Bangalore District Court
Smt. B.S.Rekha W/O C.R.Prakash vs C.R.Prakash S/O Ramakrishna on 18 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
TRAFFIC COURT - III, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016.
PRESENT : Sri. SANTHOSH.M.S., B.A., LL.B., (HONS); LL.M.,
M.M.T.C-III, Bengaluru.
Crl.Misc.No.109/2015
PETITIONERS Smt. B.S.Rekha W/o C.R.Prakash, 23
years, R/o No.501, 34th Cross, 13th Main,
Banashankari II Stage, Kadirenahalli,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.B.M. Adv)
V/s
RESPONDENTS 1. C.R.Prakash S/o Ramakrishna, 26
yeas.
2. Smt. Shanthamma W/o
T.C.Ramakrishna, 56 years.
3. Smt.C.R.Pallavi D/o
T.C.Ramakrishna, 25 years.
4. C.R.Anil Kumar S/o
T.C.Ramakrishna, 24 years.
5. T.C.Ramakrishna S/o late
Timmegowda, 61 years.
R/o No.3, 2nd 'B' Main Road,
Bairaveshwaranagar, Chandra
Layout, Nagrabhavi, Bengaluru.
Also at :
No.73, 5th Cros, Canara Bank
Colony, Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.G.A.P. Adv)
2 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the relief sought in the present petition are for grant of protection order under Sec.18, for grant of residence order under Sec.19, for grant of an amount of Rs.25,000/- p.m. under Sec.20 and for grant of compensation under Sec.22 to an extent of Rs.30,00,000/-.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under
It is contended that the respondent No.1 is the husband of petitioner, respondent No.2 is her mother-in-law, respondent No.3 is her sister-in-law, respondent No.4 is her brother-in-law and respondent No.5 is her father-in-law. It is contended that on 4.11.2011 the marriage of petitioner was solemnized with the respondent No.1 at Krishna Priya Kalyana Mantapa, Kengeri, Bengaluru as per Hindu rites and customs. Due to the said wedlock a female child was born to them by name Kum. P.Harshitha on 12.9.2012 who is admitted for baby sitting at Jain Heritage, MI Kids, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru. During the marriage negotiation, it is alleged that the respondents made a demand of 100 gms golden ornaments and Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry in the form of cash. Yielding to the said demands it is alleged that the father of the petitioner has given one golden neck chain weighing about 16 gms, one 3 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 golden bracelet weighing about 16 gms, one golden finger ring weighing about 8 gms and they also gave golden mangalya chain weighing about 40 gms, one golden long chain weighing about 40 gms, one pair of golden bangles weighing about 30 gms to the petitioner during the time of marriage. It is further alleged that on 15.8.2011 betrothal ceremony was performed between the petitioner and respondent NO.1 at Pavithra Paradise Party Hall, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru and the parents of the petitioner had spend Rs.60,000/- for the said function.
The case of the petitioner is that out of the Rs.3,00,000/- amount paid to the respondent No.1, the respondent No.5 has paid the same amount to book the Kalyana Mantapa and marriage took place on spending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- between the parties. After the marriage the petitioner claims to have joined the respondent No.1 at his matrimonal home at No.73, 5th Cross, Canara Bank Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. In the said house petitioner and respondent No.1 resided with the other respondents. It is alleged that the petitioner lived happily with the respondent only for a period of one month and thereafter the mother-in- law and sister-in-law took away the golden ornament of the petitioner and when the petitioner demanded for return of jewels for attending a function at her parents family they are alleged to have abuse her in filthy language. It is alleged 4 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 that respondent No.1 had pledged various ornaments for his ill-vices and immoral purposes. When the petitioner requested the respondent No.1 to get back the pledged ornaments the respondent No.1 alleged to have threatened her of throwing her out of his home and all the respondents were mercilessly assaulting her due to no fault of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner used to say that petitioner has spoiled the life of respondent No.1 and that respondent No.1 would have had a chance of marrying some other girl by receiving huge amount as dowry to settle in his life. It is alleged that all other respondent were instigating the father-in-law of the petitioner to abuse her. It is further alleged that prior to the marriage the parents of the respondent No.1 have told the parents of the petitioner that he was doing the business of supply of Mineral water and that the father of the respondent No.1 is said to have assured that he will open a factory for preparing Mineral water near the residence of respondent No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner realized that there was no such business done by the respondent No.1 only after her marriage with him and the respondent No.1 used to leave home early in the morning and return back late in the night. On enquiry by the petitioner, it is alleged that, respondent No.1 claimed a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as a dowry to start business and further contended that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- received 5 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 at the time of marriage was not sufficient for him. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 threatened her that he will marry another girl by receiving huge dowry. It is further contended that the parents of the petitioner though unable to pay hue amount of dowry arranged an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid in cash to the respondent NO.1 in the month of September-2013.
