Bangalore District Court
Smt.Anitha vs Sri.Shankar on 25 January, 2023
1
Crl.Mis.145/2019
KABC070064682019
Presented on : 17-08-2019
Registered on : 17-08-2019
Decided on : 25-01-2023
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC
COURT - V, BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.NATARAJA.S.T.
B.Sc., LL.B.,
M.M.T.C - V, BENGALURU
DATED THIS 25 th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Crl. Misc.No.145 - 2019
PETITIONER : Smt.Anitha, W/o.Sri.Shankar,
D/o.No.Balakrishna, Aged about 38 years,
R/at.No.320, 6th Main Road, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
(Represented by Sri.Rajanna Adv.,)
// VS //
2
Crl.Mis.145/2019
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Shankar, S/o.Ravi, Aged about 41
years, R/at.No.12, 9th Cross, Kadarenahalli, Bengaluru.
2. Sri.Ravi, Aged about 65 years, Father of respondent, Near National Public School, Satellite Town, Kengeri.
3. Smt.Omana, D/o.Surendranath, Aged about 28 years, No.12, 9th Cross, Bendrenagar, Kadirenahalli, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru
4. Sri.Surendranath, Aged about 58 years, Father of respondent No.3, No.12, 9th Cross, Bedrenagar, Kadirenahalli, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru.
5. Deenu, S/o.Surendranath, Aged about 35 years, Brother of respondent No.3, No.12, 9th Cross, Bendrenagar, Kadirenahalli, Banashankari II Stage, Bengaluru.
(Represented by Sri.ACS Adv.,) JU DG M E NT The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 r/w Sec.18, 19, 20 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3Crl.Mis.145/2019 The case of the petitioner in brief as follows:
2. The 1st respondent is the husband of the petitioner, 2 nd respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner, 3 rd respondent is the second wife of 1st respondent, 4th and 5th respondents are the parents of 3rd respondent and 6th respondent is the brother of 3rd respondent. The marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.08.2009 at Shree Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh, in the presence of parents of both the petitioner and 1st respondent, relatives, well-wishers and friends as per the Hindu customs and rituals. The marriage was solemnised with a total cost of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) which was borne by the parents of the petitioner. After the marriage the petitioner was taken to her matrimonial house wherein the petitioner was treated as slave and she was criticized and condemned by the 1 st respondent and his parents. In spite of many humble requests of the petitioner to show her at-least humanity but the ears of the 1 st respondent and his parents have gone deaf to petitioner's requests. For trivial reasons like delay of 15 minutes in preparing the breakfast due to power failure, petitioner was beaten up by the 1st respondent with utensils in kitchen and lathi and any other blunt items. When the petitioner was screaming out of pain the respondent used to close the doors of the house in order to avoid the entry of neighbours. The 1 st respondent never took petitioner to hospital or to doctor for injuries sustained in disputes. The 1 st respondent is 4 Crl.Mis.145/2019 alcoholic person every day he used to consume alcohol and come home in late night and behaving in a very rude manner and scolding the petitioner in filthy language so as to lower her dignity. In the mean time the petitioner gave birth to a male child on 11-09-2010 who is named as Rushab.S.Naidu. When the petitioner has gone for delivery of the baby the 1st respondent has vacated his house without the consent of the petitioner and taken away all household articles and neglected the petitioner and her child. The 1st respondent even for the sake of courtesy never showed care for the petitioner and her child and never paid any money for medicine, hospital charges etc., the 1 st respondent behaved like as if he has no relationship with the petitioner and the child. The child is presently studying in Cambridge School, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru.
The 1st respondent has not paid even a single Rupee towards maintenance and cost of the education of the child.
