Woman caught in cross examination lying about DV & dowry Looses case, gets NO Money! Delhi MM court

A classic case that highlight how men should fight back, do a good cross examination and elicit facts. Wife who originally claims that she is unemployed and needs MOOLAH, admits in cross that she is earning 3000. Also the same wife who claims that there was a dowry demand, later contradicts it saying husband was demanding what she earned out of stitching

Excerpts
*************************

Originally the woman claims “… that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house;….”

Later on it transpires during cross examination that :

“….PW1 has further deposed that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name whereas, she is admitting in her cross­examination that she used to do stitching at home and able to earn around Rs. 3000/­ to 4000/­ per month. She is further admitting in her cross­examination that her husband used to beat her for his demand of Rs. 50,000/­ which she had earned from doing the stitching work before marriage. This has exposed her blatant lie and cannot be considered as reliable witness. Petitioner/PW1 has made allegations of domestic violence in the form of economic violence against respondents but she has contradicted her own allegations in her evidence.

So the Honourable court concludes :

13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I conclude that all the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents stands falsified and she fails to prove infliction of domestic violence upon her by the respondents…..”

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI: MM­1: MAHILA COURT: EAST : KARKARDOMA COURTS: DELHI

V­203/12

ID Number R0279552012

Smt. Alka
W/o Shri Prince
D/o Shri Ram Kumar
R/o H. No. 2­A/76, Geeta Colony,
Delhi                                                       …. Complainant

                             VERSUS

1.     Sh. Prince (husband)
2.     Sh. Bharat Bhushan (father in law)
3.     Sh. Amit Bansal (brother in law/jeth)
    S/o Shri Bharat Bhushan
    Both R/o H. No.195, Block No.5,
    Nand Nagari, Delhi            ….. Respondents

 JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and other in laws.

2. The relationship of the complainant with respondents is as follows:

(i)Respondent Prince­ Husband
(ii)Respondent Bharat Bhusan­ Father in law
(iii)Respondent Amit Bansal­ Jeth

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was married with the respondent no.1 Prince on 03.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in which her parents had spent around Rs. 10 lacs and given all the dowry/istridhan; that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house; that her father in law keeps bad eye on her and misbehaved with her after drinking liquor; that she stayed in her matrimonial house for three months and was brought to her parental house by her brother on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and since than she is residing with her parents and nobody came to take her back; that she was harassed, tortured and humiliated by the respondent for dowry but she tolerated the same in hope of better future but all in vain; that presently she is dependent upon the mercy of her parents and respondent no.1 has not made any effort to maintain her; that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name; that respondent no.1 is having a house bearing no. A10/109­C, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura built upto third floor, a house at Punjab given on rent, 04 TSRs out of which 02 bearing number DL 2393 and DL 0216 and motorcycle and his monthly income is more than Rs. 1 lac.

4. In view of the above facts and allegations, the following prayers have been prayed by the applicant:

i)Protection order ;
ii)Residence order;
iii)Monetary relief and
iv) Compensation and damages.

5. In response to the summons of the petition, the respondents have filed a detailed reply denying all the allegations alleged against him in the petition taking preliminary objections to the effect that petitioner has herself left her matrimonial house and withdrawn from the society of the respondents taking all her valuables and costly clothes; that they had tried to bring her back but she has flatly refused to join the company of respondent no.1; that petitioner is a skilled lady and doing stitching/tailoring work at her house earning Rs. 10,000 per month; that respondent no.1 is not doing any work and is totally dependent upon the mercy of his old aged father; that respondent no.1 is not doing any work since he is habitual drunkard and due to his bad habit he has been admitted in Nasha Mukti Kendra for 14 days. Hence the present petitioner be dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. Vide order dated 24.05.2013 petitioner was granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 2400/­ per month. Thereafter the matter was listed for petitioner’s evidence.

7. In petitioner’s evidence, petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated by her in the petition. She has been cross examined by the respondents. Thereafter matter was listed for respondent’s evidence.

8. In respondents’ evidence, respondent no.1 has examined himself as RW1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated by him in his reply. He has been cross examined by the petitioner. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.

9. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the court record.

10. The present proceedings are under Domestic Violence Act, therefore, first question that arises for determination is as to whether the applicant is an aggrieved person. Aggrieved person is defined in Section 2(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which read as under:­ “Aggrieved persons means any women who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondents.” A perusal of this section shows that two ingredients need to be satisfied before a person can be said to be aggrieved person:

i)Aggrieved person must be in domestic relationship with respondent.

ii)Aggrieved person must have been subjected to domestic violence which she was in domestic relationship with respondent.

Section 2(f) defines domestic relationship as under:­ “domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

11. It is clear from the perusal of section 2(f) that the aggrieved person must establish that she was in relationship with the respondents by way of blood, adoption or marriage and was residing with the respondents in a shared household. PW1 has stated in her examination in chief that she was married with respondent Prince and after marriage she started residing with the respondents. She has not been cross­examined by respondents on this aspect. It is settled law that if there is no cross­examination of a witness in respect of statement of fact, it will only show admission of the fact. In view of the same, PW1 is able to prove domestic relationship with respondents.

12. Now the point of consideration is whether any domestic violence has been committed upon the petitioner by the respondents or not. PW1 has stated in her examination in chief that that she was married with the respondent no.1 Prince on 03.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in which her parents had spent around Rs. 10 lacs and given all the dowry/istridhan; that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house; that her father in law keeps bad eye on her and misbehaved with her after drinking liquor; that she stayed in her matrimonial house for three months and was brought to her parental house by her brother on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and since then she is residing with her parents and nobody came to take her back; that she was harassed, tortured and humiliated by the respondent for dowry but she tolerated the same in hope of better future but all in vain; that presently she is dependent upon the mercy of her parents and respondent no.1 has not made any effort to maintain her. PW1 has further deposed that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name whereas, she is admitting in her cross­examination that she used to do stitching at home and able to earn around Rs. 3000/­ to 4000/­ per month. She is further admitting in her cross­examination that her husband used to beat her for his demand of Rs. 50,000/­ which she had earned from doing the stitching work before marriage. This has exposed her blatant lie and cannot be considered as reliable witness. Petitioner/PW1 has made allegations of domestic violence in the form of economic violence against respondents but she has contradicted her own allegations in her evidence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I conclude that all the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents stands falsified and she fails to prove infliction of domestic violence upon her by the respondents.

14. Since PW1 has failed to prove one of the essential ingredients required for the grant of reliefs as enumerated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 i.e. causal of domestic violence upon her, she is not entitled any relief. In view of the same, present petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced in the open court on 05/10/2015)

(GEETANJALI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT KARKARDOMA COURTS: DELHI

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s