Bangalore District Court
Sendhil Kumar vs K Latha on 22 December, 2025
1
Crl.A.No.1548/2024
KABC010244722024
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CRL.A.NO.1548 / 2024
APPELLANT/S SENDHIL KUMAR
S/O LAKSHMANASRI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.H12,
SRI VIDYA APARTMENTS,
WEST MAMBALAM,
CHENNAI - 600 033.
(BY SRI.S.HEMANTH, ADV.)
Versus
RESPONDENT SMT.K.LATHA D/O S. KUMAR
AGD ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.1, 2ND CROSS,
MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
PALACE GUTTAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
(BY SRI. K.M. ADV.)
2
Crl.A.No.1548/2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 29 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'PWDV Act') challenging the order dated 02.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.65/2018 by the learned JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru, wherein the respondent No.1 directed to pay amount of Rs.40 lakhs towards compensation to the petitioner.
2. The parties are referred to their ranks as referred in trial court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioner has filed the petition u/S.12 of PWDV Act against the respondent No.1 to 5, claiming the reliefs such as the monetary relief of Rs.50,000/-p.m. u/s/20 of the Act, compensation and damages for mental torture and emotional distress u/S.22 of the Act and residence order and also prays to direct the respondents to return of her jewels and belongings. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition in part, and awarded, only compensation amount by declining to grant other reliefs, such as maintenance, residential order and return of jewels and belonging of the 3 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order passed by the trial court. The respondent No.1 has challenged the order by preferring this appeal and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on the following grounds.
4. The grounds urged in the appeal, is briefly stated as follows.
The order of the trial court is not sustainable in law or on facts. Hence, the same is liable to be modified. The petitioner had lied in her affidavit that she is not gainfully employed, but her bank statement submitted before the trial court shows the salary credited in her bank account. This is observed by the trial court in the order at para 61. The petitioner in her assets and liability affidavit statement that she is unemployed. However, the truth is that she is working in M/s. Login Infotech Private Limited, No.63, 2 nd Floor, 1st Main road, Seshadripuram, Bengaluru - 560 020. Her previous job was with M/s Cult Fitness R.T. Nagar,, first floor, Phase-3, beside Empire Restaurant, Krishnappa Block, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. The complainant had dishonestly 4 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 concealed her employment status to misuse the welfare legislation and to harass the respondent. The respondent has filed perjury application, however, the trial court refused to accept the application filed by the respondent. The complainant resides with her parents, but she had wrongly deposed in the assets and liability affidavit that she is paying rent. Further without any iota of truth she states that she had borrowed Rs. 15 lakhs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that false assertions should be discouraged by parties while they come to the court seeking reliefs. He quoted judgment between SMT. RITU @ RIDHIMA & ANOTHER VS. SANDEEP SINGH SANGWAN cited in 2022 LIVELAW (PH) 44. The petitioner is misusing the welfare legislation. The petitioner has lied before the trial court about dowry harassment in Tirupur, Tamil Nadu. Her story that she was thrownout by the respondent parents is all lie. In fact, she did not like to stay with the respondent and his parents. As a result, she voluntarily left and filed baseless complaint and First Information Report . The respondent and his family members are acquitted from the complaint and First Information Report filed by the petitioner against 5 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 them before the All Women Police Station , Tirupur, Tamil Nadu which was registered as Cr.No.432/2017 and later registered as C.C.No.90/2018 ended in acquittal. The respondent No.1 did not demand any dowry. Further no gold ornaments were given by the petitioner family. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 took care of marriage expenses including giving gold neck-chain of 53 grams along with Mangalyam and 4 bangles (56 grams of gold). Further the respondent No.1 had spent Rs.50,000/- towards clothing of the petitioner during marriage. The petitioner refused to have any physical intimacy with the respondent No.1 on their first night after the marriage. She informed that the respondent No.1 is not attracting for her. The petitioner informed that she does not want to have any child through the respondent No.1. The petitioner has made false allegations of impotency against the respondent No.1. The trial court itself observed that in total the petitioner and the respondent No.1 lived together for a couple of weeks. The petitioner voluntarily separated from the respondent No.1. When such being the case, whey the respondent should pay huge compensation of Rs.40 lakhs. When the petitioner is 6 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 not interested in her husband respondent No.1, whey the respondent No.1 shall pay the compensation of Rs.40 lakhs. But the trial court wrongly concludes that the petitioner lost her valuable life for 8 years. She lived with the respondent No.1 for few weeks and with respondent No.1 parents for around a month. In fact, the respondent No.1 also suffered without the companion and sex and the petitioner was informed that the respondent No.1 first marriage was declared null and void by the Hon'ble Sub-Court of Tirupuru, Tamil Nadu bearing case No.HMOP No.302/2013. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent No.1 had specifically informed to the petitioner. Further the respondent No.1 had given copy of judgment to the petitioner before the marriage. The petitioner misused the information and document and stated that the she did not know about the previous divorce and suffered trauma, but she has able to produce the copies including previous legal notice (which had received from the respondent No.1 before marriage).