It is contended that the petitioner enquired the respondent No.1 about his avocation and then he revealed that he is working as a Manager in the Disco Theck in Shanthingar, Double Road, Bengaluru and earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- p.m.. It is further contended that the respondent NO.1 did not look-after the petitioner even by providing grocery there was no baby food at home as such the father of the petitioner used to arrange for the same. The father of the petitioner is also alleged to have provided household articles like gas stove, refrigerator, washing machine, mixer grinder and utensils to the petitioner while living with respondent in the matrimonial home. It is further alleged hat the respondent No.1 who was working at a Disco Theck had contacts with many numbers of girls and on this pretext he used to avoid sexual intercourse with the petitioner and he used to bring the girls working at his place to matrimonial home and allowing them to stay there. It is further contended that respondent No.1 was not taking care of her and her daughter 6 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 and on questioning he used to abuse her in filthy language. Hence, she contends that she was subjected to various abuse and neglected. It is further contended that on 5.3.2014 the petitioner filed a petition before the Chandra Layout Police Station on which the police pacified the matter and as per their advice the petitioner stayed in her parents house. On 18.5.2014 the father of respondent No.1 is said to have called the petitioner over phone and asked her to join the respondent NO.1 at matrimonial home. On 19.5.2014 the father of the petitioner said to have dropped her in the said house.
On 22.5.2014 the respondent No.3 is alleged to have abuse the petitioner and assaulted her by inflicting bodily injury. As such the petitioner was sent back to her parents house on 24.5.2014. On 26.5.2014 it is alleged that the petitioner has filed petition before the Banashankari police station directing the respondent No.1 to live with her. The respondent No.1 said to have given an undertaking before the police and thereafter they lived happily for a period of one month. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 claims to have made demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry. On 13.1.2015 when the petitioner had been to leave her child for play home and came back to home she saw that one of the ornament was missing, on enquiring the respondent No.1 is said to have expressed his unawareness regarding the same. Thereafter the petitioner expressed her intention to lodge a complaint regarding the 7 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 missing ornament and that time the respondent NO.1 is said to have revealed that he has pledged the chain. On 18.2.2015 this fact was informed by the petitioner to other respondents for which they abuse her in filthy language as such she started to reside with her parents house. It is alleged that all the house hold articles given by the father of the petitioner and valuable golden ornaments are with the respondent. Contending all these facts the petitioner is before this court seeking the relief as mentioned above.
3. After registration of the case notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed objection to the main petition. The respondent No.1, except the fact of marriage and birth of the child, all other allegations against him are denied by him. The respondent No.1 also contends that the valuable and the household articles are taken away by the petitioner to her parental home and as such he has no custody of those belongings. Respondent No.1 contends that the allegations are falsely made against him to harass him and a false case is foist against him by abusing the process of law and he also contented that he is unable to pay the maintenance as he is jobless. The respondent No.1 contends that the petitioner has good source of income and she is a graduate working in a Software Company at Chamarajpet, Bengaluru 8 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 and that her claims are high and exorbitant and respondent No.1 blames the petitioner for willfully neglected him and she filed a false case against the respondent No.1 and his family in Cr.No.175/2015 before the Banashankari Police Station on 9.5.2015. On these grounds, the respondent No.1 prays for rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner.
