Your Honour I do NOT know her, she is NOT my wife. How could I beat her or my brother mollest? What DV?

* Woman files DV case, alleges cruelty, beating by husband and even molesting by bro in law at the instigation of husband! The accused man turns up at court and says he DOES NOT know her, she’s NOT his wife ! and his wife is dead long ago !! The woman is a stranger who is trying to take away his property
* The brother in law (other accused) etc turn up and say they are not living with the accused male. the accused claim this is a method to take away their property !!
* Finally the woman who complained DV, runs away during cross !!

This is the fate of law’s empowering women !! anyone can file DV cases on anyone… matter will go to court and all accused will have to run to court and spend money to exonerate themselves !! However NO strictures are made against such misuse

Now…Now… I’m NOT making up these things, these are from the Honourable court’s records

allegations
********************
“….Immediately, after her marriage, the respondent no.1 & 2 subjected her to mental as well as physical cruelty. She was tortured and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent no.2 at the behest of respondent no.1 used to molest her in the presence of respondent no.1. She was thrown out of her matrimonial house and was compelled to stay first at Faridabad and thereafter at Delhi. On 15.06.2006 in the absence of respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 assaulted her and took her signature on some stamp papers. The respondent no.4 to 6 also joined the respondent no.2 and ousted her from matrimonial house after beating her mercilessly. ….”

counter
*********************
* complainant is complete stranger to him
* she has filed the present complaint at the instance of some unscrupulous person
* has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to grab his property
* further stated that he was married to one Smt. Angoori Devi, around 50 years ago
* later on, his wife Angoori Devi and both his daughters expired.
* He never remarried and has never seen the complainant. !!!

during cross
********************
* She was cross examined at length on 27.09.2011 and thereafter her further cross examination was deferred.
* Thereafter, she failed to appear in the witness box for her further cross examination despite availing sufficient opportunities for the said purpose.
* Consequently, CE was closed on 08.11.2012.

*****************************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. PRIYA MAHENDRA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT: SOUTH DELHI
SAKET COURT COMPLEX : NEW DELHI.

CC No.418/1 of ( Date of filing:1.10­2009)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Bhagwan Devi W/o Shri Ram Prakash Joshi,
R/o House No. B­183B,
Durga Vihar, Khanpur Devli,
New Delhi. …….Aggrieved person

Versus

1. Ram Prakash Joshi,
2. Om Prakash, Both sons of Sh. Roshan Lal,
3. Ajay,
4. Subhash,
5. Anil,
6. Chandra Kant All sons of Om Parkash,
All resident of VPO Jawar (via Mursan),
District Aligarh (UP). …..Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. The complainant has filed a petition u/s 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) interalia seeking reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Act.

2. The brief facts as disclosed in the petition stated by the aggrieved person are that she was married to respondent no.1 in the month of June, 1980 at Village .

Jawar, Distt. Aligarh (U.P.). No issue was born out of wedlock. The respondent no.2 is her brother in law and respondent no. 3 to 6 are sons of her brother in law. Immediately, after her marriage, the respondent no.1 & 2 subjected her to mental as well as physical cruelty. She was tortured and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. The respondent no.2 at the behest of respondent no.1 used to molest her in the presence of respondent no.1. She was thrown out of her matrimonial house and was compelled to stay first at Faridabad and thereafter at Delhi. On 15.06.2006 in the absence of respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 assaulted her and took her signature on some stamp papers. The respondent no.4 to 6 also joined the respondent no.2 and ousted her from matrimonial house after beating her mercilessly. Having no other option, she reached her sister’s house at Faridabad (Haryana). She has not been allowed to enter her matrimonial house. Her entire Istridahn and Jwellery articles have not been returned by the respondents. Thereafter, the complainant has set out the income and financial status of the respondent no.1.

3. The respondents filed the reply. In the reply, the respondent no.1 stated that the complainant is complete stranger to him and she has filed the present complaint at the instance of some unscrupulous person having enmity with him. The complainant has filed the present complaint with an ulterior motive to grab his property. He has further stated that he was married to one Smt. Angoori Devi, around 50 years ago and two children/daughters were born out of the wedlock. But later on, his wife Angoori Devi and both his daughters expired. He never remarried and has never seen the complainant. He never stayed or lived with the complainant in his entire life.

4. The respondent no.2 to 6 have stated in their reply that the respondents are residing separately from the respondent no.1 from last 50 years. The complainant is not known to the respondent no.1 and the present complaint is mischievous and motivated.

5. The complainant has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent controverting the stand taken by the respondents and reaffirming the averment mentioned in the petition.

6. Thereafter, the complainant filed her evidence by way of affidavit which was duly tendered by her. In the said affidavit, she deposed on the same lines as in her petition. She was cross examined at length on 27.09.2011 and thereafter her further cross examination was deferred. Thereafter, she failed to appear in the witness box for her further cross examination despite availing sufficient opportunities for the said purpose. Consequently, CE was closed on 08.11.2012. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. The respondents opted not to examine any witness in their defence on account of failure of the complainant to complete her evidence and to produce any other witness.

8. It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondents that the falsity of the complainant is apparent from the fact that the complainant in a mid­way stopped appearing in the matter at the time of recording her evidence. The respondents have no relation with the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove her case and is not entitled to any relief.

9. Arguments heard and record carefully perused.

10.It is a well settled law that the evidence of any witness cannot be read unless it is tested on the anvil of cross examination. The complainant failed to appear in witness box after partial recording of her cross examination and her evidence, thus, remained inconclusive and incomplete. Therefore, the same cannot be read in support of her case. No other witness has been examined by the complainant to substantiate her case. The respondents have denied having any relationship with the complainant. Even, the factum of marriage between the complainant & respondent no.1 is in dispute. Her evidence also reveals that she has not filed any documentary evidence to prove her marriage with the respondent no.1. There are also inherent inconsistencies between her evidence and the cross examination. In her cross examination, she has admitted leaving her matrimonial house in 1980 itself after 5­6 months of marriage. She also stated that after leaving her matrimonial house she never visited her matrimonial house again. But in her evidence by way of affidavit, she has cited about the incident of 2006 when she was molested by the respondent no.1 and assaulted by the respondent no. 2 to 6 in the matrimonial house. The respondent was deprived of an opportunity to fully cross examine her on such vital points as she stopped appearing in the matter. Having considered the entire circumstances and material on record, I am of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove existence of domestic relationship between her and the respondent no.2 to 6 which is sine qua non for entitling her to any relief under the Act and consequently, is not entitled to any relief. The present petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

11. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open court On 21th January 2013.

(PRIYA MAHENDRA)
Metropolitan Magistrate:
Mahila Court­ South Delhi,
Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi

CC No:418/1 Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs. Ram Prakash & Ors.

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