Bangalore District Court
And Her Children As Enjoyed By The vs No.1 Took Place On 25.1.2007 At on 11 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC
COURT-II, BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.
LLM. M. Phil,
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.
CRL. MISC. No. 25/2014
Aggrieved 1. Smt. Chaya W/o Venugopal, aged; 24
Persons/petitioners: yrs.
2. Master Kavi Raj S/o Venugopal, aged; 5
yrs.
3. Master. Shankarnarayan S/o
Venugopal,
All are R/at No. 1, ITI Quarters, Dairy
circle, Hosur Road, Bengaluru-29.
Represented by: Sri. AR, Adv.
V/s
Respondents: 1. Venugopal S/o late. Papaiah, aged; 35
Yrs.
2. Smt. Savithramma W/o late Papaiah,
aged 55 yrs.
3. Rangaswamy S/o Venkataramanappa,
aged; 54 yrs.
4. Munilakshmamma W/o Rangaswamy,
aged; 45 yrs.
All are R/at No. 142, Mallur village,
Karmelaram Post, Dommsandra Road,
Kodathi Gate, Sarjapura, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru-35.
Represented by: Sri. MN, Adv
2 C.Misc. No. 25/2014
ORDER
This is a Petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 praying this court to pass protection order u/sec. 18 (a), prohibiting the respondents from committing any acts of Domestic Violence, u/sec. 18 (c) entering the place of the children, u/sec. 18 (d) attempting to communicate in any form whosoever with the petitioner, u/sec 18 (e) alienating any assets held singly by the respondent, residence order u/sec. 19 (f) directing the respondent no.1 to secure same level of alternative accommodation for the petitioner and her children as enjoyed by the respondent no.1 in the shared household or to pay to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and further order a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses of the petitioner u/sec. 20
(b) and pass an order for enhancement of maintenance to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 u/sec. 20 (d) at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month from Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively and further direct to the respondent no.1 to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner no.3 at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month as provided under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 in the interest of equity and justice.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
It is stated in the petition that the petitioner no.1 is the victim under the respondents. The petitioner no.1 submits that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the 3 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 respondent no.1 took place on 25.1.2007 at "Venkataramansway temple, Chikka Tirupathi, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, as per Hindu rites and customs. The said marriage is an arranged one. Out of the wedlock two sons were born to them who are the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 respectively.
3. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the respondent no.1 in collusion with the other respondents was harassing the petitioner no.1 for dowry. The respondent no.1 used to come home fully drunk and he used to beat the petitioner mercilessly, however the petitioner no.1 had tolerated all the harassment only to save the marriage. Though several panchayaths were held, the respondent no.1 or others did not stop their harassment and torture and she was finally thrown out of the matrimonial house. That, the petitioner no.1 gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 15.3.2008 and therefore the petitioner no.1 and her parents were of the opinion that the respondent no.1 would rectify his mistakes after the birth of the child, however he was not showing any interest in the petitioner no.1 or the child. The petitioner no.1 being unable to bear torture and harassment from the respondent nos. 1 to 4 had lodged a complaint before the Wilson Garden Police on 16.5.2011 in Cr. No. 122/11 for the offence punishable u/sec. 504, 506 of IPC.
4. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 had filed a petition in C.Misc. no. 379/11 before the Hon'ble 3rd Addl. Judge, Family court, Bengaluru. In the meantime the petitioner no.1 unable to bear torture and harassment from the respondents had also lodged complaints 4 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 on 19.3.2012, 28.3.2012 and 8.5.2012. The police have also registered a case for dowry harassment in Cr. No. 38/12. The Hon'ble Family court was pleased to pass a judgment and order dtd: 11.2.2013 directing the respondent no.1 to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively. The elders in the family again intervened and after much persuasion, he agreed to take back the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 to the marital house and hence she again joined him. The petitioner no.1 gave birth to the second petitioner. Thereafter once again the respondent no.1 totally neglected and abandoned the petitioners and never bothered to take care of her. However, she has learnt from reliable sources that the respondent no.1 has illicit relationship with one Premakumari.
5. The petitioner no.1 further submits that she has borrowed hand loans to sustain the family needs and also to conduct the proceedings before this court. The petitioner no.1 is unemployed and she does not have any source of income. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 is gainfully employed and he is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent no.1 also owns landed property and he is also getting rental income of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. It is submitted that the respondent is capable of paying the maintenance, but he is evading the payment of maintenance only with a malafide intention and with an ulterior motive. The petitioners have suffered great injustice in the hands of the respondent.
6. The petitioner no.1 submits that she is unemployed and has no other source of income. The respondent no.1 is 5 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 working in a private company at Koramangala and he is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- as stated above apart from getting rental income. The respondent no.1 is also having landed properties out of which he is also getting income, however he has failed to maintain the petitioners. Hence, with no other option the complainant was constrained to approach this court under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. By contending so, the petitioners prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice and equity.
7. On the other hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 put forth their appearance before this court through their counsel, but failed to file the objections to the main petition. The respondent no.4 has been placed ex-parte.