4. In order to prove her case, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 and 20 to 26. To disprove the case of the petitioner the respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 3. During the course of cross-examination of RW.1 several documents were confronted to him and on admission those documents have been marked as per Ex.P.7 to 19.
5. Heard the arguments on both the learned counsels for the parties. Perused the pleadings, deposition and all the documents placed before this court during the course of trial. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondents?
2. Whether the Petitioner proves that she has been neglected by the respondents?
9 Crl.Misc.No.109/20153. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
4. What order?
6. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the affirmative;
Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.4 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT NOs.1 to 3 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, all the three points are taken up for common discussions to have brevity.
8. In order to prove the case of the petitioner she has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 26 documents. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card, Ex.P.2 is the birth certificate of daughter of petitioner, Ex.P.3 is the school fee paid receipt, Ex.P.4 is he jewellry receipts , Ex.P.5 is the CC of complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Banashankari police station, Ex.P.6 is the CC of FIR in Cr.No.175/15, Ex.P.7 to 17 are the photographs, Ex.P.18 is the CC of complaint lodged 10 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 by the petitioner before Banashankari police station, Ex.P.19 is the CC of FIR in Cr.No.175/15, Ex.P.20 is the encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.21 and 22 are the mutation extracts, Ex.P.23 and 24 are the RTC, Ex.P.25 and 26 are the school fees paid receipts. In order to become entitled for relief under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act not only the relationship between the parties but also the act of Domestic Violence is to be proved before the court. No doubt, the burden of proof under the Domestic Violence Act is preponderance of probability yet the initial onus of proof would be on the petitioner to substantiate her case in proving allegations against the respondent.
9. In order to prove the case of the respondents, the respondent No.1 has examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents. Ex.R.1 is the receipt for paid the amount for kalyana mantapa, Ex.R.2 is the jewellery receipt and Ex.R.3 is the police acknowledgement.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.1 is well to do and he has various income from his employment and agricultural lands as such being capable he has neglected the petitioner to maintain. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to Ex.P.21 to 24. Ex.P.23 11 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 is the RTC pertaining to property bearing Sy.No.31/19, situated at Jodichikkanahalli, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. Ex.P.24 is also a RTC relating to the property bearing Sy.No. 113/1P1-P2 situated Nelkundi village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. It is argued for the petitioner that these properties stands in the name of respondent No.1 and they yield income. As such the respondent No.1 being capable of earning has failed in discharging of his duty towards the petitioner and her child. Per contra the advocate for the respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner is a graduate and she is educated more than the respondent No.1 as such she can earn her livelihood and maintain herself. Further the respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner has not filed any documents to show reliable source of income of the respondent No.1, so as to claim financial relief from this court in the above petition.
11. I have carefully perused the said exhibits as well as depositions of both the petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner who got herself examined as PW.1 has admitted during the course of cross-examination that she is more educated than the respondent No.1 and she is more good looking than him. During the course of further cross- examination she also admitted that she has not produced any documents to show the exact annual income of the 12 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 respondent No.1. However, a suggestion is put to the petitioner relating to the employment of respondent No.1 in Disco Theck and his relationship with some women. The said portion of evidence reads "r¸ÉÆÌÃvÉPï£À°è 1 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DvÀ J®ègÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀéEZÉÒ¬ÄAzÀ EgÀÄwÛzÀÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀÄ DvÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉƧ⠺ÉAUÀ¹£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."É During the course of cross-examination of RW.1, RW.1 has admitted that he is employed in a private company. Hence on perusal of these deposition and the documents submitted by the petitioner the fact that the respondent No.1 was employed in Disco Theck is not in dispute further the respondent No.1 and his ownership over the properties mentioned in Ex.P.23 and 24 is also admitted. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.1 is leading a luxurious life and for this the respondent was confronted with 7 photos during the course of his cross- examination. These photos are admitted by RW.1. As such they are marked as Ex.P.11 to 17. The respondent No.1 has deposed that these photographs were taken at snow city Bengaluru. On the basis of these documents it is established that respondent No.1 is a able bodied man who is capable of earning amount.
