Delhi District Court
Pinki @ Santosh @ Nandini W/O Sh. Deepak vs Sh. Deepak S/O Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla ... on 23 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS.TYAGITA SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 227/1/12
PS Naraina
ID No. 02405R0580512010
Pinki @ Santosh @ Nandini W/o Sh. Deepak
D/o Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o H.No. CB-384/4,
Opp. Indira Market,
Ring Road, Naraina
New Delhi .....Applicant
Versus
1. Sh. Deepak S/o Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla (husband)
2. Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla S/o Sh. Bhauri Lal Chawla (father-in-law)
3. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla (mother-in-law)
4. Smt. Nathi Devi D/o Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla (sister-in-law )
5. Smt. Mamta D/o Sh. Nanu Ram Chawla, (sister-in-law .....Respondents
All respondents are resident of:-
20/484, Trilok Puri, PS Mayur Vihar,
East Delhi-91
Date of Institution : 30.08.2010
Date of Order : 23.03.2013
Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 1 of 13
Judgment
Sh. Sidhnath Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for complainant
Sh. Jaswant Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondents
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 filed by applicant Smt. Pinki @ Santosh against her husband Sh. Deepak and her in laws. All the respondents were summoned in this case.
1. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the application are that the applicant has stated that she got married with respondent no. 1 on 06.02.2007 according to Hindu rites and customs at Delhi and one daughter named Honey was born out of this wedlock on 18.02.2008 who is in custody of the applicant.
2. The applicant has stated that her marriage was performed with great pomp and show as per the wishes of respondent and her parents spent huge amount of Rs. 5 lacs on the marriage and gave all the house hold articles and jewellery to her which was handed over to respondent no. 1 and his parents.
3. The applicant has stated that after her marriage, she was asked to perform all the household works including jharu pocha and washing clothes and cooking Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 2 of 13 Judgment food etc and she was being treated as maid servant, but she kept on tolerating all the ill treatment.
4. The applicant has stated that on 25.12.2007, her father went to her in laws house, and he was also ill treated and misbehaved with by her husband and in laws and her in laws expressed their dissatisfaction for the articles given in marriage and threatened that they will remarry their son Deepak. The applicant stated that since 25.12.2007, she is residing with her parents and her husband and in laws have not asked for the welfare of the applicant and all the expenses of delivery of the girl child were borne by her parents and her in laws and husband never came to bless the daughter.
5. The applicant stated that her life has been spoiled by her husband and in laws and they are planning to divorce her and get respondent no. 1 married to another girl. The applicant prayed that her husband has completely neglected her and her daughter.
6. The applicant has alleged that her husband is running a shop of sale and purchase of mobile phones in his house and earning about Rs. 25,000/- per month but applicant is not earning anything and it is difficult for her to maintain herself Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 3 of 13 Judgment and her child. The applicant further alleged that all her ornaments and stridhan is in custody of respondent. The applicant prayed for residence order and maintenance in tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
7. Domestic Incident report was filed by the Protection Officer. Respondent no. 1 filed reply to the application of applicant and denied all the allegations of Domestic Violence and harassment alleged by the applicant. Respondent no. 1 alleged that applicant herself is at fault and she is not ready to reside with the respondent no.1 and she picked up quarrels on petty matters and rushed to her parental house many times and respondent no. 1 and his parents always brought her back to matrimonial home and at the pressurizing of applicant, respondent no. 1 had to live in separate house, but there also, applicant used to quarrel with respondent no. 1 and never provided food to him and ultimately on one night, she deserted respondent no. 1 at about 3 am in the morning and went back to her parental home with all the gold and silver ornaments.
8. Respondent no. 1 further replied that on the next day, he alongwith his parents and other respectable persons went to the parental house of applicant to request her to join matrimonial home, but she flatly refused and alleged that the child is also not of respondent no. 1 and she threatened that she will implicate him Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 4 of 13 Judgment in false cases. The respondent no. 1 replied that applicant threatened him that her father is in Delhi Police and she will implicate all the respondents in false criminal cases.
9. The respondent no. 1 further alleged that due to this threat of applicant, he lodged complaint in PS Mayur Vihar Phase-I vide DD no. 35A dated 08.02.2008 and another complaint vide DD no. 15B dated 13.03.2010 when father of applicant visited the house of respondent no. 1 and extended threats to him.
10. Respondent no. 1 further stated in his reply that he is still ready and willing to keep the applicant with him as his wife and is ready to maintain her and the daughter. Respondents no. 2 to 5 filed a separate reply to the application, denying all allegations of complainant per se.
11. The Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 23.09.2011 had dismissed the interim application u/s 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 on the ground that applicant has not been able to prima facie establish commission of domestic violence upon her by respondent no. 1.
