Bangalore District Court
Or Her Status In The Society And With Her vs To Pay The Compensation Of Rs. 50 Lakhs ... on 28 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT-II, BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M. Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.
CRL. MISC. No. 16/2015
Aggrieved Smt. Shobha Lingaraju W/o B.P.
Persons/petitioners Shankar, aged; 26 Yrs, R/at No. 1091,
: 7th Main Road, Srirampuram,
Bengaluru-21.
Represented by: Sri. GRP, Adv.
V/s
Respondents: P. Shankar S/o late. Puttappa, aged; 42
Yrs, R/at. No. 95, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross,
Yallamma temple street, Nagavarapalya,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru-93.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
This is a Petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 praying this court to pass order u/sec. 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 prohibiting the respondent from speaking against the petitioner with any person or authority or degrading the 2 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 petitioner or her status in the society and with her employment place and causing harm, injury, insult, spreading rumours, defaming and prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the employment activities of the petitioner i.e., with M/s Ernest & Young, RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru, b) pass order not to handover the vacant possession to the owner of the lease-hold premises i.e., no. 95, 2nd floor, 2nd cross, Yallamma temple street, Nagavarapalya, C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru-93 and receive the lease amount which absolutely belongs to the petitioner, c) pass order not to alienate the household goods like washing machine, kitchen utensils, gold items given during marriage i.e., chain, ring, watch;, d) direct the respondent u/sec. 20 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- towards food, clothes, medication, household expenses and other basic necessities, e) pass order u/sec. 22 of the act directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs towards pain suffering injury, mental torture, fraud, cheating and emotional distress caused by the acts of the Domestic Violence committed by the respondent, f) pass order to return the gold items in the custody of the respondent which were the property of the petitioner and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 9.8.2013 at 3 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 Mariswamappa Kalyana Mantap, 10th cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-27. During the year 2006, the petitioner joined the C.A. course classes at Vasanthanagar wherein the respondent was also attending the classes. The petitioner was born on 1.2.1987 while the respondent was born on 19.1.1973.
Suppressing his date of birth and stating that he was born during January 1983, met the petitioner while she was studying her CA classes at Vasanthanagar during the year 2006. The respondent introduced himself as a professional working in various fields and has a good background. He also claimed that he does not have both the parents and is being taken care by her sister Smt. Mangala. However, the respondent refused to provide any address of his sister to the petitioner.
3. That the respondent by unethical means came to know of the address of the petitioner and started visiting her house. The respondent has continued his visits whenever the petitioner was not in the house and started talking to her parents and younger sister with sweet words that he loves the petitioner too much and will marry her. The respondent kept on pestering the petitioner to marry him which she refused politely. But the respondent has never left his attempts and was forcing the petitioner with one or other gimmicks. The respondent has also begging before the petitioner to give him money at various points of time to meet his needs, by dubious methods, which the petitioner believed to be true. Even on day 4 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 to day basis, the respondent was seeking money to meet his petrol needs of the two wheeler he had.
4. During January 2011, the petitioner left to US on employment, at this juncture, the respondent started visiting the house of the petitioner and boasted himself of various things and made the parents and sister of the petitioner to believe that he is gentleman with good character and having a handsome earning to maintain family. The parents of the petitioner believed the dramas of the respondent and advised the petitioner on her return from US during November 2011 to get marry to respondent. The respondent at this period represented that he is earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary and can take care of the petitioner without any hurdle. The petitioner without any other go had to marry the respondent for which her parents had spent more than Rs. 15 lakhs.
5. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner has come across certain records relating to the respondent like SSLC marks card, driving license, PAN card, Aadhar card which reflects different details, same also proves the mis-leading information furnished to various governments agencies. The respondent though earning has hidden all his acts, deeds and things from the petitioner and was extracting money from her. The respondent used to visit the employment place of the petitioner and threatens her with dire consequences, if she does not meet his demands. The respondent was a habitual drunkard, who used to drink daily and beat the petitioner for 5 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 no reason. Without any go, when the violence on the petitioner reached its peak and demands for money went beyond control, the petitioner lodged a police complaint with the Byappanahalli police station, Bengaluru on 25.6.2014. The petitioner was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent. The petitioner is living with her parents since 25.6.2014 and is not taken care by the respondent. By contending so, the petitioner prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice and equity.
6. On the other hand, on service of summons the respondent not appeared before this court. Hence, he has been placed ex-parte.
7. On basis of the above mentioned averments the following points do arise for my consideration:
1. Whether petitioner proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence upon her as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?
8. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P. 1 to 13.