13 Crl.Misc.No.109/201512. It is an obligation on the part of husband to maintain his family. The family would mean his wife and child as well. Hence on perusal of records and the deposition of parties it is established that the respondent No.1 is capable of earning an amount to maintain the petitioner as well as their child. Though the respondents counsel vehemently argued that the petitioner is capable of maintaining herself, yet no documents in this regard are placed on record on exhibit 'respondent' series. No doubt the petitioner admits that she is a graduate and is qualified than the respondent No.1. But this does not take away the obligation on the part of the respondent No.1 to maintain the child and the petitioner. Since the relationship between the parties is not disputed it is a matter of inference that the child born to them is to be taken care by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 while deposing as RW.1 before this court has deposed to the following evidence "«ªÁºÀzÀ §½PÀ CfðzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝzÀÄ ¤d. £À£ÀUÀÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CfðzÁgÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. CzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀ¼À C©ügÀPÉëAiÀįÉèà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß FUÀ CfðzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ ±Á¯ÉUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÁÝ¼É JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£ÀUÉ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ºÁUÀÆ DAUÀè ¨sÁµÉ NzÀ®Ä §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤¦ 3 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CfðzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ±Á¯ÉUÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉà 6 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ. ±Á¯Á ±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁtô¸ÀÄwÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj." Hence, through the 14 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 above deposition it is an admitted fact that the child born to the petitioner and respondent No.1 is in the custody of petitioner. Further the expenses of the said child are also borne by the petitioner or her father as deposed by her in relation to Ex.P.25 and 26 before this court. Hence, it is established before this court that the respondent No.1 is obliged to maintain the petitioner and her child. Accordingly this court is of the opinion that the said child and petitioner are entitled for the order of maintenance from this court.
13. It is argued on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the occurrence of Domestic Violence has not been proved by the petitioner in this regard. It is further contended that unless the said fact is proved the petitioner is not entitled for any of the relief. In this regard, I have perused the entire deposition of the both the parties. Though there are suggestions put to PW.1 denying the occurrence of Domestic Violence yet nothing material concerning this aspect is elicited from her mouth. On the contrary the RW.1 during the course of his cross-examination has admitted that there was a complaint lodged by the petitioner before the Banashankari police station concerning dowry harassment and on being confronted with those documents Ex.P.18 and 19 are marked. The relevant portion of deposition reads " £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ CfðzÁgÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ 15 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 ¤ÃrzÀ ¸ÀA§AzÀs §£À±ÀAPÀj ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÁÝ¼É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQëUÉ F ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ¸Àj JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ PÁgÀt CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤¦ 18 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 19 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯ÁVzÉ." Hence, the fact that there is a complaint lodged is admitted by the respondent No.1. However, the mere admission of fact of lodging a complaint does not by itself prove the exertion of cruelty on the petitioner. However, there are materials placed before this court concerning the aspect of dowry harassment and since it is a matter which is sub- judice before the competent criminal court, this court refrains from rendering any finding on this aspect except to find out prima facie whether there was any ends of Domestic Violence under Domestic Violence Act.
14. Domestic Violence under Domestic Violence Act is defined in a very broad words. When compare to the definition of dowry harassment under Sec.498(a) of IPC the definition of Domestic Violence is much wider . Under Sec.3 of Domestic Violence Act it suffices if there is a proof before the court that there is any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent which leads to physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse, or which tends to harass the petitioner in relation to dowry or valuable security, or where a threat is held to the petitioner by any 16 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 conduct or which causes harm or injury physical or mental to the aggrieved person all these act in their alternative constitute Domestic Violence. Hence, harassment for dowry is one of the aspect which can also be termed as Domestic Violence.
