Bangalore District Court
) Smt. A. Karpagam vs ) P.R. Ramesh Kumar on 23 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: SMT. LATHA DEVI G.A. BAL., LLB., LLM.
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2015
Crl.Misc.NO.68-2011
PETITIONER: 1) Smt. A. Karpagam
W/o P.R. Ramesh Kumar
D/o K. Arumugam,
Age: 35 years,
# 37, II Floor, I Cross,
V Main, SK Garden
Bension Town Post,
Bengalooru - 560046
VS.
RESPONDENT: 1) P.R. Ramesh Kumar
S/o J.P. Ravindran
Age: 36 years
2) J. P.Ravindran
S/o Late Palaniswamy
Age: 75 years
3) Chandravathanam,
W/o J.P. Ravindran
Age: 65 years
Sl.Nos.1-3 are residing at
# 37, Ground Floor, I cross,
V main, SK Garden,
Bension Town Post,
Bengalooru - 560 046
2 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
4) P.R. Suresh Kumar
S/o J.P. Ravindran
Age: 41 years
5) Poonam Suresh Kumar
W/o P.R. Suresh Kumar
Age: 33 years
Sl.Nos.3 & 4 are residing at
# 37, Ground Floor, I cross,
V main, SK Garden,
Bension Town Post,
Bengalooru - 560 046
***
ORDER
This is a petition filed U/s.12 of D.V.Act seeking for reliefs U/s.18, 19, 20, 22 of the D.V.Act.
2. This is a petition filed under provision of D.V.Act seeking for reliefs of protection order, monthly maintenance, compensation, not to alienate schedule property and for injunction against the respondent, with respect to schedule property.
3. THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER IS:
That the petitioner is legally wedded wife of respondent, married under special marriage act on 06-02-1997. That out 3 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 of the wedlock the petitioner has begot a son by name Kiran on 14-02-2000.
4. That the 2nd respondent is the father-in-law, 3rd respondent is brother-in-law of the petitioner and the 4th respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent. That the respondent is inflicting physical, mental, economical torture on the petitioner by doing the following acts
a) The respondent is involved in physical, sexual abuse and harassment.
b) The respondent always used vulgar words to abuse the petitioner not even bothering about the presence of the child, maid and other elderly members of the family.
c) The respondent always beated the petitioner demanding and extracting money, before the child having great effect on his growth; as a result of which, the child used to cry profusely and would often request his mother i.e., the petitioner to pay the money immediately to the first respondent to escape from the beating.
d) That the 1st respondent was always suspicious and never tolerated the petitioner's talking to even the neighbours, her brother-in-law, tenants or colleagues and also never used to bear even the good things of others.
e) The first respondent used to behave shabbily in front of the child.
4 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
f) The respondent never bothered the sexual requirement of the petitioner and on the contrary forced, harassed and tortured her physically to fulfill his desire.
g) The first respondent used to make vulgar comments and would ask his child to say the same before his teacher.
h) The first respondent had the habit of explaining bedroom maters to the maids and would always question them about the petitioner's whereabouts and the persons who visited the house and would always check her mobile.
i) The first respondent never allowed the petitioner and her son to have their lunch / dinner and would always distract them.
j) The respondent would always take names of the petitioner's family members, calling them as dogs'/ beggars' family and would always taunt the petitioner.
k) The first respondent never tolerated the petitioner's buying / wearing new clothes and only two clothes respondent had purchased for the petitioner in the past 11 years.
l) The first respondent often called to the office of the petitioner and spoke badly about petitioner and was telling the child that the child is not born to him.
m) The respondent always threatened the life and limb of the petitioner and her son.
n) The first respondent never bothered to take care of the interest of either the petitioner or her son and never has spent a rupee for the health or other requirement of the petitioner or her son. 5 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
o) The first respondent has often indulged in most unruly, unnatural and abnormal behaviour hurting the petitioner physically and mentally, which clearly indicates his sadistic nature.