3. Further it is stated that, without the knowledge and consent and without obtaining divorce from the petitioner the 1 st respondent contracted 2nd marriage with one Smt.Omana on 02-05-2014 and begotten a child. By getting 2nd marriage 1st respondent completely neglected the petitioner and her child without providing any prvoision, food, cloth, medicine. Deliberately he has neglected the petitioner and her child and child is being deprived of the right of getting good education. The 1st respondent is working in a franchisee of 'AIROFIX COMPANY' which deals with supply of drone flying machine and earning Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only) per month and leading immoral life with 5 Crl.Mis.145/2019 his 2nd wife by neglecting the petitioner and her child. The 1 st respondent has committed domestic violence by neglecting the petitioner and her child, by contracting the 2nd marriage with another woman when the petitioner is hale and healthy condition, by insulting the petitioner in front of relatives and also not providing separate accomodation. The petitioner has no income and suffering from many ailments and struggling for day to day food, shelter and education of her child. Hence, petitioner left with no other option filed this petition for the above said reliefs.
4. After the registration of petition, notices have been issued to all the respondents and the same werw duly served, but eventhough they put their appearance through Advocate remained absent and not turned up. Even in spite of several opportunities provided to them, they not filed their objections and come forward to contest the case of the petitioner, as such the matter was set for trial.
5. To substantiate her case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and closed her side. Respondents since remained absent and not filed any objections, hence the evidence of petitioner remained unchallenged.
6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner. The following points arose for consideration;
6Crl.Mis.145/2019
1.Whether the petitioner proves that she has been in domestic relationship with all respondents?
2.Whether the petitioner further proves that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondents?
3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
4. What order?
7. On perusal of materials placed before this Court, findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In partly affirmative;
Point No.2 : In partly affirmative;
Point No.3 : In partly affirmative;
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following;
R E A SON S
8. POINT No.1: The important aspects which need to be established in a domestic violence case are, the petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship between herself and respondents, petitioner has to show that, she resided with respondents at any point of time or lived together in shared household, petitioner has been subjected to any 7 Crl.Mis.145/2019 act of domestic violence by the respondents upon her during her stay in domestic relationship in a shared household.
9. The petitioner contended that, she is legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 09.08.2009 at Shree Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Temple, Kanipakam, Chittor District, Andhra Pradesh, in the presence of parents of both the petitioner and 1 st respondent, relatives, well-wishers and friends as per the Hindu customs and rituals. The marriage was solemnised with a total cost of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) which was borne by the parents of the petitioner. Further it is contended by the petitioner that, after the marriage the petitioner was taken to her matrimonial home and petitioner started to live marital life with 1 st respondent and his family members. Out of their wedlock the petitioner gave birth to a male child by name Rushab.S.Naidu. To prove these facts the petitioner got examined herself as Pw.1 and reiterated the above facts in her examination-in-chief and also got marked Ex.P.1-marriage invitation card to prove that marriage has taken place between petitioner and 1 st respondent and Ex.P.2-birth certificate of their child Rushab.S.Naidu, Ex.P.11-marriage photo.
10. On perusal of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.11, it discloses that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st respondent and due to their marital life they have begotten a child by name Rushab.S.Naidu. The same has remained unchallenged as the 1st respondent has not contested 8 Crl.Mis.145/2019 the case of the petitioner by remaining absent, even though he put his appearance through his counsel.
11. However, domestic relationship with other respondents i.e., respondent No.3 to 5 are concerned, domestic relationship not established by the petitioner, because the petitioner herself stated in her petition that, when the petitioner has gone for delivery of the baby, the 1 st respondent has vacated the house without the consent of the petitioner and taken away all household articles and thereby neglected the petitioner and her child and also in her affidavit of assets and liabilities, it has been stated by her that, the date of separation of petitioner and 1 st respondent as 10-08-2011. Thereafter the 1 st respondent left the company of petitioner and her child and started to neglect the petitioner and her child. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that, the 1 st respondent contracted the 2nd marriage with 3rd respondent on 02-05- 2014. Hence, as per the statement of the petitioner, petitioner is stated to be separated even before 1st respondent contracted the 2nd marriage with 3rd respondent. Further, the petitioner has not produced any material to show that, the petitioner lived with respondent No.3 to 5. Hence, there is no possibility of domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 to 5. Domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent No.3 to 5 not proved. However, as above said domestic relationship between the petitioner and 1st respondent proved, as the same is remained unchallenged by the 1 st respondent. Accordingly, this Court answered Point No.1 in Partly Affirmative.