9. I have heard arguments on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire records, my answer to the above framed points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Affirmative 6 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 Point No.2 : Partly in Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
10. Point No.1 :- It is the specific case of the petitioner that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 9.8.2013 at Mariswamappa Kalyana Mantap, 10th cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru-27. During the year 2006, the petitioner joined the C.A. course classes at Vasanthanagar wherein the respondent was also attending the classes. The petitioner was born on 1.2.1987 while the respondent was born on 19.1.1973. Suppressing his date of birth and stating that he was born during January 1983, met the petitioner while she was studying her CA classes at Vasanthanagar during the year 2006. The respondent introduced himself as a professional working in various fields and has a good background. He also claimed that he does not have both the parents and is being taken care by her sister Smt. Mangala. However, the respondent refused to provide any address of his sister to the petitioner.
11. That the respondent by unethical means came to know of the address of the petitioner and started visiting her house. The respondent has continued his visits whenever the petitioner was not in the house and started talking to her parents and younger sister with sweet words that he loves the petitioner too much and will marry her. The respondent kept on pestering the petitioner to marry him which she refused politely. But the respondent has never left his attempts and 7 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 was forcing the petitioner with one or other gimmicks. The respondent has also begging before the petitioner to give him money at various points of time to meet his needs, by dubious methods, which the petitioner believed to be true. Even on day to day basis, the respondent was seeking money to meet his petrol needs of the two wheeler he had.
12. During January 2011, the petitioner left to US on employment, at this juncture, the respondent started visiting the house of the petitioner and boasted himself of various things and made the parents and sister of the petitioner to believe that he is gentleman with good character and having a handsome earning to maintain family. The parents of the petitioner believed the dramas of the respondent and advised the petitioner on her return from US during November 2011 to get marry to respondent. The respondent at this period represented that he is earning about Rs. 40,000/- per month as salary and can take care of the petitioner without any hurdle. The petitioner without any other go had to marry the respondent for which her parents had spent more than Rs. 15 lakhs.
13. Soon after the marriage, the petitioner has come across certain records relating to the respondent like SSLC marks card, driving license, PAN card, Aadhar card which reflects different details, same also proves the mis-leading information furnished to various governments agencies. The respondent though earning has hidden all his acts, deeds and things from the petitioner and was extracting money from her.
8 C.Misc. No. 16/2015The respondent used to visit the employment place of the petitioner and threatens her with dire consequences, if she does not meet his demands. The respondent was a habitual drunkard, who used to drink daily and beat the petitioner for no reason. Without any go, when the violence on the petitioner reached its peak and demands for money went beyond control, the petitioner lodged a police complaint with the Byappanahalli police station, Bengaluru on 25.6.2014. The petitioner was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondent. The petitioner is living with her parents since 25.6.2014 and is not taken care by the respondent.
14. In view of the above contentions on behalf of petitioner' side, it is necessary to go through the evidence led by petitioner on record. To substantiate her case, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 wherein she has almost all reiterated her entire petition averments. Apart from, the PW-1 got produced Ex.P.1 which is the marriage invitation card of the PW-1 with the respondent. The Exs.P. 2 & 3 are the marriage photo copies. The Ex.P.4 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the PW-1 dtd: 24.12.2014 addressed to M/s Lenaxis Chits Pvt. Ltd., calling upon the said firm to return the cheque of the PW-1. The Ex.P.5 is the notarized copy of the SSLC hall ticket of the respondent wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 29.2.1988. The Ex.P.6 is the notarized copy of the driving license of the respondent wherein the date of birth of the respondent is mentioned as 19.1.1973. The Ex.P.7 is the notarized copy of the adhar card wherein the year of birth 9 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 of the respondent is mentioned as only 1988. On careful reading of the Ex.P.5 to 7, it appears that the date of birth of the respondent in the said documents are not tallying with each other. On basis of the said document, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent has mis-guided the petitioner with respect to his date of birth and married the present petitioner.
15. The Ex.P.8 is the notarized copy of the letter issued by C.A. Publications with respect to respondent regarding his work. The Ex.P.9 is the notarized copy of the purchase order. The Ex.P.10 is also another notarized copy of the purchase order. The Ex.P.11 is the notarized copy of the document dtd:
13.10.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Ex.P.11 the respondent has paid service tax with respect to his firm standing in the name of present petitioner.
16. The said Ex.P.11 is not useful in any manner to the case of the petitioner as there is no clear mention regarding the income of the respondent. The Exs.P. 12 & 13 are the notarized copies of the first information and the FIR lodged by the PW-1 as against her husband alleging cruelty. On careful reading of these two documents, it appears that the respondent has committed Domestic Violence upon the petitioner. The Ex.P.12 contains the information that the PW-1 is working as tax analyst. Further, it appears that the PW-1 herself has mentioned in Ex.P.12 that the respondent has not even completed his SSLC and do not work anywhere.
10 C.Misc. No. 16/201517. The allegations made by the PW-1 in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW-1 is not at all denied by the respondent as the respondent failed to appear before this court. The entire evidence placed before this court by the petitioner remained unchallenged by the respondent. Hence, I answer the point no.1 in the Affirmative.