p) The first respondent never bothered to join the petitioner or her son at bad times more in particular where the petitioner underwent operation due to accidents.
q) The first respondent often casts comments on her caste of the petitioner by saying "UNGA AMMA JAATI, UNGA AYYA JAATI" and threaten the petitioner saying that if petitioner abused him, he would be filing a case against the petitioner under SC / ST Act.
r) The first respondent always lied and never tolerated the petitioner enquiring about respondent whereabouts even at times when respondent comes late to the house.
s) Further more, the conduct and acts of the first respondent has affected the child and even the child has started to imitate him. That the respondent has married with an intention to make unlawful money from the petitioner. The respondent insisted the petitioner to spend her income for the maintenance of the family from the marriage till the date of the petition the respondent has extracted the petitioner's income to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-. The respondent being the father of the child Kiran has failed to discharge his duties towards the child by trying to inculcate abnormal behaviour in the child. The petitioner had to exert her labour at home and also at the working place, due to the harassment inflicted by the respondent petitioner intended to commit suicide.
6 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
5. That the 2nd respondent had executed a gift deed with respect to site property permitting his children to put up construction. Hence the petitioner and the respondent jointly had availed loan to put up house construction. The petitioner had also shared her savings for construction of the house with the said financial fund, house at 2nd floor consisting of two portions was constructed. One portion was let out for rent of Rs.7,950/- and the said rent is received by the 1st respondent. That the petitioner has shelled 75% of financial value for TVS scooty bearing registration No.KA-01/S-2242 which is standing in the name of Geetha i.e., cousin of respondent No.1. That the documents of the said vehicle are in the custody of the petitioner.
6. That on 30-08-2009 the respondent started to remove furnitures of the portion, in which the petitioner and her son were living, with an intention throw out the petitioner and her son. Hence the petitioner approached jurisdictional police. The police had advised to live separately hence the respondent started to live at the ground floor of the building in which the parents of respondent No.1 were living. The respondent No.4 7 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 & 5 abused and assaulted the petitioner with filthy language and asked the petitioner and her son to vacate the house. Hence the present petition.
7. OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO 5 IS:
That the respondent has admitted that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and that Kiran is the child of the petitioner and respondent No.1. The respondent contends that as he had a elder unmarried brother hence he had got registered the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1, but the petitioner had insisted for a Hindu Marriage ceremony though the petitioner knew the situation of respondent's family & had insisted for marriage ceremony prior to marriage of the respondent No.1's elder brother's marriage and had lodged a complaint before the J.C. Nagar police station. The petitioner was convinced hence the petitioner did not peruse the matter in the Police Station.
8. That the respondent No.1's parents after coming to know the register marriage, the respondent's parents had arranged marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 as per Hindu 8 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 Customs and had arranged reception in Ajantha hotel incurring all the marriage expenses.
9. That the respondent No.1 has aged parents suffering from aged related diseases. The parents of the respondent No.1 are residing in the ground floor, the brother of the respondent No.1 is residing in the 1st floor and the petitioner with the respondent No.1 was residing at 2nd floor. That the house of all the three as stated above has separate connections of water electricity and other necessities, hence there is no chance and scope for the remaining respondents to harass the petitioner. That the respondent's parents were suffering from aged related disease hence after 2008 the respondent had to bare the medical expenses of Rs.3,000/- towards the parents of the respondent.
10. That the respondent was looking after the educational expenses of the child and was maintaining the family by bearing expenses. The petitioner has spent her salary for household expenses and in repayment of loan of house construction. That for the benefit of family the respondent had obtained Kotak Life Insurance of Rs.14,00,000/-, ARC 9 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 Mediclaim for the benefit of petitioner and respondent of Rs.99,000/- was invested with Kotak Life Insurance under the plan of easy group with 5 times cover and the petitioner is made as a nominee for some assured being amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner subsequently stopped sharing her income towards the family maintenance and restricted her salary towards the education of her son of the personal expenses of the petitioner.
