Delhi District Court
Exparte Judgment vs . on 24 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
CC No. 153/1/12
U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Unique ID No. 02405R0113922012
Smt. Roma
W/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar@ Mahipal
D/o Sh. Subodh Lal
R/o 239, Durga Vihar, Phase-II,
Block-D, Near Satsang Bhawan,
Najafgarh, New Delhi .....Complainant
Vs.
1. Sh. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal (Husband of complainant)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
2. Smt. Suman (Nanad)
W/o Sh. Pradeep
3. Sh. Pradeep (Brother-in-law of Rajesh i.e. husband of R2)
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash (dropped vide order dated 20.07.2013)
4. Sh. Pawan (Brother-in-law of Rajesh i.e. Devar of R2)
S/o Sh. Ved Prakash (dropped vide order dated 20.07.2013)
All R/o C-34, Rajendra Park,
Gurgaon, Haryana .....Respondents
Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 1 of 7
Exparte Judgment Date of Institution : 05.06.2012 Date on which judgment reserved : 08.01.2014 Date of Judgment : 24.03.2014 Sh. R.K. Dixit, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Amit Kumar Tanwar, Ld. Counsel for respondents. Respondent Exparte EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this exparte judgment, I shall dispose off application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short D.V. Act) filed by complainant Smt. Roma against her husband Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal and in-laws.
2. The complainant has stated in her complaint / application u/s 12 D.V. Act that she was married to respondent no. 1 Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal on 12.03.2011 at Ghaneshwar Mahadev Mandir, ISBT, Delhi and at the time of her marriage, her father had spent approximately Rs. Four Lacs in the marriage and also given Stridhan articles to her. Complainant has mentioned various incidents of cruelty, harassment and atrocities committed upon her by the respondents.
Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 2 of 7 Exparte Judgment
3. The complainant has stated that Pardeep and Pawan i.e. respondent no. 3 and 4 who are the brothers-in-law of respondent no. 1 used to come home after consuming liquor at late night and always used filthy language against the complainant. Complainant has also alleged that on 12.06.2011, she was seriously ill and her father and mother had come to see her, respondent no. 1 started shouting at them. Complainant further stated that on 05.08.2011 after consuming liquor, respondent no. 1 had badly beaten her in presence of respondent no. 3 and 4 and on 10.08.2011 also respondent no. 1 had beaten her with belt. Various other incidents of atrocities committed by respondents upon the complainant have been mentioned in the complaint.
4. The complainant has further stated that one female child namely Seema was born on 09.02.2012 who is in custody of complainant at present. Complainant stated that since 27.11.2011, she is residing with her parents alongwith her daughter. She has further stated that she has no source of income to maintain herself and her daughter and on the other hand her husband i.e. respondent no. 1 is earning more than Rs. 25000/- per month since he is an employee in Export Factory. Complainant has sought interim Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 3 of 7 Exparte Judgment maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month for herself and her child. The complainant has further stated that one FIR no. 59/12 PS Chhawla u/s 498 A/406/34 IPC is pending against the respondents.
5. Respondents have denied all the allegations of complainant in their written statement. Respondents have alleged that marriage between the complainant and respondent no. 1 was a love marriage and no articles were given at the time of marriage by her parents and no dowry demand was raised and the complainant has levelled frivolous allegations of cruelty and harassment against the respondents. The respondent no. 1 has denied that he is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Respondent no. 1 has not mentioned his income in his reply.
6. The counsel for respondents had filed application for dropping the proceedings against the respondent no. 2 to 4 and respondent no. 3 Pradeep and respondent no. 4 Pawan were dropped vide order dated 20.07.2013. The respondent no. 1 and 2 stopped appearing in court after filing reply and after interim order dated 21.02.2013, due to which respondent no. 1 was treated as exparte on 01.10.2013 and respondent no. 2 was treated Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 4 of 7 Exparte Judgment as exparte on 07.12.2013 and case was fixed for exparte evidence.
7. The complainant / CW1 Smt. Roma tendered her affidavit in exparte evidence as Ex. CW1/A and reiterated all the facts mentioned in her complaint in the affidavit also. CW1 exhibited the list of articles as Ex.CW1/1, marriage photograph as Ex.CW1/2, copy of Marriage certificate as Ex.CW1/3 (OSR), Marriage card as Ex.CW1/4, Bills of purchasing jewellery as Ex.CW1/5 (colly) (OSR), Delivery challan of motorcycle and payment receipts to Bajaj Finance Company as Ex.CW1/6 (colly), complaint before CAW Cell is Ex.CW1/7 (OSR) and copy of FIR no. 59/12 u/s 498-A/406 IPC as Ex.CW1/8.
8. After closure of complainant's evidence, exparte final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF
9. After hearing final arguments and perusal of entire evidence on record, this court is of the opinion that complainant has proved her case for grant of reliefs under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and the assertions of the complainant as mentioned in her complaint and Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 5 of 7 Exparte Judgment affidavit are deemed to be proved on the basis of balance of probabilities since all the assertions have remained unrebutted. Hence, complainant is held entitled for grant of relief in this case.
MONETARY RELIEF
10. The complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence regarding monthly income of respondent no. 1. Keeping in view the fact that respondent is a hale and hearty man and is liable to maintain his wife and daughter, his monthly income is assessed to be Rs. 10,000/- per month and respondent no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the complainant for her maintenance from the date of filing of application i.e. from 05.06.2012 till subsistence of the marriage or till life time of complainant. Respondent no. 1 is further directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to complainant for maintenance of the girl child namely Seema from date of filing of application i.e. 05.06.2012 till she attains age of majority. Respondent no. 1 is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within three months from the date of order and to pay monthly maintenance as accrued per month by the 10th day of every month.
Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 6 of 7 Exparte Judgment PROTECTION ORDER
11. Respondents are restrained from committing any further act of domestic violence against complainant or her daughter and not to cause any harassment or cruelty against complainant from date of this order onwards.
LITIGATION EXPENSES
12. Respondent no. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the applicant/complainant. No other relief has been pressed or warranted on behalf of complainant.
13. The application u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stands disposed off. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH ) TODAY ON 24th March 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka: New Delhi Smt. Roma Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Mahipal & Ors. Page 7 of 7 Exparte Judgment