9Crl.Mis.145/2019
12. POINT No.2: The petitioner contended that, she was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents. After the marriage the petitioner was taken to her matrimonial home wherein the petitioner was treated as slave and she was criticized and condemned by the 1 st respondent and his parents. In spite of many humble requests of the petitioner to show her at-least humanity but the ears of the 1 st respondent and his parents have gone deaf to petitioner's requests. For trivial reasons like delay of 15 minutes in preparing the breakfast due to power failure, petitioner was beaten up by the 1 st respondent with utensils in kitchen and lathi and any other blunt items. When the petitioner was screaming out of pain the respondent used to close the doors of the house in order to avoid the entry of neighbours. The 1 st respondent never took petitioner to hospital or to doctor for injuries sustained in disputes. The 1 st respondent is alcoholic person, every day he used to come home at late night by consuming alcohol and behaving in a very rude manner and scolding the petitioner in filthy language so as to lower her dignity. In the mean time the petitioner gave birth to a male child on 11-09-2010 who is named as Rushab.S.Naidu. When the petitioner has gone for delivery of the baby the 1 st respondent has vacated his house without the consent of the petitioner and taken away all household articles and neglected the petitioner and her child. The 1 st respondent even for the sake of courtesy never showed care for the petitioner and her child, and never paid any money for medicine, hospital charges etc., the 1st respondent behaved like as if he has no relationship with the petitioner and the child. The child is presently studying in Cambridge School, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. The 1 st respondent has not 10 Crl.Mis.145/2019 paid even a single Rupee towards maintenance and cost of the education of the child.
13. Further, it is contended by the petitioner that, without the knowledge and consent, and without obtaining divorce from the petitioner, the 1st respondent contracted 2nd marriage with one Smt.Omana on 02-05-2014 and begotten a child by name Viransh.S.Naidu. By getting 2nd marriage 1st respondent completely neglected the petitioner and her child without providing any provision, food, cloth, medicine. Deliberately he has neglected the petitioner and her child, and child is deprived of the right of getting good education. The 1st respondent has committed domestic violence by neglecting the petitioner and her child, by contracting the 2 nd marriage with another woman when the petitioner is hale and healthy condition, by insulting the petitioner in front of relatives and also not providing separate accommodation. The same was reiterated by the petitioner in her examination-in-chief and also got marked Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.8-certified copy of the FIR, Charge sheet and enclosures to prove that, the 1 st respondent has caused cruelty, cheating by contracting second marriage and Ex.P.10-birth certificate of Viransh.S.Naidu to prove that, the 1 st respondent has begotten a child through 3rd respondent.
14. On perusal of said exhibits it discloses that, the respondent has contracted second marriage with 3 rd respondent and begotten a child by name Viransh.S.Naidu and 1st respondent has neglected the petitioner and her child. The same has remained unchallenged as the 1 st 11 Crl.Mis.145/2019 respondent and remaining respondents have not contested the case of the petitioner by remaining absent, even though they put their appearance through their counsel. However, in so far as domestic relationship with other respondents i.e., respondent No.3 to 5 are concerned not proved as already discussed in point No:1, hence there is no question of domestic violence by the respondent No.3 to 5, hence domestic violence by the respondent No.3 to 5 is not established by the petitioner because, the petitioner has stated when the petitioner has gone for delivery of the baby the 1 st respondent has vacated his house without the consent of the petitioner and taken away all household articles and neglected the petitioner and her child and also in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that the date of separation of petitioner and 1st respondent as 10-08-2011, thereafter the 1st respondent left the company of petitioner and her child and started to neglect the petitioner and her child. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that, the 1 st respondent contracted the 2nd marriage with 3rd respondent on 02-05- 2014, hence as per the contention of the petitioner, petitioner is stated to be separated even before 1st respondent contracted the 2nd marriage with 3rd respondent. Since there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.3 to 5, as such being the case there is no possibility of domestic violence to the petitioner by respondent No.3 to 5. Hence, domestic violence by the respondent No.3 to 5 not proved.