11. The respondent is belonging to S.C. community. The petitioner has failed to discharge her obligations as a dutiful wife in cooking food for the family and other daily activities required for the family maintenance. The petitioner spent her time over the phone talking to others and watching T.V. than sparing her time as a wife in discharging of matrimonial duty as a mother of the child and wife of the respondent No.1. The petitioner has failed to co-operate in leading marital sexual life with the respondent No.1 as a wife.
10 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
12. The respondent denies that he has harassed the petitioner by abusing with filthy words. With respect to private life of the petitioner and respondent, respondent contends that he has not abused the petitioner sexually. The petitioner did not like the taste of the respondent in purchasing of clothes by the respondent to the petitioner. The respondent questioned the petitioners involvement with Sam hence the petitioner threatened the respondent that she would reduce the 1st respondent into ashes and the building by leakage of the gas. Hence complaint was lodged by 2nd and 3rd respondent on 30-08-2009 before the J.C. Nagar Police Station against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent being the father-in-law had questioned the petitioner for having spent her time more over the phone with unknown person and reducing the image of family.
13. That the respondent had taken care of the medical expenses wherein the petitioner had underwent tumor operation, for operation undergone by the petitioner due to accident & for nourishment. That the parents of the respondent had taken care of the petitioner after the petitioner had undergone 11 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 operation. The respondent No.1 had taken care of the family as a husband, the respondent had helped petitioner in cooking for the family as the petitioner was employed, though the respondent had taken care of the petitioner and the son in the maintenance of the family and education of the child but the petitioner has failed to discharge her matrimonial duties. Hence the respondents have prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
14. Heard and perused the materials on records.
15. The points that arise for my determination are as under:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought U/s.18, 19, 20 & 22 of D.V.Act?
2. What order?
16. My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
2. POINT NO.2: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
17. POINT No.1: The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. That the respondent has inflicted domestic violence on the petitioner. 12 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
18. The petitioner in proof of her case has examined herself as P.W.1 & has reiterated the petition averments.
19. In the present petition marriage is not disputed. It is admitted fact that petitioner and respondent had got registered marriage under the Special Marriage Act, from the evidence of petitioner it is revealed that petitioner even after the registered marriage had insisted for the Hindu ceremonial marriage, though the petitioner knew the fact that respondent No.1's elder brother was yet to be got married off. The petitioner has also admitted in her evidence that she had lodged complaint against respondents for getting married by performing ceremonies, as the respondent had intended to have physical relationship with the petitioner and that the respondent had intended to go abroad, hence petitioner had insisted for ceremonial marriage. The petitioner to the effect that respondent No.1 had intended to go abroad has not produced any document. It is also revealed that after marriage the petitioner and respondent stayed in their respective parent's house. From the said evidence it is revealed that the women who has married by way of registration has insecured feeling 13 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 that she would not be taken into marital fold by the respondent. Hence has insisted for marriage ceremony. However respondent has admitted in his objection that respondent parents had conducted marriage of petitioner and respondent by performing ceremonies and by conducting reception in Ajanta hotel.
20. Further from the evidence of P.W.1 it is also revealed that petitioner's parent's had no wishes to get married off the petitioner to respondent. In such a case the petitioner's relatives performing the marriage of the petitioner and respondent can't be accepted as the petitioner has also admitted that petitioner's father had not attended the marriage of the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner admits that respondent's parents had took in charge and responsibilities of marriage but states that marriage expenses were incurred by the petitioner and her relatives but to that effect no evidence is forthcoming in the present case on hand.
21. The petitioner has admitted in the cross-examination "at page No.17 "¤ªÀÄä eÁ¬ÄAmï ¯ÉÆãï£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 14 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 EJAL PÀlÄÖvÁÛ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è £À£ÀUÉ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ £ÉÆÃn¸ÀÄìUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛªÉ." at page No.19 "¤Ã«§âgÀÄ MnÖUÉ EzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀÄ«UÉ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è life insurance and medical insurance £ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ UÉÆvÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ" from the said evidence of P.W.1 it is revealed that the petitioner pleads ignorance about the loan repayment made by the respondent and the insurance policies taken by the respondent in the name of petitioner and her child. In the objection to the main petition the respondent has stated that the petitioner has contributed her income for educational purposes of child and in repayment of housing loan.
