Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

e. Further, it is submitted that Respondent No.1 has an illicit relationship with one Sunitha Gowda, who has threatened Petitioner No.1 to divorce him. On 28.10.2014, Respondent No.1 sent a Facebook message questioning the paternity of the child and expressed his intent to show affection only to the child born to him and Sunitha Gowda. Due to the continued harassment and demands for dowry, Petitioner No.1 filed a complaint at Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bangalore. A case was registered against the Respondents under Sections 34 and 498A Crl.Misc.No.11/2015 JUDGMENT of IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, culminating in C.C. No. 35281/2014.

18. In view of this acquittal, the allegations of dowry demands and cruelty raised by Petitioner No. 1 cannot be upheld, as the Hon'ble 5th ACMM Court found no basis for a conviction on those charges. Consequently, this judgment considerably weakens the position of the petitioners by undermining the legal foundation of their claims related to dowry and cruelty.

19. The main grievance of Petitioner No.1, the wife, is that Respondent No.1 is allegedly involved in an illicit relationship with one Ms. Sunitha Gowda. She claims that Ms. Gowda has threatened her, demanding that she divorce Respondent No.1. Furthermore, on 28.10.2014, Respondent No.1 reportedly sent a message via Facebook questioning the paternity of the child born during their marriage. In the message, he allegedly expressed that he intended to show affection only to the child born to him and Ms. Sunitha Gowda. Additionally, during cross-examination Crl.Misc.No.11/2015 JUDGMENT on 09.11.2016, Petitioner No.1 deposed that Respondent No.1 had sent her a message explicitly stating that he and Ms. Sunitha Gowda were planning to get married. She further testified that, to the best of her knowledge, Respondent No.1 and Ms. Gowda had indeed married. To substantiate this claim, she produced a photograph uploaded on Facebook that purportedly depicted their marriage. However, she admitted during her testimony that she had not initiated any criminal proceedings against Respondent No.1 for entering into a second marriage with Ms. Gowda while their marital relationship was still legally subsisting.

21. The petitioner-wife, in an attempt to substantiate her claim of Respondent No.1's alleged illicit relationship, has produced certain pages from Respondent No.1's Facebook account, marked as Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.20. According to the petitioner, these exhibits demonstrate Respondent No.1's inappropriate relationship with a woman named Ms. Sunitha Gowda. She contends that Ex.P.20 contains a photograph uploaded by Respondent No.1, showing him alongside Ms. Sunitha Gowda, which allegedly indicates their closeness. Additionally, the petitioner has claimed that Respondent No.1 sent a Facebook message to her sister, Ms. Nischitha, wherein he denied paternity of the child born during his marriage to the petitioner. In the same message, he purportedly expressed his intention to marry another woman, specifically Ms. Sunitha Gowda, in the upcoming month.

23. Given Respondent No.1's denial, it became incumbent upon the petitioner-wife to provide convincing evidence to substantiate her allegations. This could include direct evidence such as testimony from Ms. Nischitha, who was the alleged recipient of the Facebook message, or authenticated copies of the message in question. However, the petitioner-wife failed to examine Ms. Nischitha as a witness to corroborate her claims. Furthermore, no original or certified copies of the alleged Facebook messages from Ms. Nischitha's account were presented during the proceedings. This omission significantly weakens the petitioner's case.