Delhi District Court
Ram Kripal Yadav S/O Chander Singh Yadav vs Smt. Renu W/O Ram Kripal Yadav on 5 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02) , DELHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 147/211
IN THE MATTER OF :
Ram Kripal Yadav s/o Chander Singh Yadav
R/o 126/09, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi,
Delhi.
..............Appellant
Versus
Smt. Renu w/o Ram Kripal Yadav
R/o House no. B90, Chander Vihar,
Nilothi Villate, Nangloi, Delhi.
................Respondent
29.09.2011
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed under section 28 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for setting aside impugned judgment / order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the Court of Ld MM (Mahila Court), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case titled as 'Smt. Renu Vs Ram Kripal Yadav & Ors.' in CC No.21/1, Unique ID no.02401R0039762010.
1 / 5
2. Briefly facts of the case are that an application filed u/s 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent was decided by the ld. trial court. appellant married to the respondent according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17.11.2003 at new Delhi. Sufficient dowry articles were given by the parents of the respondents at the time of marriage as per their status. After 34 days of the marriage, the appellant and his family members starting harassing and beating the respondent for bringing more dowry. Respondent alleged several allegations against the appellant and his family members. Respondent alleged that Rs.50,000/ were asked by the revisionist. Food and water to the respondent was stopped due to which her condition started deteriorating. Thereafter, respondent told all these facts to her parents on telephone and a complaint to this effect was made in the PS Nangloi. Respondent and her child started living with her parents. appellant did not inquire about the respondent and her daughter for 2 years. Having left with no alternative the respondent was forced to file a complaint with CAW Cell, Kirti Nagar, Delhi where appellant was called. It has also been alleged by the 2 / 5 respondent that she along with her daughter is residing in her parental home and no maintenance has been given by the appellant to the respondent and her daughter. It has also been alleged by the respondent that appellant and his family members committed cruelties, beatings, harassment and have demanded dowry, extended threats and have illegally and forcibly thrown the respondent out from the matrimonial home. An FIR no.291/09 u/s 498A/ 406/ 34 IPC has been registered against the appellant and his family members at PS Nihal Vihar. Thus, with these allegations respondent had filed a petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has been decided in favour of the respondent Smt. Renu. Ld. Trial Court after considering all the material available on record presumed that respondent Smt. Renu has no source of income and awarded Rs.5000/ per month in favour of respondent Smt. Renu and her minor child as maintenance. And Rs.1000/ towards rent in lieu of accommodation from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 22.01.2010. It has also been ordered that respondent Smt. Renu shall be entitled to claim this amount until her lifetime/ remarriage/ further orders 3 / 5 whichever is earlier. Arrears shall be cleared within a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment / order dated 19.05.2011, appellant preferred this appeal petition.
3. Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments ld. counsel for appellant argued and submitted that ld. trial court has passed the impugned order dated 19.05.2011 without appreciating the facts, evidence, law and precedents cited by the appellant. Ld. counsel again argued and submitted that ld. trial court did not consider the fact that income of the appellant is Rs.4000/ per month therefore, he is unable to maintain the respondent.
4. Contrary to it, ld. counsel for the respondent submitted that accused is earning more than Rs.50,000/ per month. He further argued and submitted that appellant has employed several employees as per the crossexamination of appellant. On these ground, ld. counsel submitted that appeal petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 / 5
5. I have gone through the submissions of ld. counsel for the appellant and ld. counsel for the respondent as well. I also have gone through the submissions of ld. counsel for the appellant that income of the appellant is Rs.4000/ per month is not sustainable precisely for the reasons that in the crossexamination appellant, he has admitted that he is maintaining a motorcycle and 50% of his petrol expenses are also borne by his employer. It has also been admitted by him that he is also maintaining mobile phone and that thee are six rooms in his house. This part of evidence gives only one conclusion that determination of the income of the appellant to the tune of Rs.10,000/ per month appears to be reasonable and proportional. Having analysed these facts the ld. trial court has granted the maintenance to the respondent Rs.5000/ and Rs.1000/ as rent since respondent is living along with her minor daughter. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the appeal. Having found the order of ld. trial court reasonable and proportional I do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant therefore, I dismiss the appeal of the appellant. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with a copy of the order. Appeal petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29.09.2011 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST02):DELHI 5 / 5