15. In this case the say of the petitioner is there were no proper care towards her and her child. She further contends that she had to approach jurisdictional police for seeking protection and also for direction to the respondent No.1 to mend his ways. In this regard, the suggestions have been made to RW.1 where he admits that he had given undertaking before the police and took back the petitioner. The said relevant portion is as under " ¢ B 24.5.2014 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉ®è CfðzÁgÀ½UÉ »A¸É ¤Ãr ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÄgÀ ºÁQzÀ PÁgÀt DPÉ ¢ B 26.5.2014 gÀAzÀÄ §£À±ÀAPÀj ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÀݼÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ªÀÄÄZÀѽUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÄÖ CfðzÁgÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj." This indicates that there have been attempts made by the elders of the both the parties as well as the police to pacify the matter between the parties. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was not looked-after by the respondent No.1. Though this aspect is denied yet on perusal of materials before this court it is 17 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 found that prima facie there are misunderstanding and differences between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Hence, this court is of the view that the occurrence of Domestic Violence has been proved by the petitioner. Therefore point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
16. In so far as point No.1 is concerned it suffices to note that respondent No.1 has expressed his ignorance regarding the well being and education of his child. Hence, being a responsible father he ought to have known about the child. This establishes his negligent conduct about petitioner as well as his child. Hence, Point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. The petitioner has prayed for protection order under Sec.18 of the Domestic Violence Act. On perusal of materials placed before this court, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the said relief and the same is to be granted since this court has held petitioner has proved Domestic Violence Act.
17. The petitioner has sought for residence order in relation to house No.73, , 5th Cross, Canara Bank Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. It is the case of the petitioner that said residence is a "shared household" as such she is entitled for a residence order in the present case. The said aspect is denied by the respondent No.1. Hence, initial onus of 18 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 proof lies on the petitioner. Though no documents in relation to the said house is placed before this court yet the following admission of PW.1 during the course of her cross- examination would throw sufficient light in this regard.
"vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ 1 ªÀµÀðzÀ §½PÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÉÇõÀPÀgÀ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ C°èAzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ §½PÀ 1 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀįÉèà EzÀÄÝ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ 1 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ªÁ¸À EzÀÝ ªÀÄ£É 2 £Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÁÝVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.-" Further, RW.1 was also cross-examined in this regard. The relevant portion of his admission would reads as under "¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À 5 £Éà PÁæ¸ï, £ÁUÀgÀ¨Á«, PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï PÁ¯ÉÆäAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.73 FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À EgÀĪÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸À E®è . £À£Àß ¥ÉÇÃ¥ÉPÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À EzÀÄÝ £ÀA.3, 2 £Éà © ªÉÄãï gÉÆÃqï, ¨ÉÊgÀªÉñÀégÀ £ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-72 gÀ°è ªÁ¸À EzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ."
These depositions of both the parties relating to residence in the address adverted would indicate that the respondent No.1 and petitioner were residents of the house at 5th Cross, Canara Bank Colony, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. However, the petitioner admits that the said house does not exclusively belongs to the respondent No.1. She has admitted that the said house stands in the name of respondent No.2. In order to claim an order of residence the petitioner is 19 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 bound to prove before the court that she is entitled to reside in the shared household and that the said house belongs to her husband or that he has any right in the said house. On perusal of entire deposition of PW.1 as well as RW.1 there is no suggestion put forward by the petitioner to RW.1 suggesting that the house mentioned above belongs to respondent No.1. Further there is no suggestions to indicate that respondent No.1 also has a share in the said house. Hence, granting the relief of residence order would be contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2007(3) SCC 169 between S.R.Batra and another Vs. Tarun Batra where in it is held that:
"section 2(s) and 17-'Shared house hold'- Wife's right to reside therein-House which exclusively belonged to mother-in-law of the woman where she only lived with her husband for some time on the past after the marriage-Held- not a 'Shared house hold' within the meaning of section 2(s) and respondent is entitled to claim right to live therein under section 17-In order to claim such a right the property should belong to her husband or it should have been taken on rent by her husband or is should have been joint family property in which her husband was a member.
