objection statement. In the objection statement respondent No.1 admits the marriage and out of that wed lock petitioner gave birth to female child. Further respondent denies all allegation made in the petition as false. Further respondent states 5 Crl.Misc.3/2015 that he has issued/pronounced Talaq to the on 28.04.2015 as per the Provisions of Mohammedan Law and in view of the said Talaq the petitioner is not the wife of the 1st respondent and she has no right to claim the maintenance. Further respondent states that children are under the care and custody of the 1st respondent. Further respondent states that he never demanded any amount from the petitioner as alleged in the petition. Petitioner is a housewife and she is not employed and she is not having any source of income therefore question of paying 15 lakhs to the 1st respondent is false. Further the respondent states that in view of the Talaqnama issued by the 1st respondent he is not liable to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the petition of the petitioner.
5. Heard both side. On the basis of above facts the points that would arise for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she has been in Domestic Relationship with the respondents?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves that the respondents have been
6 Crl.Misc.3/2015 subjected petitioners to Domestic Violence?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the relief/s sought for ?
4. If so to what extent?
5. What Order ?
6. The answers to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : In the Negative;
Point No.4 : In the Negative;
Point No.5 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS POINT NO.1 :
7. Petitioner submits that she married with the 1st respondent on 15.05.1997 and out of the wed lock she is having two children i.e. Shaik Arafathuddin and Shaik Saqlainddin.
8. In order to prove her allegation she has produced marriage certificate i.e. Ex.P.1 and 1st respondent also admits the marriage relationship with 7 Crl.Misc.3/2015 the petitioner and children were born out of that relation. By that point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
POINT NO.2:
9. The petitioner submits that her parents negotiated Rs.2,00,000/- gold ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/-
in the from of marriage expenses. Petitioner prays this Hon'ble Court to direct the respondent to return back the gold ornaments as well as the cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent denies the allegation made by the petitioner. Further the petitioner has not produced any documents to prove her allegation that she has negotiated 2 lakh worth gold ornaments and one lakh cash at the time of marriage. Hence, the vague allegation of the petitioner cannot be considered. Order with respect to gold ornaments and cash return is not made.
10. Further the petitioner submits that one fine day namely one lady Smt. Sujatha came to her house with two children namely Archana and Rajesh, stating that respondent No.1 is already married to her 5 years prior to the marriage of the petitioner. Further she submits that later on respondent and Smt.Sujatha both started torturing the petitioner on physically, mentally 8 Crl.Misc.3/2015 and emotionally and 1st respondent continued the relation with the Sujatha. On coming of the Sujatha, 1st respondent neglected the petitioner as well as her children. At one time the respondent tried to strangle her neck stating that she has not brought sufficient dowry and not complied his demands. The respondent denies the allegation made by the petitioner. In support of this allegation the petitioner has not produced any documents as well as she has not examined any independent witness to prove her allegation.
11. Further petitioner submits that at one time respondent demanded 40 lakhs from her. Out of that she has given 15 lakhs to the respondent. By that 15 lakh respondent had purchased in his name a residential vacant site bearing No.58, carved out of lands Sy No.10/1, measuring 6 acres 24 guntas situated at Venkatala Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and Sy. No.60/1, measuring 2 acres 18 guntas, Sy.No.61/1 measuring 1 Acre and Srvey No.61/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas all lands vide conversion order No.B DIS ALN SR 4620, conversion order dated 08.05.1970 and BBMP Khatha No.718/58 situated at Venkatala and Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, 9 Crl.Misc.3/2015 Bengaluru North Taluk which form a common plot, 3rd allotment, 1st Main Road, 12th Cross, Maruthinagar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru -560064. Mearsuring East to West:33+40/2 feet, North to sough :60 feet, Totally measuring 2190 square feet with all rights appurtenance whatsoever hereunder or underneath or above the surface and the same is bounded on the East by : road, West by : site No.59, North by : Road and South by : Site No.61. The respondent submits that he admits that he has purchased property but he denies that 15 lakhs were being contributed by the petitioner. In addition to that he states that petitioner is un employee and from the date of marriage she is house wife. Hence, as she is un employee she never paid any amount to the respondent. To disbelieve the statement of the respondent petitioner has not produced any documents to show that she has paid Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent. Hence, rupees 15 lakhs paid by the petitioner is vague allegation and it is not believed.
12. Further the petitioner submits that she is well educated and she is brought up from well cultured respectable family and she scarified her life and carrier to 10 Crl.Misc.3/2015 the respondent under the gist of her children future and education.
13. The respondent submits that he has not neglected the petitioner and petitioner was habit of always keeping herself out of the house saying that she is social worker and she has to go out of the house. Further he submits that two children are with him only, till today. Further he submits that from the date of marriage he has not harassed the petitioner nowhere. Out of that non harassment they had two children in order to prove that they were in happy and good relation. Further the respondent submits that he has given divorce to the petitioner on 28.02.2015 and from the date of divorce he is not having any relationship with the petitioner.
14. By all these above discussion it appears that the petitioner nowhere stated about divorce and she also not deposed anything about the custody of the children. By that it appears that petitioner is trying to hide some important incident of her life i.e. custody of children and she has been divorced by the respondent. According to P.W.D.V. Act the petitioner has to prove that she has 11 Crl.Misc.3/2015 underwent physical, mental, economical and financial harassment during her stay in the domestic relation. But the petitioner has not produced any single documents to prove the cruelty or violence undergone by her and she has also not rebutted the care and custody of the children and she has also not sought care and custody of the children. By that it shows that the petitioner herself deserted the respondent and petitioner is not having any love and affection with the family and children. Hence, the point No.2 is answered in the negative.
POINT NO.3 & 4.
15. As the petitioner has failed in proving her domestic violence petitioner has not entitled for any maintenance and the respondent is also not having any liability to maintain the petitioner. Hence, the point No.3 and 4 answered in the negative.
POINT No.5:
16. In view of findings on point No.1 to 4, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
12 Crl.Misc.3/2015 ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act., 2005 against the respondents is here by dismissed.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2018) (TRIVENI IRAGAR) P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW-1 : Nazneen Khanum DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Invitation Card Ex.P.2 : Marriage Certificate Ex.P.3 & 4 : Birth Certificate
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Nil 13 Crl.Misc.3/2015 DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
-Nil-
P.O. OF MMTC-VI, BENGALURU.