Bangalore District Court
Smt.Prabhavathi vs Shri. K.C.Ramachandraiah on 1 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT - IV, BANGALORE
PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com.,LLB.,
MMTC - IV, BANGALORE
DATED : THIS THE 01st DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
Crl.Misc.NO.52-2014
PETITIONER: Smt.Prabhavathi,
Aged about 37 years,
W/o.K.C.Ramachandraiah,
Residing at No. 46, 8th main,
New Gurappanapalya,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
Bangalore- 560 029.
VS.
RESPONDENT: Shri. K.C.Ramachandraiah,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o.Shri.Channa Rangappa,
Residing at Kaduthanahalli,
Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore District.
Also having address at
C/o.Shri.Muddurange Gowda,
Ammani Marasandra, Hesarghatta
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District.
***
JUDGEMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/S 12 of protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking relief's U/S 18,19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act.
2 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 20142. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that she was married to respondent on 28.11.2001 at Muttur village, Doddaballapura, Bangalore District as per Hindu Customs and tradition. After marriage the petitioner lived with the respondent at Marasandra, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore. Out of their wedlock one male child was born on 22.1.2003. It is averred in the petition that after the marriage the petitioner came to know that the respondent's people had told lie that the respondent has completed PUC, he is having vast lands and looking after the same. After the marriage the respondent's brother made the respondent to work in his looms. The respondent used to spend all the money he earned, for himself and never gave anything to the petitioner , even for her basis requirements. The life of the petitioner in the house of the respondent was a thorny bed. The respondent's brother's wife never permitted the petitioner to take daily bath stating that there was no need to have daily bath. They used to even restrict food and often used to give stale food stating that the petitioner and her husband were burden on them. The respondent used to extend physical and mental cruelty and in the year 2009 the respondent made attempt to kill the petitioner as a result of which she was completely paralyzed for nearly a year and now she can move her hands with great difficulty. Inspite of the petitioner's infirmities the respondent did not care to look after her. The respondent though getting sufficient income , but he has not looked after the petitioner and minor son. The respondent treated the petitioner as slave and he used to beat her and kept her under his control. The petitioner submitted that she was not in a position to lead married life 3 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 with the respondent due to his mental and physical torture. It is contended that that petitioner was kept deprived of food, clothes and affection by inflicting cruelty of mental and physical harassment on her. Respondent being financially sound has intentionally neglected the welfare of the petitioner and her child, as such petitioner prayed for protection Order U/Sec.18, residence order U/Sec. 19, monetary relief of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance and custody of her son U/Sec.21 of PWDV Act.
3. After registration of the case, summons was issued to the respondent and he appeared through the Advocate and filed detailed statement of objections. The objections of the respondent in brief is that the petitioner is guilty of suppressing material facts, the solemnization of marriage was true and correct, but the said marriage has been dissolved by the Hon'ble V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C.No.2311/2010, order dated 02/04/2014. As on today no relationship exists between the petitioner and himself. The petitioner is not with the respondent since 2009, even to this day, as such there is no domestic relationship in shared household between them. Rest of the allegations are denied by the respondent.
4. On completion of the pleadings, the matter was set up for trial. The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 on her behalf. The respondent was given sufficient opportunity, but the respondent has not cross examined PW.1. Hence cross examination of PW.1 was taken as Nil. The respondent has not 4 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 led his side evidence, hence matter was posted for arguments. Heard the arguments of both sides and posted for judgment.
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has been in domestic relationship with the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that she has been subjected to Domestic Violence and neglected by the respondent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief's as sought in the petition?
4. What order?
6. On perusal of materials before this court, My findings on the above said points are as under:
1. POINT NO.1: IN AFFIRMTIVE
2. POINT NO.2: IN NEGATIVE
3. POINT NO.3: PARTLY IN AFFIRMATIVE
4. POINT NO.4: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS
7. POINT No.1 & 2: For the purpose of brevity, the following points are taken for common discussion.
8. In order to prove her case the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, they are Ex.P.1- Wedding card, Ex.P.2-marriage photos; Ex.P.3- M.C.No.2311/2010 petition and judgment copy; Ex.P.4- Birth certificate; Ex.P.5-28 school receipts; Ex.P.6 and 7- Police 5 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 endorsements; Ex.P.8-37 medical documents; Ex.P.9-Lease agreement; Ex.P.10- 4 RTC Extracts.
9. On perusal of the statement of objection, it is seen that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The respondent contends that the petitioner is not in domestic relationship with the respondent since 2009. Therefore the marital status between the petitioner and respondent is not seriously contested. Ex.P.1 being the Wedding card also proves this fact, Ex.P.2 Is the marriage photos, Ex.P.4 is the birth certificate of child born to the petitioner and respondent, their name is depicted in the said document. These documents establish the fact of the petitioner is in domestic relationship with the respondent.
10. The petitioner in order to prove the negligence of the respondent as well as domestic violence of the respondent, has reiterated the contents of the petition in her affidavit as examination in chief. The petitioner has made various allegations against the respondent and she has also deposed that she has filed a Criminal case against the respondent. However no specific allegations are being made against the respondent so as to prove the act of domestic violence. Mere allegations which are not specific and which are vague in nature cannot be accepted as proof of domestic violence.