9. On basis of the above mentioned averments the following points do arise for my consideration:
1. Whether petitioners proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence upon them as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioners proves that they are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?
10. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner no.1 herself has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P. 1 to 13.
11. I have heard arguments on petitioner's side. Perused the entire records, my answer to the above framed points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Affirmative 6 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 Point No.2 : Partly in Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
12. Point No.1 :- It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner no.1 is the victim under the respondents. The petitioner no.1 submits that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1 took place on 25.1.2007 at "Venkataramansway temple, Chikka Tirupathi, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, as per Hindu rites and customs. The said marriage is an arranged one. Out of the wedlock two sons were born to them who are the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 respectively.
13. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the respondent no.1 in collusion with the other respondents was harassing the petitioner no.1 for dowry. The respondent no.1 used to come home fully drunk and he used to beat the petitioner mercilessly, however the petitioner no.1 had tolerated all the harassment only to save the marriage. That, the petitioner no.1 gave birth to the 2nd petitioner on 15.3.2008. The petitioner no.1 being unable to bear torture and harassment from the respondent nos. 1 to 4 had lodged a complaint before the Wilson Garden Police on 16.5.2011 in Cr. No. 122/11 for the offence punishable u/sec. 504, 506 of IPC.
14. The petitioner no.1 further submits that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 had filed a petition in C.Misc. no. 379/11 before the Hon'ble 3rd Addl. Judge, Family court, Bengaluru. In the meantime the petitioner no.1 unable to bear torture and harassment from the respondents had also lodged complaints 7 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 on 19.3.2012, 28.3.2012 and 8.5.2012. The police have also registered a case for dowry harassment in Cr. No. 38/12. The Hon'ble Family court was pleased to pass a judgment and order dtd: 11.2.2013 directing the respondent no.1 to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Thereafter once again the respondent no.1 totally neglected and abandoned the petitioners and never bothered to take care of her. However, she has learnt from reliable sources that the respondent no.1 has illicit relationship with one Premakumari.
15. The petitioner no.1 further submits that she has borrowed hand loans to sustain the family needs and also to conduct the proceedings before this court. The petitioner no.1 is unemployed and she does not have any source of income. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 is gainfully employed and he is earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. The respondent no.1 also owns landed property and he is also getting rental income of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. The petitioners have suffered great injustice in the hands of the respondent.
16. The petitioner no.1 submits that she is unemployed and has no other source of income. The respondent no.1 is working in a private company at Koramangala and he is earning more than Rs. 30,000/- as stated above apart from getting rental income. The respondent no.1 is also having landed properties out of which he is also getting income, however he has failed to maintain the petitioners. Hence, with no other option the complainant was constrained to approach 8 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 this court under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005.
17. On the other hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 put forth their appearance before this court through their counsel, but failed to file the objections to the main petition. The respondent no.4 has been placed ex-parte.
18. In view of the above contentions of the petitioner's side, it is necessary to go through the evidence led by petitioner on record. To substantiate her case, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 wherein she has almost all reiterated her petition averments. Apart from, the PW-1 got produced the Ex.P.1 which is certified copy of the order passed in C.Misc. 379/11 by the Hon'ble Family Court, Bengaluru wherein it appears that the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 herein have been awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in total. The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments has fairly submitted before this court that this court while granting the maintenance to the petitioner herein can take into consideration with respect to the earlier judgment passed by the Family court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner no.3 herein was born after the order passed in the said Family Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to enhance the maintenance to meet ends of justice. The Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the petition copy before the said Family court which is filed by the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 seeking for maintenance against the respondent. The Exs.P.3 & 4 are the certified copies of the police endorsements. I have carefully 9 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 gone through the said two documents wherein it appears that the present PW-1 has lodged the police complaint against her husband before Varthur police station. The said two documents are not in dispute as the respondents have not denied the same by filing the objections. The Ex.P.5 is the office copy of the first information lodged by the PW-1 dtd:
16.5.2011 before Wilson garden police against her husband alleging threat by the respondent over phone. The Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the FIR lodged on the basis of the said first information Ex.P.5 by the police. The Ex.P.7 is the Xerox copies of the statements given by the PW-1 before the police. The Ex.P.8 is another office copy of the statement of PW-1 dtd:
28.3.2012 before Varthur police station. The Ex.P.9 is the office copy of the first information lodged by the present PW-1 before Varthur police station. The said first information is registered in Cr. No. 38/12 for dowry harassment against the respondent. The Exs.P.10 & 11 are the birth certificates of the children of PW-1 which is not in dispute. The Ex.P.12 are the four school payment receipts wherein it appears that the petitioner is taking care of the entire school fee and other expenses with respect to her children. The Ex.P.13 is the intimation letter issued by the school management which is also not in dispute.
