Bangalore District Court
Smt.Ashwini.G W/O Ravindra Naidu.C vs C.Ravindra Naidu S/O Kanadadri on 20 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT - III, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016.
PRESENT : Sri. SANTHOSH.M.S., B.A., LL.B., (HONS); LL.M.,
M.M.T.C-III, BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.209/2014
PETITIONER Smt.Ashwini.G W/o Ravindra Naidu.C,
27 years, R/o NO.128, 50 feet road,
Hanumantha Nagar, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.N.A.V., Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENT C.Ravindra Naidu S/o Kanadadri
Naidu, 34 years, R/o Bangarupalyam,
Opp. to Gomathi Spinner, (Mandal)
Chittor District, Andrapradesh.
(By Sri.N.M.N., Adv)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking relief under Sec.18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under; The petitioner contends that she is the wife of respondent and they were married on 17.6.2011 at Ganjam 2 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 Kalyanamantpa, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru, at the time of marriage petitioner's parents had given 30 severign gold and also assured after the marriage of petitioner's sister they will gave one flat. After the marriage respondent was residing in the petitioner's mother's house until the birth of their child on 21.2.2012, thereafter the respondent had made a separate house where he started to harass and torturing the petitioner to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents. The said demand is fulfilled by the petitioner. It is alleged that again the respondent had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and threatened the petitioner that he will take the tali chain and send back to her parents' house if they do not give a flat as promised at the time of marriage. The petitioner contends that respondent used to lock the house form outside and used to go out of the house, thereafter she came to know that the respondent is having illicit relationship with another woman, then the same was questioned by the petitioner's mother the respondent assaulted her mother. It is alleged that the respondent was admitted in the Hospital after discharge he informed the petitioner to go to her mother's house and come back the next morning, when the petitioner had gone the next day the doors were locked and the respondent was not there, when the petitioner called the respondent by phone and got informed that he will come after two days, but he never came. Thereafter the respondent 3 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 and his nephew came and vacated the house when petitioner questioned he responded rudely that he will do as his whims and fancy. Thereafter the respondent never came back to home and he is residing with another woman. The petitioner contends that the respondent is a Software Engineer working in GMS Software Solutions at Bengaluru and he is drawing a salary of Rs.1,35,000/-. The petitioner further contends that she has filed a complaint in Cr.No.283/2014 before the Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the respondent. It is contended that her child Gowtham is studying in play-home and she is unable to maintain herself and her child and that the respondent being a able bodied man is to maintain the petitioner and her child. Now, the respondent has not cared about her well being. That the petitioner has no financial support to secure the future of her son.. The respondent has caused physical, emotional, mental and financial abuse amounting to Domestic Violence. On these allegations the petitioner is before this court seeking the relief of protection order, residential order, marriage expenses and other loss of Rs.20,00,000/- monthly maintenance of Rs.55,000/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by the respondent.
3. After receipt of petition, notice was issued to the respondent and on appearance through his advocate the 4 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 respondent has filed detailed statement of objection denying the allegations made against him. However the relationship between the parties is not in dispute and the relationship of the child by name Gowtham is also not disputed. The respondent contended that after their marriage they were residing in Bangarupalyem at Andhra Pradesh and stayed there and later the mother of the petitioner insisted her to come back to Bengaluru and stay along with her as petitioner is the only daughter to her. It is further contended that the respondent replied and requested petitioner's mother that he is also only son to take care of his aged father and denied the proposal of her mother, the petitioner started to quarrel with the respondent for pin prinks and for no reasons. Finally, with great love and affection towards the petitioner he agreed to leave the aged father and started to reside with his in-law. The respondent further contends that he was directed to hand over the entire salary in the hands of the petitioner and her mother and he was not allowed to spend and spare a single pie for himself and also to take care of his aged father, totally the petitioner and her mother were treating him as a slave. Finally the respondent decided and made a separate house for rent to lead a happy life with the petitioner and his child at Chikkalasandra, Padmanabhanagar and stayed for one and half year, but the petitioner never joined the respondent. In this regard number of panchayaths 5 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 were held finally the petitioner agreed to come and stay with the respondent, but her attitude continued and never changed. The respondent further contended that his father was aged more than 70 years and was suffering from age old ailments and he has to take care of his father he shifted his residence to his father's place. The petitioner started harassing the respondent with no reason and making allegation that the respondent has an affair with some other lady and in the last week of March 2013 without the knowledge of respondent the petitioner deserted the respondent and went to her parents house. The respondent further contends that inspite of all above differences he tried to console the petitioner to join him but it was failed. With no other alternate the respondent filed a petition HMOIP No.30/2014 before the Chittor Court. The respondent contended that the petitioner filed a false complaint before the Basavanagudi Police Station and later filed this petition and a complaint is lodged before the Collector's Office at Andhra Pradesh which was all an after thought and to harass the respondent mentally and financially and now the respondent is not working anywhere and he is doing agriculture in his native place. The respondent further contends that petitioner is well educated ad financially well off as she is the only daughter to her mother and they are having number of properties and getting good rents more 6 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 than Rs.50,000/- p.m. and petitioner is also working and respondent is ready and willing to join the petitioner if she come back to him at his place to lead a happy marital life. The respondent has contended that he has not inflicted any act of Domestic Violence on the petitioner as such he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. In order to prove her case the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. The respondent has examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 7 and closed his side. Both the parties have filed the written arguments and oral arguments are also heard from both the advocates. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she has been subjected to Domestic Violence and neglected by the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
5. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
7 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014REASONS
6. POINT No.1: In order to prove her the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of the petition in her affidavit. She has furnished two documents which are marked as per Ex.P.1 and 2. Ex.P.1 is he marriage invitation card while Ex.P.2 is the bank pay-in-slip depositing an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the account of respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had demanded dowry and he has illicit relationship with another woman. However, the name of such woman with whom the respondent is alleged to have been illicit relationship is not revealed. It is her further case that the respondent was admitted to Hospital and after discharge he asked her to go to her parents house and come back on the next morning. When she had been to her parents house, and came on the next day the doors of the house was locked and respondent was absent. When the petitioner telephonically called him he informed that he would come after two days, but he never came back. While respondent and his nephew vacated the house when questioned he responded rudely that he would as he likes at his whims and fancies. Thereafter the respondent never came back to home and he is residing with another woman. The petitioner contends that the respondent is working in GMS Software Solutions at 8 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 Bengaluru and earning Rs.72,00,000/- p.m. However, she has also stated that the respondent is residing in Bangarpalya of Chittur District. She has also stated that she has filed a complaint in Cr.No.283/2014 t Basavanagudi Women Police Station against the respondent. Her child Gowtham is studying in play-home and she is pursuing her education in MBA for which she is completely dependent on her mother. The petitioner states that she is unable to maintain herself and that the respondent being a able bodied man is to maintain the petitioner. On perusal of the exhibits as detailed above it is noticed that the petitioner has not filed any document to establish the factum of respondent's employment or the complaint of Cr.No.283/2014 is not furnished before the court. However, during the course of her cross-examination the following statements are made by her which are as under;
"JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ «ªÁºÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è a£ÁߨÀsgÀt ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £À£Àß §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É E®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À EgÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ PɼÀCAvÀ¹Û£À°è MAzÀÄ CAUÀr ªÀĽUÉ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj CAUÀr ªÀĽUÉAiÀÄ£Àß ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁ£À 5 ¸Á«gÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrzÉÝãÉ. PÁªÀiÁPÀå §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è MAzÀÄ ¥Áèmï EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
"JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÀ£Àß «ªÁºÀPÀÆÌ ªÀÄÄ£Àß £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄzÀªÀgÀÄ M§âgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DvÀ DAzÀæ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ avÀÆÛgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀÄ ¥Á¼Àå ºÀ½îAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹ EzÀÝ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÀÆ ªÀÄÄ£Àß w½¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."9 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014
"£À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ CAzÀgÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À vÀAzÉ §AUÁgÀÄ¥Á¼Àå ºÀ½îAiÀįÉè ªÁ¸À EzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è."
"£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå CfðAiÀÄ RArPÉ 3 gÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ, DvÀ£À vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß «ªÁºÀzÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀߪÉà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
"JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁ£À gÀÆ. 1,35,000.00 ªÉÃvÀ£À §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è. DvÀ£À ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DvÀ¤UÉ CµÀÄÖ ªÉÃvÀ£À EzÉ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯É £À£Àß §½ EzÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¸ÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ZÉ£ÁßVAiÀÉÄà ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝzÀÄ ¤d. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå CfðAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀ §½PÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ 50 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖzÀÝ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. D ¸ÀA§AzÀs £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÀÆgÀ£Àß DvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¤Ãr®è. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¤¦-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£Àß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À SÁvÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ dªÀiÁ ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JA§ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå Cfð ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ºÉý®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
"£Á£ÀÄ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr ¥ÉÇð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà DvÀ DAzÀæ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ªÁºÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB¸ÁÝ¥À£É PÉÆÃj £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ Cfð zÁR®Ä ªÀÆrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ eÁj DVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj £ÀÉÆÃn¸ÀÄ eÁjAiÀiÁzÀ §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ£Àå 10 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ CfðUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÄ ¸À°è¹®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀzÀj «ªÁºÀ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB¸ÁÝ¥À£É Cfð zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ F Cfð zÁR°¹zÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå CfðAiÀÄ RArPÉ 9 gÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ¤UÉ 2 ®PÀë ªÉÃvÀ£À §gÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀA§AzÀs £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è zÁR¯É ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è."