22. The petitioner admits that the respondent was dropping the child to the school in the morning, but further states that the petitioner was giving money for petrol expenses, but the petitioner has also contended in the petition that the respondent was taking salary of the petitioner in such a case 15 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 petitioner would be left with no income to spare the income for expenditure of the family. As the petitioner has stated in the cross-examination as follows "at page No.23 "JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÁÛ EgÀ°®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤«ÄäAzÀ ºÀt QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ" at page No.24 "¤ªÀÄUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÀt PÉüÀÄvÁÛ EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¤ÃªÀÅ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ PÉÄÁnÖ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ". From the said evidence it can be noted that no such harassment is inflicted as alleged by the petitioner.
23. The petitioner has contended that the respondent tried to inculcate abnormal behavior which has effected the child. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has stated that she has not received any complaint about the behaviour of the child from the school. From the said answer it can be revealed that the father i.e., the respondent No.1 is not trying to inculcate abnormal behaviour in the child. In general no father of a child would try to inculcate bad habits in the mind of the child and spoil the future of the child. P.W.2 being the son of the 16 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 respondent No.1 has stated that the father was dropping the P.W.2 to the school during the year 2009. P.W.2 has stated that his father was getting massaged his body from P.W.2 when the child was about 7-8 years old, it is natural that out of love and affection or due to strain a father would seek some assistance from the child to do some favour to the father.
24. The petitioner has contended that the respondent behaved shabbily in front of the child. P.W.2 being the child in his evidence has stated that the respondent being the father was moving about in the house without wearing clothes. The said evidence is unacceptable because no person would move about without wearing clothes in the house, for the convenience sake or to take rest a person may stay in the house wearing inner garments.
25. The petitioner has contended that respondent did not allow the petitioner and her son to have their lunch and dinner and was always distracting the petitioner and her son. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that after school hours he used to go to his grand mother's house i.e., petitioner's mother's house he 17 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 would have food and come back to house at 4.30 p.m. with respect to the lunch both the petitioner and respondent are working and the child is a school going in such a case there is no chance that petitioner and her child could have had their lunch together. There is no evidence which has come out regarding the fact that respondent was distracting the petitioner and her son from having dinner together. Hence the contention of the petitioner can't be accepted.
26. The petitioner has stated that maid servant was coming for household work at 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. P.W.2 being the son of the petitioner and respondent, has stated in the cross- examination that no maid servant was coming for household work. Even admitting to the fact that maid servant was working in the house of the petitioner and respondent No.1, the petitioner has stated that at the working hours of maid servant, petitioner was also present. P.W.2 in the cross- examination has stated that his father was also working during there stay as a whole family consisting of petitioner and respondent No.1 and P.W.2. As per P.W.2 the respondent No.1 was going for work at 9.30 a.m. and was returning at 18 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 7.00 p.m. and the mother was going for work at 10.30 a.m. and was returning in the evening, but as per the petitioner respondent was working as a Marketing Manager from home as the respondent company Cata Appliances did not have office at Bangalore. If the respondent was working at from home in such a case the respondent should be available at home, but as per the evidence of P.W.2 after finishing his school he was going to mother's grand parents house and was returning home at 4.30 p.m. by taking back the keys of the home. Subsequently P.W.2 was going to tuitions and was returning home by 7.30. Though P.W.2 states that by the time P.W.2 returned home after tuitions his mother would be at home as she was going for job, if the father was working from home in such a why the child goes to the grand parents house and has his food and returns to his house by 4.00-4.30 p.m. from the said evidence it is revealed that both the petitioner and respondent No.1 are working and the respondent is not available in the home through out the day and that there is no scope for the respondent in sharing the family matters with the maids as the maids are working 19 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 during morning hours i.e., 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m. wherein the petitioner would also be present at the morning hours.
