Delhi District Court
Parvati vs Bhola Ram Page No. 1 /9 on 12 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: MAHILA
COURT:SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI.
CC No:340/1 (Date of filing 28.08.2008)
Case ID: 02403R0752632008
Jurisdiction of Police Station : K.M. Pur
Smt. Parvati
W/o Sh. Bhola Ram,
R/o H.No.615, Gali No.4,
Prem Nagar, K.M. Pur,
New Delhi. .................Aggrieved Person
Versus
1. Sh. Bhola Ram (Husband)
2. Sh. Sunder Lal (Grand father in law) (Nana),
Both R/o H2/175, Ambedkar Nagar,
Madangir, New Delhi. (Since expired). .....................Respondents
APPLICATION U/S 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ACT, 2005
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off an application U/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by Smt. Parvati (hereinafter referred as "Aggrieved Person") against her husband Sh. Bhola Ram, (hereinafter referred as "Respondent No.1") and grand father in law Sh. Sunder Lal (hereinafter referred as "Respondent No.2").
Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 1 /9
2. In the application, the aggrieved person has claimed the following relief:
a) Protection Order, b) Residence Order, c) Return of Istridhan, d) Prohibiting respondent from disposing off the household belongings, e) Maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/ per month, f) Medical Expenses to the tune of Rs.1,000/ per month, g) Compensation for loss of articles to the tune of Rs.3.0 lakhs; and h) Compensation for physical and mental injuries to the tune of Rs.1.0 lakhs.
3. It is alleged by the aggrieved person that she married to the respondent no.1 on 21/02/00. Her married life went on smoothly for first few months. Thereafter, her mother in law and grand parents in law started abusing her for bringing insufficient dowry. They threatened to throw her out of the matrimonial house. Whenever she complained to the respondent no.1 about their behavior he would rebuke her. On 10/11/00 her in laws rang up her parents and they were called on the pretext that she was ill. When they reached at matrimonial house they found her well. The respondents forced the parents of the aggrieved person to taker her back and retained her entire jewelery. On 28/02/01 the aggrieved person gave birth to a male child and all the expenses were borne by her father. None of the family members of the respondent visited the aggrieved person and the baby.
4. It is alleged by the aggrieved person that the respondent No.1 is working in a company and earning Rs.15,000/ per month.
5. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent No.1. He has denied all the allegations leveled upon him by the aggrieved person. He stated that it was the aggrieved person who was never interested in living with him and that the aggrieved person has misused the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. He denied that the aggrieved person was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 10/11/00 and instead stated that the parties cohabited till 02/12/2000 and on 03/12/2000 the aggrieved person left the matrimonial house at her own will. He also deposed that he found a letter dtd.25/11/00 where the aggrieved person herself stated that she did not want to reside in the Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 2 /9 matrimonial house. It is also alleged by the respondent No.1 that the aggrieved person has no right to reside in the shared household as the same belongs to respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 further alleged that on 10/11/00 aggrieved person left the matrimonial house without informing anybody when he visited her at her parental house she said that she would come back. Thereafter, though it is not mentioned as to when the aggrieved person returned but the respondent No.1 claims that on the night intervening 01/12/00 - 02/12/00 she demanded her jewelery which was handed over to her. On 03/12/2000 she left the matrimonial house again with her entire jewellery. While leaving the house she said that she would return soon but she did not and started avoiding respondent No.1. She did not take his calls. On 24/12/00 respondent No.1 when to the paternal house of the aggrieved person to take her back but she refused to accompany him. On 25/12/00 respondent No.1 again approached her but her father flatly refused to send her back and stated that she would come back only if respondent No.1 either constructs a house of his own or deposits Rs.2.0 lakhs in her account. Even thereafter respondent No.1 made several efforts to take her back but to avail, respondent No.1 was not even allowed to meet the new born. Respondent No.1 also alleged that he is not earning Rs.15,000/ but he is only a daily wager earning Rs.100/ per day.
6. No replication to the reply was filed by the aggrieved person. DIR was filed by the protection officer.
7. Evidence has been led by both the parties. Aggrieved person has been examined as PW1 and Respondent No.1 has been examined as RW1. No other witness has been examined by both the parties.
8. In her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A the aggrieved person has reiterated the contents of her application on oath. Similarly, Respondent No.1 has also reiterated the contents of his reply in his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.R1.
9. No document has been relied upon by the aggrieved person in support of her case Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 3 /9 Respondent No.1 has relied upon the following three documents: Mark 'A' which is the complaint dated 01/05/2001 made the Delhi Commission for women;
Mark 'B' which is the complaint dated 13/02/2002 made to SHO PS K.M. Pur; and Mark 'C' which is the complaint dated 13/02/2002 made to DCP (South), Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
10. In this case, I am confronted with two questions:
10.a) Whether the aggrieved person can claim relief under D.V. Act, 2005 in view of her own admission that she is residing separately from R1 since 2000 when D.V. Act was not in force?
10.b) Whether the aggrieved person has been able to establish a case of Domestic Violence?
11. The first issue stands settled with the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Mrs. Savita Bhanot V/s Lt. Col. V.D. Bhanot wherein Hon'ble Justice V.K. Jain observed as under in para No.18: "a petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence have been committed prior to coming into force of the Act or despite her having in the past lived together with the respondent in a shared household woman is no more living with him, at the time of coming into force of the Act".