5. The respondent No.1 did not have any demand before 7 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 marriage and even after marriage. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 himself gifted the petitioner with gold neck chain of 53 grams along with Mangalyam and 4 bangles (56 grams) and all these ornaments are still with her. The petitioner is also holding i-Phone and laptop gifted by the respondent No.1 to her. The petitioner went to Tamil Nadu TV Polimer and got a episode telecasted in Polimer TV channel against the respondent and portrayed respondent wrongful manner and defamed the respondents, further the telecast was again uploaded to YouTube channel and made available to public and the link YouTube channel youtu.be/on/UOFBQUodc. It is the respondent who should be compensated for having lost his valuable life for 8 years and he is harassed by the petitioner unnecessarily. The trial court did not take into consideration total sum of Rs.2,47,000/- paid by the respondent in favour of the petitioner as an interim maintenance amount. The order of the trial court is based on insufficient discussion, surmises and assumptions and liable to be set aside. The impugned order is otherwise opposed to law, probabilities involved in the case, perverse, capricious and lack cogent reasoning 8 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 and is unsustainable in law. Hence, on these grounds, the respondent No.1 prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the trial court in Crl.Misc.No.65/2018.
6. The petitioner entered appearance by engaging her counsel.
7. The trial court records received.
8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the records.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also filed written arguments. He has produced copy of judgment passed in C.C.No.90/2018 along with translated copy.
10. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
Point No.1 Whether the impugned order passed u/S.22 of PWEV Act to pay compensation to the petitioner is illegal, perverse and calls for interference?
Point No.2: Whether there is sufficient grounds made out by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.65/2018, as prayed for?
Point No.3: What order?9
Crl.A.No.1548/2024
11. My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1 In the NEGATIVE.
Point No.2 In the NEGATIVE.
Point No.3: As per the final order, for the
following
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1& 2: Prior to proceed further, it is
important to note the undisputed facts in this case. The
marriage of the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 11.03.2016 at Avinashi Lingeswara Temple, at Avinashi, Tamil Nadu. It was arranged marriage. As on the date of marriage, the respondent No.1 was working in USA. He came to India for this marriage purpose taking leave for 15 days and soon after his marriage, he went to USA. It is not in dispute that the petitioner went to matrimonial home and stayed along with parents of the respondent No.1 for few months. After several issues between the parties the petitioner was taken to USA, ultimately on 21.08.2017. But the petitioner was in USA for only one week. The petitioner by making allegations against the respondent No.1 that she was wrongfully confined in a separate room and subjected 10 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 cruelty by the respondent No.1. Hence, with great difficult she contacted USA Police. Thereafter the respondent No.1 by making flight ticket sent her to India. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed criminal case against the respondent No.1 and his parents and relatives i.e. respondents No.2 to 5 in Cr.No.32/2017 which registered as C.C.No.90/2018. Keeping all these in mind, now what are the allegations made against the respondent No.1 by the petitioner is to be looked into and what are the defence taken by the respondent No.1 can be looked into.