18. Point No.2: In this case, the present petitioner has sought for pass order u/sec. 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 prohibiting the respondent from speaking against the petitioner with any person or authority or degrading the petitioner or her status in the society and with her employment place and causing harm, injury, insult, spreading rumours, defaming and prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the employment activities of the petitioner i.e., with M/s Ernest & Young, RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru, b) pass order not to handover the vacant possession to the owner of the lease-hold premises i.e., no. 95, 2nd floor, 2nd cross, Yallamma temple st., Nagavarapalya, C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru-93 and receive the lease amount which absolutely belongs to the petitioner, c) pass order not to alienate the household goods like washing machine, kitchen utensils, gold items given during marriage i.e., chain, ring, watch;, d) direct the respondent u/sec. 20 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- towards food, clothes, medication, household expenses and other basic necessities, e) pass order u/sec. 22 11 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 of the act directing the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs towards pain suffering injury, mental torture, fraud, cheating and emotional distress caused by the acts of the Domestic Violence committed by the respondent, f) pass order to return the gold items in the custody of the respondent which were the property of the petitioner.
19. In view of my answering to the point no.1 in the Affirmative, holding that the petitioner has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondent, it is just to pass the protection order within the meaning of sec. 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 to protect and safeguard the petitioner from possible violence upon her at the hands of respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for protection and prohibition order as sought by her. The provisions of domestic violence act are social beneficial legislation for those who are neglected and who have no income of their own to support themselves so as to keep their body and soul together. The object of this act is to prevent starvation and vagrancy by compelling a person to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife and children who are unable to support.
20. On marshalling the entire evidence and meticulous perusal of the documents in this case, I am of the firm opinion that the petitioner has clearly admitted that she is working with M/s Ernest & Young, RMZ Infinity Company. Further the Ex.P.12 first information the PW-1 has also admitted that she works as a tax analyst. It is also admitted fact that the 12 C.Misc. No. 16/2015 respondent is a SSLC passed and he is not working anywhere. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the compensation amount of Rs. 50 lakhs from the respondent. However, the petitioner is entitled for the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) per month from the respondent as it is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife. The petitioner has also not produced any documents with respect to the lease hold premises no. 95, 2nd Floor, 2nd cross, Yellamma temple street, Nagavarapalya, C.V. Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru. This court cannot pass any order as prayed by the petitioner, because this court cannot come to the conclusion without there being any document to hold that the said premises stands either in the name of petitioner or the respondent. Except for the above mentioned relifs the petitioner is not entitled for any other reliefs as the petitioner has failed to produce bills of household articles and also the list of gold items which belongs to the petitioner. Hence, I answer the point no.2 partly in affirmative.
21. Point No.3: In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the petitioner is entitled for the following reliefs. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.13 C.Misc. No. 16/2015
The respondent is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five thousand only) per month to the petitioner (including food, cloth, rent, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till her lifetime.
The respondent or his men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner and the respondent is prohibited from speaking against the petitioner with any person or authority or degrading the petitioner or her status in the society and with her employment place and causing harm, injury, insult, spreading rumours, defaming and prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the employment activities of the petitioner i.e., with M/s Ernest & Young, RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru.
The other prayer of the petitioner is deemed to be rejected.
The office is directed to issue free copy of the order to petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
14 C.Misc. No. 16/2015ANNEXURE i.List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW.1 : Shobha Lingaraju
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Marriage invitation card
Ex.P.2 & 3 Marriage photos
Ex.P.4 Copy of the legal notice dtd: 24.12.2014
Ex.P. 5 Notarized copy of the SSLC hall ticket
Ex.P.6 Notarized copy of the driving license of
respondent
Ex.P.7 Notarized copy of the Ahdar card
Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of the letter
Ex.P.9 & 10 Notarized copies of the purchase orders
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of the documents dtd:
1310.2008
Ex.P.12 & 13 Notarized copies of the first information and
FIR
List of witnesses examined for Respondent:
Nil List of documents marked for Respondent:
NIL (Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.15 C.Misc. No. 16/2015
Orders vide separate Order sheet ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five thousand only) per month to the petitioner (including food, cloth, rent, shelter, medication and other basic necessities) from the date of petition till her lifetime.
The respondent or his men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner and the respondent is prohibited from speaking against the petitioner with any person or authority or degrading the petitioner or her status in the society and with her employment place and causing harm, injury, insult, spreading rumours, defaming and prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the employment activities of the petitioner i.e., with M/s Ernest & Young, RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Bengaluru.
The other prayer of the petitioner is deemed to be rejected.
16 C.Misc. No. 16/2015The office is directed to issue free copy of the order to petitioner.
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.