27. The petitioner has contended that the respondent was harassing the petitioner and had called her boss communicating to remove the petitioner from working place. But as per the evidence of P.W.1 the boss of the P.W.1 has issued a letter that respondent had given a call to the petitioner's boss in order to remove the petitioner from the working place, though the petitioner has stated in her evidence, but no documents is produced to that effect, the respondent had given a phone call to the boss of the petitioner which is issued by the telephone department.
28. The petitioner has contended that the respondent did not tolerate the petitioner talking to colleagues, relatives and neighboures. The respondent in the cross-examination has stated that he had no suspicion about the character of the petitioner, but has stated that after the petitioner returned home from the work place the petitioner was spending her time speaking to Sam over the phone. Sam is the colleague of 20 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 the petitioner. In the present case the petitioner has contended that the respondent did not tolerate the petitioner from speaking to colleagues, but the respondent has stated that petitioner was not working at home and was spending her time over the phone speaking to Sam. The said contention of the petitioner is that respondent had a suspicion over speaking to the colleagues, but respondent has stated that he has no suspicion about the character of the petitioner on the other hand the respondent has expectation that the petitioner should work at home. In a modern society women is also working who is expected to do work at home and office wherein stress is created on a women. The petitioner is a working women as a result differences of opinion arises.
29. The petitioner has contended that the respondent has not taken care of the petitioner at the time of ill-health and the accident, further has stated in her evidence that respondent has spent the amount for operation underwent by the petitioner, has taken amount from the petitioner, but has not given any document to the effect. The petitioner has also 21 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 denied that the respondent had incurred medical expenses for operation of petitioner who had met with an accident.
30. The petitioner has contended that the respondent has married the petitioner for extracting her salary and that the respondent has extracted to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- from the petitioner. The respondent has admitted that petitioner was spending her income for family expenses and education of child and has stopped sharing the income from 2008. The income of both spouses are shared for the benefit of the family. The said amount can't be recovered as a business transaction, the statement of accounts produced by the petitioner does not reveal that the respondent has extracted Rs.7,50,000/-.
31. The petitioner has stated that she was physically assaulted and has not taken treatment and has not lodged any complaint to that effect, but states that she has taken treatment for stress in Bowring hospital. Ex.P.71 is Wound Certificate issued by the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, the said document reveals that the petitioner has gone to the 22 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 hospital on 01-09-2009 with a history of assault made by the husband about 5 days back, from the date of treatment. No good intended women would go to hospital and obtain a treatment with an intention that she has to file a case in order to obtain monetary relief. From the above said document it is revealed that physical assault is made on petitioner.
32. The petitioner has stated that she has lodged complaint before the Police Station on 30-08-2009 for the offence U/s.498(a) of IPC as per the statement given in the 498(a) the said complaint is concluded with an understanding that difference of opinion between the petitioner and respondent would set be right. From the complaint lodged against the respondent reveals that there was a domestic violence inflicted on the petitioner.
33. The petitioner has admitted that respondent's parents had gifted 1/3rd share in site property and that the petitioner and respondent No.1 had opted for a joint loan and have constructed house in II floor. In the said building respondent No.2 i.e., father-in-law of the petitioner has also gifted 1/3rd 23 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 share gifted to 1st son i.e., the respondent No.3 & 4 being the brother-in-law and his wife of petitioner respectively are residing in the I floor and the father-in-law i.e. respondent No.2 and his wife i.e. mother-in-law of the petitioner were residing in the ground floor. In such a case it is revealed that all the three families are residing separately.