13. On perusal of the trial court records, it would go to show that the petitioner had filed her assets and liability statement in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJANEESH VS. NEHA. But the respondent No.1 who was bound to file his assets and liability statement failed to submit the same before the trial court. Thereby the respondent suppressed his assets and liabilities. The impugned order passed by the trial court is very clear that since the respondent No.1 has failed to submit his assets and liability statement, the trial court 11 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 forced to take adverse inference against him. The respondent No.1 / appellant by suppressing all his income and expenditure statement now in this appeal would contend that the petitioner in her assets and liability statement given false information. Such contention taken by the appellant in this appeal is like he is sitting in the glasshouse throwing stone to others. If at all the appellant approached the court with clean hands, he should have filed his assets and liability statement and then he could point out finger towards the petitioner stating that she has suppressed regarding her income. Even otherwise, these points are not so relevant to decide this appeal, because the trial court has not awarded any maintenance amount, residence amount to the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the trial court. Hence, in this appeal we can restrict the finding only regarding whether the compensation amount awarded by the trial court is correct or not.
14. It is the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 by suppressing the earlier marriage of the respondent 12 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 No.1 did marriage of respondent No.1 with petitioner. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No.1 is divorcee and his first marriage was ended in divorce only when the respondent No.5 misbehaved with her and he was told her that the respondent No.1 is impotent. It is the case of the petitioner is that the marriage was not at all consummated and the respondent No.1 avoided physical contact soon after marriage on the ground that it will be complicate to departure to USA and even if she conceive it will become hurdle for VISA process. Hence, she agreed for the respondent demand and did not press for physical relationship at that time. The petitioner alleged that the respondent prior to marriage has arranged honeymoon trip to Ooty, though the marriage was not consummated they went to Honeymoon as planned and there was no cohabitation in the honeymoon trip. Later she came to know that the said trip was also arranged in order to make believe among family members that the marriage between them is smooth and harmonious. The petitioner also alleges that she insisted for registration of marriage. Then the respondent No.1 assured that the marriage receipt issued 13 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 by the temple is sufficient for VISA process and advised her it is not necessary and later the respondent departed to USA on 26.03.2016 leaving the petitioner to her parental home in Bengaluru and assured that he will secure VISA for her at the earliest and arrange for her union with him within short period. But the respondent No.1 did not stand by his words and did not made any attempts to process for VISA. Later on the advise of the respondent No.1 the petitioner moved to matrimonial home at Tirupur. At that time, the respondents No.4 and 5 were also residing along with respondents No.2 and 3. The respondent No.1 did not make any process for VISA and directed the petitioner to take up a TOFEL course. Hence, she joined TOFEL course. Whenshe was staying in matrimonial home, the respondents No.2 to 5 were also harassed her and subjected her to cruelty. They demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs. The 5 th respondent who is the husband of sister of respondent No.1 started misbehaving with the petitioner and instigated the remaining respondents to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was subjected to harassment in the hands of the respondents. There are series of incidents of harassment 14 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 meet out to her by the respondents. She further averred in her petition that after the series of incidents the respondent No.1 rushed to India in February 2017. On 28.02.20107 the respondent No.1 registered marriage with the Registrar of Marriages and left to USA on 04.03.2017 with the assurance that VISA will be arranged for her at the earliest and he was not able to do process due to non-availability of marriage certificate. On these assurances the petitioner believed him and started residing in India. Soon after the respondent No.1 left for USA, the respondents No.2 to 5 started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. When the harassment reach to peak the petitioner moved to Bengaluru to her parental house. In the meantime, the respondent conveyed message of VISA is ready and booked fight ticket and hence, with fond hope she will lead harmonious life she boarded flight to USA and arrived USA on 21.08.2017. But nobody came to Airport to take her and with lot of struggle she reached the respondent from the Airport. When she moved to USA, to her utter shock the respondent No.1 started assaulting her and openly started saying that he brought her to USA not to lead harmonious 15 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 life, but to show her hell. He subjected her physical harassment. The respondent No.1 wrongfully confined her in a single room and was not provided opportunity to go out. All her connectivity to the outer world was disconnected. The respondent No.1 used to visit her once in 3 - 4 days and that too for 20 minutes. During his visit he used to enquire when she will be leaving to India. The respondent No.1 has confiscated passport of the petitioner and started ill-treating her to next level. The petitioner who was unable to bear torture and assault in the fear of life she somehow managed to contact the USA police and informed about the ill-treatment meted to her. Upon the complaint the USA police intervened and then respondent No.1 tried to patch up the things by saying that this is a matrimonial dispute and he immediately arranged ticket for the petitioner to travel back to India. The USA police directed the petitioner to sort out differences as per Indian law. Hence, immediately after return to India, she has lodged her complaint before Vyalikaval Police Station , but the police directed her to lodge a complaint in Tirupur, where she resides. Hence, she lodged complaint in All women Police 16 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 Station at Tirupur.