12. Vide order dated 04.06.2012, the Ld. Predecessor Court modified the order Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 5 of 13 Judgment dated 23.09.2011 and directed the respondent to secure an alternative accommodation for the applicant or in the alternate to pay rent of Rs. 4,000/- to the applicant for arranging alternative accommodation for herself. During pendency of proceedings, the respondent no. 1 brought copy of Rent Deed dated 25.08.2012 to show that he had taken one room set on rent at Trilok Puri for the complainant in compliance of order of Ld. Predecessor Court dated 04.06.2012 but the complainant refused to stay in the said rented accommodation.
13. Complainant led her evidence as CW1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A. In her affidavit, she reiterated the facts mentioned in her complaint which have already been discussed above. She exhibited copy of FIR no. 162/2010 dated 19.10.2010 PS CWC Nanak Pura u/s 498-A/406 IPC to show that due to the cruelty and harassment committed by her husband and in laws, she had lodged FIR in the police station u/s 498-A/406 IPC.
14. She also exhibited the sketch of two houses no. 20/484 and 20/14, Trilok Puri, JJ Colony as Ex.CW1/2 and Ex.CW1/3 and stated that house no. 20/484 comprising of three floors is in name of her father-in-law Nanu Ram Chawla and house no. 20/14 comprising of four floors is in name of her mother-in-law Smt. Shanti Devi. She also exhibited copy of list of her ornaments / stridhan as Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 6 of 13 Judgment Ex.CW1/4.
15. During her cross-examination, CW1 Pinki @ Santosh stated that she was not working at the time of marriage and her father was in Delhi Police and mother was housewife at that time. CW1 stated that she lived at house no. 20/484, Trilok Puri and at house no. 20/14, Trilok Puri Delhi from February 2007 to December 2007 and her in laws were also living in the same house. She stated that she did not remember any date when the respondent and his family members quarreled and abused her. She stated that she had not informed her parents regarding the abuse and quarrel by her husband and in laws. She stated that on 25.12.2007, when her father came to her matrimonial house, she went alongwith her father but did not take any article when she left the matrimonial house. She stated that on the day of karwachauth in October 2007, her husband gave her beatings and at that time her in laws were also there but she did not give any complaint to police about this incident. She stated that she was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital by her mother-in-law on that day for treatment but she did not inform her parents about the incident and about the fact that she was taken to hospital. She stated that she informed her husband many times to take her to matrimonial home but he did not give any response. She stated that she had filed FIR no. 162/10 PS CWC Nanak Pura u/s 498-A/406 IPC and another case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. She admitted Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 7 of 13 Judgment that she did not have any photographs of the articles given to respondent and she did not have any receipt of gold articles and other articles mentioned in list Ex.CW1/4. She admitted that documents CW1/3 was not verified by any competent authority. She admitted that she does not have any documentary proof of income of her husband. She denied the suggestion that she does not want to join matrimonial house.
16. CW2 Sh. Ghanshyam i.e. father of applicant exhibited his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.CW2/A and exhibited documents from Ex.CE1 to 10 and Mark A to D. Ex.CE1 to 4 are documents pertaining to statement of amount received from Saving and loan amounting to Rs. 4,88,884/- which was spent in the marriage of applicant. Ex.CE1/5 are the photographs of marriage. Ex.CE6 to 10 are documents and medical OPD card of CW2 Ghanshyam. In his cross-examination, CW2 stated that his daughter had not told him about torture and ill- treatment given by her in laws. He denied the suggestion that he and his daughter Pinki filed this case falsely just to extort money from the respondent.
17. Respondent no. 1 Sh. Deepak tendered his affidavit as RW1/A. He was duly cross examined and discharged. In his cross-examination, RW1 Sh. Deepak admitted the date of his marriage and the date of birth of the girl child who was Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 8 of 13 Judgment born from this marriage. He stated that complainant is residing with her parents from June 2007 and she had taken her jewellery articles i.e. chutki of silver, silver pajeb, gold nose pin and artificial mangalsutra and cash of Rs. 4 to 5,000/- alongwith her. He stated that complainant had left the matrimonial home at 3 am in night in June 2007 but he does not remember the exact date. He stated that he did not make any call to police regarding this incident. He denied the suggestion that property of his father has been transferred in his name after his father's death. He denied the suggestion that he is running mobile shop. He also denied the suggestion that he is earning about Rs. 60,000/- per month as rent from his two houses. He denied the suggestion that he has two houses. He further denied the suggestion that he had demanded car and plot from his father-in-law. He stated that he earns about Rs. 2000/- to 2500/- per month by private labour. He categorically stated that he does not want to keep the complainant in his house and he does not want reside with her as she has falsely implicated him in various cases. He stated that he lodged various complaints against complainant but admitted that he had not filed any copy of such complaint on record. He stated that the father of complainant used to demand Rs. 5 lacs from him and threatened to implicate him in false cases. He stated that he is ready to take the custody of his daughter. He admitted that his elder sister Nita who is widow is residing at House no. 20/484, JJ Colony, Trilok Puri with her three children and the house was given Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 9 of 13 Judgment by his father. He also admitted that his second sister Mamta is divorcee and residing at first floor of house no. 20/484, JJ Colony, Trilok Puri. He denied the suggestion that he is not residing at rented house no. 18/430, Trilok Puri, Delhi. He stated that he is residing at rented house since February 2007 but admitted that he does not have any voter I card of this address.