34. The petitioner has stated that respondent was disconnecting the water and cable connection and was locking the gate and was troubling the petitioner to that effect petitioner had lodged the complaint, but it has not been registered. The petitioner has stated that after ceremonial marriage petitioner and respondent No.1 lived in Sulthanapalya Chinnappa garden and had changed 3 to 4 rented houses. That during the above said period the petitioner with respondent No.1 were residing in the rented houses and later the petitioner with her husband and child have shifted to own house in the year 2006-07. From the evidence of petitioner it is revealed that there is a differences of opinion which has arose between both the husband and wife wherein both are working, who have got married out of their own will and wish and have lived together 24 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 for considerable years and have begot a child. Due to the stress and strain or due to the difference of opinion in day today life's there is a gap created between the husband and wife which should have had subsided at the earliest, but it has grown up to a larger extent wherein the petitioner is allegating against the respondent for all trivial matters wherein the respondent and the petitioner both have contributed there earning towards the betterment of the family. In the present case the respondent has obtained insurance policies in the name of the petitioner and her son, being a husband and father of the child. The said policies reveals that respondent had interest in taking care of the petitioner & her child.
35. The petitioner has contended that the respondent did not bother about sexual requirement of the petitioner and forced harassed the petitioner to fulfill the desire of the respondent. There is no evidence come out with respect to the said allegation made by the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that respondent had the habit of explaining the bed room matters to the maid and was always questioning the 25 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 maid about the whereabouts of the petitioners. There is no material come out with respect to above allegations.
36. The petitioner has contended that the respondent used to call the petitioner's family members as dogs, beggars and used to taunt the petitioner. There is no evidence has come out to that effect.
37. It is contended that the respondent did not tolerate the petitioner from buying new clothes and has contended that respondent has purchased only two clothes for the petitioner for the past 11 years there is no evidence has come out to that effect.
38. The petitioner has alleged that the first respondent often called to the office of the petitioner and talk badly about petitioner and was telling the child that the child is not born to him, petitioner further has alleged that the respondent always threatened the life and limb of the petitioner and her son, petitioner further has alleged that the first respondent never bothered to take care of the interest of either the petitioner or her son and never has spent a rupee for the 26 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 health or other requirement of the petitioner or her son, petitioner further has alleged that the first respondent often casts comments on caste of the petitioner by saying "UNGA AMMA JAATI, UNGA AYYA JAATI" and threatened the petitioner saying that if petitioner abused him, he would be filing a case against the petitioner under SC / ST Act, petitioner has further alleged that the first respondent always lied and never tolerated the petitioner enquiring about respondent whereabouts even at times when respondent come late to the house, no evidence has come out to that effect.
39. The petitioner in support of her case has produced the bank statements, fees receipts of her son, electricity bills, medical documents with respect to petitioner and the complaint lodged against the respondent and family members along with Charge Sheet. The petitioner has produced complaint lodged against respondent No.3 & 4. P.W.1's mother in her evidence before the Family Court in M.C. No.1189/10 clubbed with M.C. No.772/12, has deposed before the court, the said evidence has been deposed on 07-03-2013 the mother of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is earning Rs.10,000/- 27 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 p.m., but the petitioner in her evidence has stated that she has left the job soon after filing the D.V.Act petition in the year 2009. Hence I am of the opinion that the petitioner being a working lady earning income. As per Supreme Court's decision though women is working she should be given maintenance to the status which would meet the economical demands of a wife when the petitioner was leading life as wife of the respondent in the matrimonial home.
40. The respondent in the present case has produced his life insurance policies and premium receipts for having paid the life insurance premium, in all the life insurance policies such as Kotak, life insurance of India, United insurance company Ltd., Accident relief care India it reveals that the respondent has obtained life insurance policies in the name of the petitioner and in the name of the son namely Kiran who are the nominees which have been obtained in the year 2008, 2009, 1998, 2007 all the insurance documents reveals that the respondent is interested in taking care of the petitioner and her child.
28 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011
41. The father-in-law of the petitioner has gifted 1/3rd share in his property to the petitioner, respondent and the child the grand child, wherein the petitioner and respondent No.1, have jointly opted for a joint loan and have constructed two houses with an intention to reside and are obtaining rent from another house with an intention to repay the loan from the said evidence it can be seen that the respondent has interest in petitioner and her child, but has inflicted certain domestic violence as discussed above.