12. In the present case, factum of domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and respondents is admitted. Even though this domestic relationship terminated prior to the commencement of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the aggrieved person should be entitled to file an application under this Act & claim various reliefs in view of the above quoted judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 4 /9
13. For deciding the second issue, it shall be apt to first look at the definition of Domestic Violence provided U/s 3 of the Act, which reads as under:
3. Definition of domestic violence. "For the purposes of this Act, any act omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it
(a) harms of injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and e motional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or an other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I. For the purposes of this section,
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule
specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the
Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 5 /9
aggrieved person is interested.
(iv) "economic abuse" includes
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the
aggrieved person in entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares securities bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II. For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitute "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration".
14. In the present case, the aggrieved person has alleged that she was taunted by the members of the shared household for not bringing sufficient dowry. They also used to abuse & beat her. However, in her entire application she has not narrated about a single specific incident of such abuse or torture. No date, time and place when any dowry demand was raised has been mentioned. There are further no specific allegations as to what was being demanded by the respondents towards Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 6 /9 dowry. It is not specified as to who used to beat the aggrieved person, when she was beaten and how. The allegations are general & sweeping in nature.
15. The DIR filed by the Protection officer has also been perused by me. There also the aggrieved person has not raised any specific allegations against any of the respondents except the fact that the respondent No.1 used to demand Rs.50,000/. Again, no specific date, time and place of such demand has been mentioned and it is suggested in the DIR that the demand was continuous without attributing any specific role to any of the respondents. Similar is the case with the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the aggrieved person. In the DIR it is also alleged against the respondent no.1 that he used to consume alcohol; and wanted that the aggrieved person should not argue with his parents; and she was never allowed to go and meet her parents. Except the 3 rd allegation the 1st two imputations are of no help to the aggrieved person as these two imputations in itself will not constitute domestic violence in any manner. The third allegation, if proved, would constitute domestic violence. However, this allegation is not a part of the pleadings. Further, aggrieved person has not disclosed any particular instance when she was not allowed to visit her parents. In the evidence by way of affidavit the aggrieved person has not alleged anything about any kind of domestic violence except that on 10/11/00 she was thrown out of the matrimonial house.
16. The aggrieved person was cross examined in detail by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.
1. During the cross examination she admitted that during the entire period of separation she did not file any complaint /divorce petition against the R1. She admitted that it was her husband who was filing repeated complaints against her with a purpose to settle the disputes. She also admitted that she filed the present application in the year 2008 only after her husband i.e. respondent No.1 filed a divorce petition. It is also note worthy that divorce between the parties has already been granted by the court of Sh. Virender Bhatt, Ld. ASJ, on the ground that aggrieved person deserted the respondent No.1. She admitted that she is being maintained by her husband in pursuance to the application U/s 125 CrPC Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 7 /9 filed by her. She further admitted that on 10/11/00 she was actually not feeling well. When she was questioned about the efforts made by her to join the matrimonial house after she was allegedly thrown out on 10/11/2000, she deposed that her father and one Goverdhan has made such efforts but she did not specify the date, time and place when such efforts were made. Father was not examined as a witness by her.
17. Respondent no.1 on the other hand, was also cross examined on the aforesaid aspects. He admitted in his testimony that there used to be fight between the couple on petty issues. He deposed that the aggrieved person always wanted to visit her paternal house and wanted the respondent No.1 to listen to the dictates of her father. He specifically mentioned about the dates on which he made efforts to bring the aggrieved person back to the matrimonial house but failed. He also admitted that he had filed various complaints before various authorities to bring her back.
18. The aggrieved person was questioned as to why she filed the present application. She stated that she wanted to live with her husband and he had filed a divorce petition. However, I am unable to understand as to why she did not file any complaint against her husband since 2000 to 2008 if violence was committed upon her. Even if it is assumed that no such complaint was filed by her as she did not want to settle scores with her husband, it cannot be forgotten that she filed the present application immediately after filing of the divorce petition by her husband and she has not been able to specify about a single effort made by her prior to the filing of this application to join back the company of her husband. Instead, it is the respondent no.1 who has deposed about the dates on which he made such efforts as is admitted by both the sides. It is the respondent no.1 who filed various applications before various authorities for entering into a compromise and for bringing back the aggrieved person to the matrimonial household.
19. The aggrieved person in her own testimony admitted that both the respondent no.2 and respondent No.1 as well as mother of the respondent No.1 were working. It is also admitted that earlier Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 8 /9 she was residing at the ground floor of the house and later on she was given first floor of the house. The aggrieved person stayed in the house for a very short period. There are no allegations of economic abuse as it is admitted by the aggrieved person that she is being continuously maintained by respondent No.1. There are general & sweeping allegations of dowry demand and torture.
20. From the testimony and documents on record it appears that the present application is a counter blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband which was a result of continuous refusal of the aggrieved person to join back his company. The aggrieved person has not been able to prove the commission of domestic violence against her. Hence, she is not entitled for any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Resultantly, application is dismissed and stands disposed off.
Announced in open court On 12th March, 2013.
(JYOTI KLER) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAHILA COURT(SOUTH), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI Parvati V/s Bhola Ram Page No. 9 /9