15. The petitioner in her petition would contend that the respondents have suppressed regarding previous marriage of the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is impotent, hence, he has not cohabited with the petitioner. The petitioner would contend that her life is ruined by the respondent in all aspects. In her petition she has stated several incidents of domestic violence. She would contend that the respondent No.1 who is earning sum of Rs.15 lakhs per month also having several immovable and movable properties.
16. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 in his objection statement has denied all the averments made in the petition by contending that the entire petition averments are false. The allegations of the domestic violence are denied as false. He would contend that the petitioner has suppressed materials facts and approached the court with unclean hands. He has taken contention that prior to marriage he was intimated the petitioner about 17 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 divorce with his first wife by providing copy of the petition. He has not concealed anything with the petitioner with regarding to his first marriage. He would contend that he has not taken dowry and not demanded dowry. His contention is that after the marriage, the petitioner refused to have physical intimacy with him by stating that he has not attractive and she has no intention to have children through him. Since his return journey to USA was already scheduled, hence, he left the petitioner in her parental home at Bengaluru and returned to USA. He has denied the allegations that he has subjected the petitioner to cruelty in USA. His contention is that the petitioner herself did not like him and not intends to lead marital life has lodged false complaint to the police. He has denied all the allegations made against him.
17. The petitioner who has examined herself as PW1 before the trial court in her examination in-chief reiterated the petition averments and deposed regarding physical and mental cruelty subjected to her by the respondents. She has also deposed regarding the respondent suppressed the 18 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 earlier marriage. She has deposed regarding domestic violence meted to her by the respondents at Tirupur by the respondents No.2 to 5 as well as domestic violence by the respondent No.1 in USA. The documents Ex.P1 to P6 are marked through PW1. Ex.P1 is the marriage card, Ex.P2 is the marriage photo, Ex.P3 is the marriage registration certificate, Ex.P4 copy of legal notice dated 20.09.2017 issued by the earlier wife to the respondent No.1. Ex.P5 copy of divorce petition filed by earlier wife against respondent No.1 to Tirupur court, Ex.P6 copy of counter statement to the divorce petition by the respondent No.1. During the course of cross examination of PW1 she has denied the suggestion that the respondents told her regarding divorce of his previous marriage. She has deposed that after her marriage she lived with the respondent No.1 totally for 30 days. She has admitted the suggestion that no physical cohabitation taken place between her and the respondent No.1 at any point of time. She has admitted suggestion that after her marriage when they were residing in Coimbatore for 30 days, they were lived separately. She has denied the suggestion that she voluntarily left the 19 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 company of the respondent No.1 to India from USA. She has denied the suggestion that the respondents have not given any ill-treatment to her, while she was residing in the matrimonial home. She has admitted suggestion that respondent did not have any physical cohabitation till today. She has denied all other suggestion made to her. Thus, on plain reading of the cross examination portion of PW1, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 made suggestion to her that the respondent No.1 not had any physical cohabitation with her at any point of time. When the respondent No.1 himself admitted by making suggestion to PW1 that he had not made any cohabitation, it is for him to explain why he had not made physical contact with the petitioner. The petitioner has made allegation against the respondent that he is impotent. In order to substantiate this contention taken by the petitioner, she has relied on the document Ex.P4 copy of notice dated 20.09.2013 issued by the previous wife of the respondent No.1 to the respondents wherein she has made clear allegations against the respondent No.1 is that he is impotent. In her Ex.P4 notice, earlier wife has clearly stated that there was no physical 20 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 union or even any physical intimacy between her and the respondent No.1. Ex-wifealso made allegations that even during honeymoon trip it was one Bob who stayed in her husband's room (respondent No.1 room) and not her. She has made allegations that there had serious doubt on the sexual orientation of the respondent No.1 and suspect that the respondent No.1 is a homosexual relationship with Bob. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the divorce petition filed by the earlier wife of the respondent No.1, wherein she has made allegations that her husband respondent No.1 is impotent. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the counter statement filed by the respondent No.2 wherein he has not specifically denied the allegations made against him regarding his impotency. No doubt he has made general denial.
