Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Further in cross examination dated 17.02.2024 petitioner has stated that, she does not remember the BMW car reregistration number, car model number or make of the car. She has further admitted that, she does not know who gave Rs.10 lakhs to whom and where the said money was given before marriage. She has stated that, she has directly paid respondent's designer for his wedding clothes. She has admitted that, Crl.Misc.94/2022 she has not submitted any bills or payment receipts in this regard. She has further stated that, they have purchased all the gold jewellery worth Rs.10 lakhs from Avenue road. She has denied the suggestion that, the gold jewelleries were never given to respondents. She has stated she does not remember the place from which silver articles worth Rs.10 lakhs were purchased. She has admitted that, she does not have any documents to prove that gold, silver articles, cash were all given to respondents. She has stated that, the persons who have attended the wedding are witnesses for the same. She has admitted that, respondents have never accessed her separate locker and they have never withdrawn money from her personal account. She has further stated that, a locker was opened in the name of 1 st and 2nd respondent after marriage and all the gold and silver articles of the house were shifted to said joint locker and only respondent No.2 could operate the said locker and even her name was added to the said locker. She has admitted that, she has not disclosed about this in her petition as she does not have any information regarding the said locker.

14. Petitioner has submitted Ex.P.2 series consisting of 51 tax invoices for having purchased gold Crl.Misc.94/2022 articles to prove her allegation that her family has given gold and silver articles worth crores of rupees to the respondents. Perusal of the said bills reveal that some of them are of the year 2017, 2018, 2019. Admittedly, the marriage has taken place on 12.03.2020 and it is not possible that petitioner's family purchased gold articles on demand of respondent even before the marriage was fixed. Even if it is assumed that petitioner's family has collected gold articles over the years for the purpose of marriage of the petitioner Ex.P.2/tax invoices or bills do not prove that respondents had demanded petitioner's family to give them gold and silver articles and they also do not prove that the said articles are in the custody of the respondents. Petitioner in her cross examination has stated that all her jewellery are in a joint locker in the name of respondent No.1, 2 and herself and only respondent No.2 has access to the said joint locker. Evidently, petitioner has not submitted anything about joint locker in the petition or in her examination in chief. She has further stated in her cross examination that, her name was also added to the joint locker. If that was true she could have approached the bank and secured details of the joint locker and the articles kept in the said locker. Further petitioner has not specified as to when, who, where made the alleged dowry demand from the Crl.Misc.94/2022 petitioner's family. She has also not stated as to when she has handed over her jewelry and silver articles to the respondents. Petitioner has not submitted any other bill with respect to marriage expenses apart from Ex.P.6 which is flower decoration bill for Rs.13,81,500/- and Ex.P.7/bank statement of her father for having paid caterers Rs.10 lakhs for wedding food. This petition is of the year 2022 and marriage has taken place in the year 2020. Therefore, long time has not elapsed between the date of marriage and date of filing of the petition. Therefore, it is not believable that petitioner does not have any bill except for Ex.P.6 and 7 to prove marriage expenses. Petitioner has stated that, BMW car was given to respondent No.1 on his demand. Petitioner is unable to state the registration number, model number of the car. If at all petitioner's parents have purchased BMW car there would have been bills or bank statement for having paid for the said car. But petitioner has not submitted any evidence with respect to the car. Therefore, on an overall consideration of the evidence, petitioner is unable to prove that respondents have demanded dowry and demanded celebration of marriage in a grand scale. Further petitioner is unable to prove that all her jewelleries is in the custody of the respondents.