15. However, as already discussed above the 1 st respondent has committed domestic violence by neglecting the petitioner and her child, by contracting the 2nd marriage with another woman when the petitioner 12 Crl.Mis.145/2019 is hale and healthy condition, by insulting the petitioner in front of relatives and also not providing proper accommodation. The overall facts and circumstances of the case goes to show that, the acts of the 1 st respondent neglecting the petitioner and child amounts to economic abuse and by contracting second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage amounts to emotional abuse. Hence, domestic violence by the 1st respondent is proved, as the same is remained unchallenged by the 1 st respondent. Accordingly, this Court answered Point No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
16. POINT No.3: The petitioner has claimed protection orders under section 18 and 18(b), order for residence under section 19(1)(f) and 19(2), monetary relief under section 20(1)(b) and compensation under section 22 of the PWDV Act.
17. The petitioner contended that, the petitioner has no income and suffering from many ailments and struggling for day to day food, shelter and for expenses for education of her child. The 1 st respondent is working in a franchisee of 'AIROFIX COMPANY' which deals with supply of drone flying machine and earning Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only) per month. But petitioner not placed any document to show that, 1 st respondent is working in a franchisee of 'AIROFIX COMPANY' and earning Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only) per month, except affidavit of assets and liabilities. Hence, it is not possible to consider the income of 1st respondent as Rs.3,00,000/- per month. However, it is the bounden duty of the husband to take care and provide all basic necessities to his 13 Crl.Mis.145/2019 wife and child. Hence, the petitioner and her child entitled for maintenance. But, in so far as fixing of quantum of maintenance, this court considered the guildlines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha Case. In this present case, the petitioner has not produced any relevant documents to show that, the respondent No.1 is working in a franchisee of 'AIROFIX COMPANY' and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. The petitioner has filed only her affidavit of assets and liabilities and therein she has stated respondent No.1 is working in a franchisee of AIROFIX COMPANY' and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per month. Even, the respondent also remained absent and not contested the case. Hence, this court cannot consider the contention of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons and answer to point No.1 and 2, this court answered Point No.3 in Partly Affirmative.
18. Since, there is no specific allegations against the 2 nd respondent and domestic relationship, domestic violence by the respondent No.3 to 5 not proved, the case against the respondent No.2 to 5 is liable to dismissed.
19. POINT No.4: In view of the materials placed before this Court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
14Crl.Mis.145/2019 OR D E R The petition filed by the petitioner under section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is allowed in part.
The respondent No.1 is prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner in any manner. In such event the petitioner is at liberty to approach jurisdictional Police for suitable protection and the jurisdictional Police are hereby directed to provide protection for the petitioner from domestic violence.
The respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rupees four thousand only) to the petitioner towards maintenance from the date of petition, till the marriage of petitioner subsists with him or till the petitioner gets remarried whichever is early.
Further, the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month (Rupees four thousand only) to his son Rushab.S.Naidu towards maintenance from the date of petition, till attaining majority.
The case against the respondent Nos.2 to 5 is hereby dismissed.
15Crl.Mis.145/2019 Office is hereby directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(The order dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and typed by him and corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this 25 th day of January 2023) (NATARAJA.S.T.) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Anitha.B
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P.1 Marriage Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2 Birth Certificate.
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of Panchanama.
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of Rental Agreement.
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of letter dated 11.09.2020.
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of statement dated 17.01.2020.
Ex.P.9 Birth Certificate of Rushabh S. Naidu.
16
Crl.Mis.145/2019
Ex.P.10 Birth Certificate of Viransh S. Naidu.
Ex.P.11 Marriage Photo.
Ex.P.12 C.D.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT
NIL
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
NIL
(NATARAJA.S.T.)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT- V, BENGALURU.