18. Now coming to the evidence of RW1 is concerned, in his examination in-chief affidavit he has reiterated his objection statement. The document Ex.R1 to R11 are marked through RW1. It is pertinent to note that RW1 was not tendered himself for complete cross examination. When the cross examination of RW1 deferred, thereafter from 21 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 08.02.2023 he was not at attended before the trial court in order to tender himself for further cross examination. On perusal of the oral evidence of RW1, no such explanation for non-cohabitation with the petitioner is forthcoming from his evidence. RW1 has deposed that his earlier marriage dissolved due to mutual consent. He has not produced certified copy of the dissolution of marriage order passed by the court. If at all it was otherwise, than the reasons stated in Ex.P4 notice and Ex.P5 petition. The respondent No.1 should have shown the same before the court why his earlier marriage was dissolved. As I already noted, it is mentioned in Ex.P4 notice and Ex.P5 petition his earlier wife clearly stated that he is impotent and there was no sexual orientation. If the petitioner for the first time making allegations against the respondent No.1 is that he is impotent, then the court may have doubt or in order to ascertain the same, further evidence may be required, but in this case, undisputedly, earlier marriage of the respondent No.1 ended in divorce and earlier wife also made allegations against the respondent is that he was not at all cohabited with her also. If at all RW1 is potent and 22 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 capable of having capacity of intercourse, he should have explained the reason for not having intercourse with the petitioner after marriage. It is not the contention of the respondent No.1 is that the petitioner is having any physical or mental disability to perform her marriage duties. When the petitioner pointed out finger towards respondent No.1 that he is impotent, it is for the respondent No.1 to prove that he is potent. But in the present case, the respondent No.1 not only non-complied direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaneesh Vs. Neha by filing assets and liability statement, but also after the evidence is commenced he was not tendered himself for full cross examination. RW1 partly cross examined on the side of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main document relied upon by the petitioner is that Ex.P3 marriage registration certificate, wherein the marital status before the date of marriage of the respondent No.1 is shown as 'Bachelor'. This document Ex.P3 itself is sufficient to hold that the respondent No.1 suppressed regarding his earlier marriage and married the petitioner. At one stretch the respondent No.1 would contend that he has informed the 23 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 petitioner regarding earlier marriage and another stretch he would contend that he was continuously working in USA. RW1 in his evidence has deposed that 15 days prior to his marriage with the petitioner he informed her regarding his divorce of his previous marriage. It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.1 has not produced copy of his passport and VISA in order to show when he left India and returned back from USA. If at all prior to 15 days of his marriage, he returned to India and informed about his previous marriage to the petitioner, he should have produced copy of passport and VISA to show that he returned to India 15 days back of his marriage. In his oral evidence, he has stated that he came to India for 15 days for his marriage. Thereafter he left India and went to USA. Under such circumstances, there was no chance of informing the petitioner about his previous marriage. If at all the respondent No.1 approached the court with clean hands, he should have produced copy of the passport, VISA, bank statement and other documents. But in the present case, the respondent No.1 has withhold all these documents such as copy of passport, VISA and the bank statements and other documents. The very entry in 24 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 Ex.P3 wherein it is mentioned by him as 'Bachelor' is sufficient to hold that the respondent No.1 has suppressed his marital status before the date of marriage with the petitioner. The oral evidence of PW1 which is supported by the documents, Ex.P4 copy of legal notice issued by previous wife against the respondent No.1, are sufficient to hold that for the reasons that the respondent No.1 is impotent, his previous wife sought relief to declare the marriage solemnized between her and respondent No.1 as null and void. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent No.1 concealed his previous marriage and due to his defect he could not have physical contact with the petitioner which leads mental trauma to the petitioner. There is also clear evidence on the side of the petitioner to show that the respondents given her ill treatment and there is domestic violence. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that u/S.3 of PWDV Act there are 5 types of domestic violence. Even though in this case, there is no documents to show that there was physical assault made to the petitioner, but mental cruelty to the petitioner cannot be ruled out.