11. The respondent was given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the petitioner, but the respondent has not cross examined the PW.1, hence cross examination of PW1 was taken as Nil. The respondent has not led any evidence on his behalf. Hence on the perusal of the exhibits, this Court is of 6 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 the opinion that respondent can take proper and adequate care of the petitioner and her child. As the respondent has not cross examined the petitioner and he has not led his evidence, hence it would be better to come to the conclusion that the respondent has not come forward before this Court denying or disproving the allegations made against him in this case. At this juncture there are no material furnished before this Court to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. If the respondent had taken care of the petitioner, he could have certainly put up some defence before this Court against the claim of the petitioner. The Ex.P.3 is the M.C.NO.2311/2010, in which the petitioner has sought for divorce from the respondent, on the ground of cruelty. The said petition came to be allowed on 02/04/2014 . Ex.P.9 is the lease deed which shows that the petitioner has made arrangement of alternate accommodation. On perusal of Ex.P 3 it is clear that from the date of filing the M.C.petition, the petitioner has not been cohabiting with the respondent, even to this day. When such being the case, the infliction of domestic violence made against the respondent gets diluted and same cannot be accepted. The present case is filed in the year 2014. The petitioner has not specifically explained the delay in approaching the Court. No doubt the PWDV Act is beneficiary legislation and is intended to protect the interest of the wife. The petitioner in order to claim any relief under the said Act must satisfy and prove before this Court that she is an aggrieved woman U/sec. 2(a) of the Act, and she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined U/Sec. 3 of D.V.Act. Except the vague allegations made against the respondent, the petitioner has not proved her case of domestic violence against him. Hence, in this background it is seen that the 7 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 petitioner has filed this petition only to claim monetary benefit from the respondent without discharging her obligations as a wife. Though the petitioner has sought for monetary benefit, she has not submitted any documents to show that respondent has sufficient income and he has failed to discharge his obligations as husband, towards her.
12. However, on perusal of the records it is found that a child is born to both the parties. Though the petitioner has not placed on record any evidence in relation to the act of domestic violence , yet the interest of the child is to be looked into. Hence, in the absence of evidence in relation to domestic violence, this Court is of the opinion that granting an order of maintenance to the child would sub serve the ends of justice. Hence, I answer point No.1 in the Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative.
13. POINT No.3: The petitioner has sought for protection order restraining the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence. As discussed above there are no evidence to show that an act of domestic violence was committed by the respondent. Hence this relief is liable to be declined.
14. The petitioner has sought for a residence order U/Sec.19 of D.V.Act, directing the respondent to secure the same level or alternative accommodation for the petitioner. On perusal of the materials placed before this Court, there is no evidence placed by the petitioner to prove the level of accommodation she enjoyed while she was residing with the respondent and the shared household. Hence, the said relief is liable to be declined.
8 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 201415. The petitioner has prayed for an amount of Rs.25,000/-
per month towards maintenance of herself and her child. As discussed by me above, granting maintenance to the child would be proper in the ends of justice. Hence, an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the child and for the child's welfare would meet the ends of justice.
16. The petitioner has sought for custody of the child, till the child attains the age of majority. The petitioner being the natural guardian of the child and this question is not cross claimed by the respondent. Hence to award the relief of custody of the child to the petitioner, till the child attains majority would be proper.
17. The petitioner has sought for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
as compensation. Since, the act of domestic violence is not specifically proved before this Court, granting compensation would be inappropriate. However, the respondent being the husband of petitioner, he is the father of the child born to the petitioner. It is his duty of the respondent, to look after the legally wedded wife and children born out of wedlock. When the question of responsibility arises, the respondent as father has to look after his child. Hence, it deems fit to this Court that the respondent has to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner, who is the care and custodian of the child. Hence I answer point No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
18. POINT No.4: In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, depositions and documentary evidence, this court proceeds to pass the following:
9 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is allowed in part.
The protection order U/S 18 of Act is hereby rejected.
The residence order U/S.19 of Act is also rejected.
The respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.8,000/-p.m., (Rupees Eight Thousand) to the child born through petitioner from the date of the petition till the said child attains majority.
The respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs) to the petitioner as compensation.
The custody of the child is ordered to be retained with the petitioner until the child attains majority.
The claim of maintenance for the petitioner is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.10 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014
Office is directed to furnish copy of this order to both the parties, free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 01st day of October 2016).
(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV,BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
P.W.1: Prabhavathi
2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1: Wedding card Ex.P.2: Marriage photos Ex.P.3: M.C.No.2311/2010 Petition and Judgment copy Ex.P.4: Birth certificate Ex.P.5: 28 school receipts 11 Crl.Misc.No.52 of 2014 Ex.P.6: Police endorsement Ex.P.7: Police endorsement Ex.P.8: 37 medical documents Ex.P.9: Lease agreement Ex.P.10: 4 RTC Extracts
3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NIL
4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NIL (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC - IV,BANGALORE.