7. The above mentioned statement of the petitioner goes to establish that the allegations made against the respondent are not substantiated by any documents and she also admits that she has not lodged any complaint with the police in the year 2012 concerning cruelty on her by the rs and that the mother of respondent has died before the marriage was solemnized between the both the parties. However, she contends that she has been subjected to cruelty by the mother of respondent at paragraph 3 of main petition. While cross-examining PW.1 for the question concerning Ex.P.2 she has deposed that she has not mentioned the reason for furnishing Ex.P.2. It is the cordinal principles of law that the petitioner who has furnished documents before the court should have minimum information concerning the documents though not its legal aspects. However, even though Ex.P.2 is furnished she has not mentioned relevancy of the such document to the present case. Except Ex.P.2 the only document furnished 11 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 before the court is the marriage invitation card. During the course of further cross-examination as mentioned above PW.1 has mentioned that the present case is filed after receipt of notice of the case filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the present petition is filed by the petitioner is only to counter the petition filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore the aspect of the respondent having illicit relationship with some woman or subjecting her to physical abuse have not been cogently established by the petitioner. On the contrary during the course of cross-examination of respondent as RW.1 the following suggestions is made " ªÁgÀzÀ°è 2 ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì CfðzÁgÀ¼À ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ »A¢gÀÄUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀÄ ¤d."
This statement when read with the statement of the petitioner in her cross-examination which is as under;
"«ªÁºÀzÀ §½PÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉè ªÀÄ£É C½AiÀÄ£ÁV ElÄÖPÉÆArzÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. DvÀ £ÀªÉÆäA¢UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1ªÀgÉ ªÁ¸À EzÀÝ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DvÀ «¥ÉÇæà PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 12 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 DvÀ¤UÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÉÃvÀ£À EzÉ JA§ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w EvÀÄÛ."
8. These statements would indicate that the respondent was residing with the petitioner at her house and he used to visit his parents once in a week for two days. Therefore, the question of deserting the petitioner by the respondent as contended by her in the petition and affidavit seems improbable. Therefore, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
9. POINT No.2 : The petitioner has sought for protection order under Sec.18. While answering Point No.1 this court has come to the conclusion that the aspect of Domestic Violence has not been satisfactorily proved by the petitioner. Therefore, grant of protection order does not arise.
10. The petitioner has sought for residential order under Sec.19. However, she has neither deposed nor established that the shared household where the both the parties resided belongs to the respondent exclusively. However, it is a fact that the parties resided together in a rented premises. When such being the case seeking direction against the respondent to provide same level of alternative accommodation is improper.
13 Crl.Misc.No.209/201411. The petitioner has sought for marriage expenses to be refunded by the respondent to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/. However, no documents are produced before this court to establish such expenses. Hence, the same is liable to be declined.
12. The petitioner has also sought for Rs.10,00,000/- towards physical and mental injury. As noted above no documents are furnished to establish that she has undergone physical injury and since the petitioner has failed to establish Domestic Violence the question of granting compensation for mental injury does not arise. Hence, the same is liable to be declined as well as the compensation sought to a tune of Rs.2 crores.
13. The petitioner has sought for direction against the respondent to pay expenses to a tune of Rs.55,00,000/- p.m. for food, clothes, medication, school fees, household expenses and other basic necessities. As discussed above monetary relief under PWDV Act can be granted to the petitioner if the allegation of Domestic Violence is established. However, the petitioner has failed to do so yet looking to the aspect of welfare of child this court considers it just and proper to pass an order granting an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to the child from the respondent to be paid every month and also 14 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014 directing respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- as education expenses on or before 31st of March every years. Hence, I answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative
14. 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 is allowed in part.
The protection order under Sec.18 is hereby rejected.
The residence order under Sec.19 is also rejected.
The respondent is directed to pay a sum of an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. (Rupees five thousand only) to the child of the petitioner as maintenance till attaining majority and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) on or before the month of 31st of March every year for his education expenses.15 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014
The monetary relief under Sec.20 is hereby rejected.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of October, 2016) (SANTHOSH.M.S.) MMTC-III, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 Ashwini.G DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 Invitation card
Ex.P.2 ICICI Bank challan
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
RW.1 C.Ravindra Naidu
16 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Ex.R.1 Photo
Ex.R.2 CC of petition in HMOP No.30/2014
Ex.R.3 CC of order sheet in petition in
HMOP No.30/2014
Ex.R.4 CC of objection in HMOP No.30/2014
Ex.R.5 Medical documents
Ex.R.6 Rental agreement
Ex.R.7 ICICI Bank Account Extract.
MMTC-III, BENGALURU.
17 Crl.Misc.No.209/2014