18. After closure of RE, final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today.
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
During final arguments, the respondent no. 1 argued that he is paying maintenance amount of Rs. 2000/- awarded by another court in petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but he did not file any copy of the order or any receipt showing that he was making payment to complainant regularly. The complainant kept on arguing that respondent no. 1 is not paying any amount despite order by the court u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Copy of order of the said court was not filed by either of the parties. Though, the complainant has not mentioned any specific date on which cruelty was committed upon her by respondents but the very fact that FIR no. 162/10 PS CWC Nanak Pura u/s 498-A/406 IPC has been lodged against the respondents is sufficient to prove that cruelty and harassment was being committed by Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 10 of 13 Judgment respondents upon complainant due to which FIR was lodged. Moreover, respondent no. 1 had himself admitted that complainant left the matrimonial home at 3 am in night in June 2007 alone after hiring a three wheeler, this admission itself suggests that cruelty and harassment to such an extent may have been caused by respondent no.1 which compelled the complainant to leave the matrimonial house at such late hour in the night. No sane woman would have left her matrimonial house alone at night time if she had been very happy in her matrimonial home and if there was no dispute and no domestic violence being committed against her. Moreover, the fact that the girl child of complainant was born on 18.02.2008 at the time when she was residing at her parental home and despite the birth of the child, respondent no. 1 did not make any effort to bring the complainant back to matrimonial home and to take his responsibility and legal liability to maintain his wife and child, also speaks volumes about domestic violence committed upon complainant by the respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has not placed on record any document to show that he had made any efforts for settlement of the matrimonial dispute and for bringing complainant back to his home.
Rather, the respondent no. 1 categorically stated in his cross-examination that he will not keep the complainant in his home. Moreover, the admission of respondent no. 1 that his two sisters are residing in the house provided by his Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 11 of 13 Judgment father, clearly shows that respondent no. 1 and his parents had made so much of efforts for maintenance of their daughters but they have not made any effort for reconciliation with complainant and for maintenance of complainant and the small child. This constructive desertion and non fulfillment of the obligation for maintaining his wife and child itself amounts to domestic violence on part of respondent no. 1. hence, on the basis of above stated facts and circumstances, this court is of opinion that respondent no. 1 has committed domestic violence against complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as an aggrieved person under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
MONETARY RELIEF The applicant has reasonably proved as per burden of proof of balance of probabilities, that Domestic Violence in various forms was being committed against her. During final arguments, the complainant asserted that in another case u/s 125 Cr.P.C., respondent no. 1 was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month to the complainant but he has failed to pay any amount. Respondent no. 1 failed to show any document to prove that he was paying the interim maintenance awarded by another court, regularly. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that respondent no. 1 is earning about Rs. 60,000/- per month. Hence, keeping in view the fact that the respondent no. 1 is an able bodied and healthy man and he is legally liable to maintain his wife and small girl child, his income is Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 12 of 13 Judgment assessed at about Rs. 8,500/- per month and he is directed to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to the complainant / applicant for her maintenance and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant for the maintenance of girl child. The respondent no. 1 is directed to pay the above said maintenance from the date of filing application i.e. from 30.08.2010 till subsistence of marriage or till the life time of applicant whichever is earlier and he is further directed to pay maintenance to the child from 30.08.2010 till her attainment of age of majority. Respondent no.1 is directed to pay all the arrears of maintenance within 6 months from date of order. The respondent no. 1 is further directed to pay monthly maintenance as awarded in this order, by 10th day of every month from the month of April 2013 onwards.
LITIGATION EXPENSES Respondent no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the applicant.
In the given facts and circumstances, no other order needs to be passed and no order against other respondents is required to be passed. The interim order dated 04.06.2012 stands vacated since the final order has been passed today. The application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 stands disposed off. Copy of order be given to both the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (TYAGITA SINGH)
on 23rd March, 2013 MM-1/MAHILA COURT/DWARKA COURTS
Pinki @ Santosh v. Deepak & Ors. Page 13 of 13
Judgment