42. The school related document reveals that the petitioner's son is doing his high school education wherein the petitioner is in need of financial assistance for the educational expenses of the petitioner's son. The petitioner has produced visiting cards of respondent at Ex.P.72 to 74 as per said visiting cards respondent is working as a Assistant Manger sales life insurance and adviser respectively, I proceed to answer point No.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
43. POINT No.2: In view of the detailed discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following 29 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 ORDER The petition U/s.12 of D.V.Act is allowed in part with costs.
The respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. towards the petitioner No.1 from the date of present order to the petitioner No.1 till her life time and Rs.10,000/- towards petitioner No.2 till date of majority from the date of petition.
The respondent No.1 is restrained from alienating or mortgaging or creating in any manner with respect to schedule property.
The respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner and her son from peaceful possession and enjoyment of residence bearing No.37, II Floor, I cross, V Main, SK Garden, Benson Town Post, Bengaluru - 560 046.
The respondent is directed to pay the EMI of house loan regularly with respect to house bearing No.37, II Floor, I cross, V Main, SK Garden, Benson Town Post, Bengaluru - 560 046.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected, revised and signed then pronounced by me in the open court this the 23rd day of July 2015).
(SMT.LATHA DEVI G.A.) M.M.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE 30 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
P.W.1: Smt. A. Karpagam P.W.2: Kiran R.
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 to 3: Bank Pass Book Ex.P.4: Bank Statement Ex.P.5: Bank statement Ex.P.6: School fees record of his son Ex.P.7: Bank pass book Ex.P.8 to 14: School fee receipts Ex.P.15: Receipt Ex.P.16 to 30: Challan Ex.P.31: Electrical bill Ex.P.32: Electrical bill receipt Ex.P.33 to 65: Medical document Ex.P.66: Electrical bill 4 receipts Ex.P.67: South Indian Bank statement Ex.P.68: FIR Ex.P.69: Cr.No.37340 Charge Sheet Ex.P.70: Letter from Beck N Call services dt.10-01-2010 Ex.P.71: Wound Certificate Ex.P.72 to 74: Visiting cards
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
R.W.1: P.R. Ramesh
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1: Republic hospital medical document Ex.R.2: Statement Ex.R.3: Evidence document M.C.No.772/12 Ex.R.4: Judgement copy M.C.NO.772/12 Ex.R.5: Allahabad bank statement Ex.R.6: 42 deposit slips 31 Crl.Misc.No.68-2011 Ex.R.7: C.C.No.37340/10 P.N. Evidence Ex.R.8: Kotak Bank document Ex.R.9 & 10: Kotak Life Insurance document book Ex.R.11: Medical document Ex.R.12: United India Insurance Company certificate Ex.R.13: Accident Relief Care Receipts Ex.R.14: United India Insurance Company certificate Ex.R.15: Accident Relief care document Ex.R.16: Accident Relief care document dt.213/08 receipt Ex.R.17: United India Insurance Company 3 certificates Ex.R.18: Accident Relief Care 3 receipts Ex.R.19: Employee Pension scheme certificate Ex.R.20: LIC Premium 3 receipts Ex.R.21: Asset fax receipts Ex.R.22 & 23: House Expenditure book (petitioner and respondent) Ex.R.24: Bowring hospital document Ex.R.25: Water bill receipts Ex.R.26: Bank deposit slips Ex.R.27: New India Assurance document Ex.R.28: Reliance Health Insurance document 12 pages Ex.R.29: 3 pages of Reliance Insurance document Ex.R.30: 9 pages New India Assurance document Ex.R.31: Skypak Financial security receipts Ex.R.32: dt.30-08-2009 complaint Ex.R.32(a): Police endorsement Ex.R.33: dt.17-02-2010 complaint Ex.R.33(a): Police endorsement Ex.R.34: M.C.No.1189/10 certified evidence copy.
(SMT.LATHA DEVI G.A.) M.M.T.C.-IV, BANGALORE