25
Crl.A.No.1548/2024
19. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 produced certified copy of the judgment passed in C.C.No.90/2018 along with translated copy. No doubt, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable u/Ss.498A, 506, 394B of IPC. It is now settled principle of law is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in the criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the cases like this filed u/S.12 of PWDV Act, the burden to prove is preponderance of probabilities. Under such circumstances merely because the respondents being acquitted for the offences u/Ss.498A, 506, 394B of IPC that does not presupposes that they have not committed domestic violence. The oral evidence of PW1 is sufficient to hold that she has undergone mental trauma at the hands of the respondents, especially at the hands of respondent No.1. So far as income of the respondent No.1 is concerned, admittedly he was working as Engineer in USA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajaneesh Vs. Neha and Another case, given general direction to all the courts in India by exercising power u/Art. 138 r/w Art.142 of Constitution to file affidavit of assets and liability annexed at documents, I, II 26 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 and III of the judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed that if the respondent delays in filing reply with affidavit and if the conduct of the respondent is found to be willful and contemptuous in delaying the proceedings, the court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the appellant and pleadings on record. In the present case, the trial court record would go to show that, despite sufficient opportunity given to the respondent No.1, he has not filed his assets and liability statement. Since the respondent No.1 is working in USA, the trial court has rightly assessed his income as more than Rs.4 lakhs per month. Since there is a proof that the valuable life of the petitioner has lost almost for 8 years, she is suffering physical trauma, she has deprived of sexual pleasure, physical intimacy with the respondent No.1 she has lost bliss of marriage due to act of the respondent No.1. For any ladies, the age between 28 to 40 is very important. But the petitioner has suffered very much emotionally and put to trauma in this case. If at all the petitioner was at fault there was no chance of her going to her matrimonial home and staying along with the parents 27 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 of respondent No.1. At the advise of the respondent No.1 the petitioner was also joined course TOEFL course. She has also went USA in order to join the respondent No.1, but she has faced harassment all the way while staying with the respondent No.1. The provision u/S.22 of PWDV deals with passing of order directing the respondent to pay compensation or damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondents. In the present case petitioner has clearly deposed regarding how she has subjected domestic violence at the hands of respondent No.1. She has deprived of enjoyment of marital pleasure from the day one of her marriage. She has suffered a lot from the date of her marriage. We cannot calculate the suffering of the petitioner by way of money. When compared income of the respondent No.1 this court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs.40 lakhs awarded towards compensation is not exorbitant. It is based on correct reasoning passed by the trial court. The compensation is awarded by taking into consideration of agony which the petitioner has undergone in matrimonial 28 Crl.A.No.1548/2024 home and suffering which she has faced till date. Any payments made by the respondents towards interim maintenance cannot be deducted from this amount. The trial court has rightly fixed the compensation amount of Rs.40 lakhs payable to the petitioner. The order passed by the trial court is correct and requires no interference. Hence, I answer Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
20. POINT NO.3:- In view of my findings on Point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The Criminal appeal filed by the appellant U/s.29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby DISMISSED.
The order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.65/2018 is hereby CONFIRMED.
The office is directed to send TCR with a copy of this judgment to the trial court for information. [Dictated to the stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, transcript revised and modified and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of DECEMBER 2025] (MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.