18. Hence, applying the said ratio to the facts of this case this court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to reside in the house belonging to her mother-in-law. Hence, the said relief is liable to be declined.
20 Crl.Misc.No.109/201519. The petitioner has sought for an order of maintenance under Sec.20 of the Domestic Violence Act. The documents at Ex.P.25 and 26 would indicate the expenses required for the welfare of the child. These documents relate to the academic year 2015-16 and 2016-
17. As mentioned above the respondent No.1 is capable of earning his livelihood and he is able bodied man. Though the petitioner is a graduate merely because she is capable of earning an order of maintenance cannot be declined. The relevant portion of her evidence in this regard would throw some light on this aspect. "ZÁªÀÄgÁd¥ÉÃmÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ©¦M PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. FUÀ®Æ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë ¤d DzÀgÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀĪÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀî®Ä E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀÄ zÉÆqÀØzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä EµÀÖ E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ±ÀQÛ EzÀÝgÀÄÁ ¸ÀºÀ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁVAiÉÄà PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÄÁÃUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." The petitioner has sought for Rs.15,000/- for her basic necessities and education expenses of her child and claimed Rs.10,000/- towards rent. There is no proof in relation to the claim of petitioner regarding payment of rent for tune of Rs.10,000/- . Hence, the said aspect is liable to be declined. However, looking to the status of parties and having a 21 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 pragmatic approach regarding the day to day expenses this court of the opinion that directing the respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- p.m. for maintenance of petitioner and her child would meet the ends of justice. Out of said sum the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.4,000/- p.m. and her child is entitled for sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m..
20. The petitioner has sought for compensation to a tune of Rs.30,00,000/- for injuries including mental torture, depression suffered by her at the hands of the respondents. No doubt the mental agony, depression, harassment and emotional abuse cannot be easily equated with money and the same cannot be determined like any other property in terms of market value so as to fix specified sum for the said sufferings. Hence, these factors being highly individualistic in nature this court finds that grant of such relief on hypothesis may cause prejudice to respondent if he cannot afford such huge quantum of sum for payment to the petitioner. Hence, a pragmatic approach is required in granting compensation on these grounds. Hence, this court is of the opinion that directing the respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice. Hence, for the reasons narrated above, the point Nos.1 and 2 answered in the affirmative and point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
22 Crl.Misc.No.109/201521. POINT No.4 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is allowed in part.
The respondents are directed by an order of protection under Sec.18 of Domestic Violence Act from committing any act of Domestic Violence to the petitioner and her child.
The residence order under Sec.19 of Domestic Violence Act is hereby rejected.
The order of maintenance as sought
under Sec.20 of Domestic Violence Act is
hereby granted in part. The respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/-
(Rupees seven thousand only) to the
petitioner and her child as monthly
maintenance, out of which the petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,000/- p.m. (Rupees four thousand only) till her marriage subsists with respondent No.1 and her daughter is 23 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015 entitled for Rs.3,000/- p.m. (Rupees three thousand only) till she gets married.
The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner.
Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript computerized by her, revised corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of July, 2016) (SANTHOSH.M.S.) MMTC-III, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 Smt.B.S.Rekha
24 Crl.Misc.No.109/2015
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 Marriage invitation card
Ex.P.2 Birth certificates
Ex.P.3 School fees paid receipts.
Ex.P.4 Jewellery bills
Ex.P.5 & 18 CC of Complaints
Ex.P.6 & 19 CC of FIR in Cr.No.175/2015
Ex.P.7 to 17 Photographs
Ex.P.20 Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P.21 & 22 Mutation extracts.
Ex.P.23 & 24 RTC
Ex.P.25 & 26 School fees paid receipts.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
PW.1 C.R.Prakash.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENT :
Ex.R.1 Kalyana mantapa receipt.
Ex.R.2 Jewellery receipt
Ex.R.3 Police acknowledgement.
MMTC-III, BENGALURU.