19. On careful perusal of the documentary proofs produced by the PW-1, it appears that the PW-1 has not documents such as salary certificate or the RTC extracts standing in the name of respondent no.1 to prove his income. It is pertinent here to mention that the petitioners have filed 10 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 this petition u/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 for various reliefs before this court against the respondents. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel, but failed to file objections. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the affidavit evidence and documentary evidence produced by the PW-1 remained unchallenged. Hence, an adverse inference can be taken against the case of the respondents. The respondents have not filed objections and led their evidence denying the case of the petitioners. The non-maintaining of wife and his children by the respondent no.1 itself amounts to Domestic Violence. The police endorsements and other police records produced by the PW-1 are sufficient to hold that the respondents have caused the Domestic Violence upon the petitioner no.1. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. Point No.2: The present petitioner in this case has sought for to pass protection order u/sec. 18 (a), prohibiting the respondents from committing any acts of Domestic Violence, u/sec. 18 (c) entering the place of the children, u/sec. 18 (d) attempting to communicate in any form whosoever with the petitioner, u/sec 18 (e) alienating any assets held singly by the respondent, residence order u/sec. 19 (f) directing the respondent no.1 to secure same level of alternative accommodation for the petitioner and her children as enjoyed by the respondent no.1 in the shared household or to pay to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and further order a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical 11 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 expenses of the petitioner u/sec. 20 (b) and pass an order for enhancement of maintenance to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 u/sec. 20 (d) at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month from Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively and further direct to the respondent no.1 to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner no.3 at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per month.
21. In view of my answering to the point no.1 in the Affirmative, holding that the petitioner no.1 has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondents. It is just to pass the protection order within the meaning of sec. 18 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 to protect and safeguard the petitioner from possible violence upon her. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for protection and prohibition orders as sought by her. The provisions of domestic violence act are social beneficial legislation for those who are neglected and who have no income of their own to support themselves so as to keep their body and soul together. The object of this act is to prevent starvation and vagrancy by compelling a person to perform the moral obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife who is unable to support herself.
22. On marshalling the entire evidence and meticulous perusal of the documents in this case and also in view of the discussions made by me in the above point, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 are entitled in total for Rs. 7,000/-(seven thousand only) per month including food, clothes, shelter, medication, rent school fee and other basic necessities. The petitioner no.1 12 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 is entitled to the maintenance from the date of petition till her lifetime and petitioner nos.2 & 3 are entitled for the maintenance from the date of petition till they attain age of majority. The petitioner no.1 has neither pleaded nor produced any documents to substantiate her claim regarding the actual income of the respondent no.1. However, it is the bounden duty of the respondent no.1 to maintain the petitioners. Further this case is pending from the year 2014. I have carefully gone through the order sheets wherein the respondent has not paid any maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of this case. Hence the respondent no.1 only is liable to pay the maintenance from the date of filing of this petition. It is also pertineant hereto mention that as per the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005, there is no bar to this court to grant maintenance to the petitioners even in such cases where the Family Court has already granted maintenance to the petitioners. Hence, I answer the point no.2 partly in affirmative.
23. Point No.3: In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the petitioners are entitled for the following reliefs. Hence I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the maintenance in total of Rs. 7,000/-(seven 13 C.Misc. No. 25/2014 thousand only) per month including food, clothes, shelter, medication, rent, school fee and other basic necessities to the petitioner no.1 from the date of petition till her lifetime and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 from the date of petition till they attain age of majority.
The respondents or their men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioners, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioners.
The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioners in enforcing the order.
The other prayers of the petitioners is deemed to be rejected.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of September 2015).
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:-
PW.1 : Chaya. S
List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of order passed in C.Misc. 379/11
by the Hon'ble Family Court
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the petition copy before the
said Family court
14 C.Misc. No. 25/2014
Ex.P.3 & 4 Certified copies of the police endorsements
Ex.P.5 Office copy of the first information lodged by the
PW-1 dtd: 16.5.2011 before Wilson garden
police
Exs.P.6 Certified copy of the FIR lodged on the basis of
the said first information
Ex.P.7 Xerox copies of the statements given by the PW-
1 before the police
Ex.P. 8 Another office copy of the statement of PW-1
dtd: 28.3.2012
Ex.P.9 Office copy of the first information lodged by the
present PW-1
Exs.P.10 & 11 Birth certificates
Ex.P.12 Four school payment receipts
Ex.P.13 Intimation letter issued by the school
management
List of witnesses examined for Respondent:
NIL List of documents marked for Respondent:
NIL (Rajendra Kumar. K.M.) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.15 C.Misc. No. 25/2014
Orders vide separate Order sheet ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The respondent no.1 is hereby directed to pay the maintenance in total of Rs. 7,000/-(seven thousand only) per month including food, clothes, shelter, medication, rent, school fee and other basic necessities to the petitioner no.1 from the date of petition till her lifetime and petitioner nos. 2 & 3 from the date of petition till they attain age of majority.
The respondents or their men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioners, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioners.
16 C.Misc. No. 25/2014The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioners in enforcing the order.
The other prayers of the petitioners is deemed to be rejected.
The office is directed to issue free copies of the order to both parties.
(Rajendra Kumar. K.M) M.M.T.C-II, Bengaluru.