Dowry cases EVEN before marriage to demand 50% of ancestral house! 498a 125 DV cocktail continue !! Mahila Court Delhi!

We have seen many a fake Dowry case, but the ingenuity and cunning moves women filing fake DVs still shock us !! This woman files a dowry case SOON after her engagement but well before marriage, corners the husband and co to register their ancestral property in her joint name in exchange to withdrawing the case. NOT only does she continue with that case, after marriage she leaves the husband’s house, goes away and files even more cases !! Finally the matter reaches Delhi Mahila courts and is decreed on 28 November, 2013

Excerpts
******************
* Engaged on 02.07.2005.
* Sent legal notice dated 12.10.2006
* Complaint made to police
* FIR No. 189/2007 PS Dabri U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against would be husband and co !
* to withdraw that case the husband’s mother had to give away her property and that was registered in the joint name of this ablaa and her husband !! “….Sale deed of plot at Patel Nagar, Top Dada (near Novely Palace), Ajmer, Rajasthan was made in the joint name of ….” In spite of getting that property she did not withdraw her case “….This shows that mother of respondent no. 1 has to transfer half of her own property in the name of the complainant, as a consideration of solemnization of marriage and respondent no. 1 but despite the same the complainant did not withdraw the case registered by her against the respondents U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. …..”
* so wife added many more complaints of dowry demand on herself and he father (which the court later shows are UN substantiated !!)
* then she went on toe register FIR No. 93/2009 U/s 406/498A/34 IPC against husband and others
* Joint WS was filed by respondents (husband and co)
* They denied in toto all the allegations made by the wife against them, as completely false and motived.
* The husband claims that this case is a part of a series of malicious and frivolous acts on the part of wife who has already implicated husband and co in cases under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C . Another case U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C to register an FIR U/s 498A IPC is also being pursued by the ablaa !!
* The husband also claims As such the intention of the wife is manifestly malafied, only to harass the respondents physically, mentally and morally through multifarious legal proceedings.
* The husband submits that he is neither a qualified engineer, nor he is earing Rs. 40,000/- nor he has any income from the ancestral land as alleged by the complainant. He is only a teacher working in a private school.* During 2007, husband lost the job, due to arrest in the false case U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, filed by wife and now he is totally dependent on his parents.

* in the cross examination it comes out that
**********************************************
– she does NOT have any proof of the demands or the payment of dowry
– she has NOT stayed for long with her in laws in their house to establish domestic relationship with them and so cannot be entitled to compensation from them
– she had lied when she said that her in laws did NOT take care of her when the kid was born
and
– she has NOT been subjected any domestic violence

and so …. she is NOT entitled to any relief under the DV act !!

*****************************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: Ld.MM (MAHILA COURTS-2)
ROOM NO: 315: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF CC No. 293/1/08

28 November, 2013

Smt. Kalpna
D/o Sh. R.C. Sharma
W/o Sh. Vishwas
R/o RZ-25B, Gali No. 2A,
Durga Park, New Delhi-45.                      ………………….. (AGGRIEVED PERSON/COMPLAINANT)

VERSUS

1. Sh. Vishwas (Husband) S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
2. Sh. Krishan Kumar, (father in law)
3. Smt. Usha Sarswat (mother in law)
4. Sh. Avinash (brother in law) S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
5. Smt. Anuradha (sister in law/jethani) W/o Sh. Avinash
6. Ms. Payal (sister in law) D/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
All R/o Patel Nagar, Top Dada
Near Novelty Palace, Ajmer, Rajasthan            ………………… (RESPONDENTS)

PS: Dabri

APPLICATION U/s 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the petition filed by the aggrieved person under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as a DV Act) filed against respondents interalia seeking relief U/s 18,19,20 & 22 of DV Act.

2. The respondent no. 1 is husband, respondent no. 2 is the father-in- law, respondent no. 3 is the mother-in-law, respondent no. 4 is brother-in-law, respondent no. 5 is sister-in-law/jethani and respondent no. 6 is sister-in-law of the aggrieved person/complainant. My Ld. Predecessor summoned all the respondents vide order dated 20.12.2008.

3. The brief facts as stated by complainant/aggrieved person in her petition/complaint are that complainant and respondent no. 1 got engaged on 02.07.2005. The same was broken due to demand of dowry raised by respondents. The respondent no. 3, sent legal notice dated 12.10.2006 through Sh. Inderkant, advocate intimating about the breaking of engagement of complainant and respondent no. 1. After that a complaint was made to the police and subsequently an FIR No. 189/2007 PS Dabri U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the respondent. The said case is still pending. After registration of FIR, the respondents through close relatives and respectable persons of society, approached the complainant and other family members on 15.05.2007 and expressed their wiliness to get the complainant marry with respondent no. 1. On assurance from respondents, complainant got married to respondent no. 1 on 23.07.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After marriage, the complainant started living with respondent no. 1 and his family members at her matrimonial house at Ajmer, Rajasthan. It is settled before the marriage that complainant with respondent no.1 would reside at Ajmer and one sale deed of plot at Patel Nagar, Top Dada (near Novely Palace), Ajmer, Rajasthan was made in the joint name of complainant and her husband. The respondent no.1 got job in Merta, District Nagpur, Rajathan. On 16.08.2007, respondent no. 1 shifted to Merta and used to visit the matrimonial house at Ajmer on every Saturday and Sunday. After some time, respondent no. 1 asked complainant to shift to Merta at his work place. The complainant tried to convince the respondent no. 1 to allow her to live at Ajmer so that she can look after the aged parents of the respondent no. 1 but to no avail. On 28.08.2007, she shifted to Merta with respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1 lakh from her father for making payment of rent/security of the house and to purchase household items. The respondent no. 1 promised to return the same to her father within two months. The father of the complainant gave an amount of Rs. 75000/- to the complainant for the sake of her married life and she handed over that amount to respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 purchased household items out of that money. She gave birth to a female child namely Mahima on 13.05.2008. All the expenditure of medical and hospital were borne by father of complainant. The inlaws of complainant even did not come to hospital to see her and the newly born child. Her newly borne child was kept in nursery for 20 days due to the weakness and all the expenditure were borne by father of the complainant. The respondents did not even turn up to visit the hospital to know about welfare of the complainant. The respondent decided to hold one function as there was birth of first child in the family of respondent no. 1. On 23.05.2008, respondent no. 2 called the father of complainant and demanded “chuchak” on the occasion of the said function. The respondent no. 2 demanded Rs. 1, 51,000/- in cash, one dress and Rs. 1100/- each for his 21 friends/relatives. The respondent no. 3 demanded gold statue of the lord radha-krishna. The father of the complainant was not in a position to fulfill such exaggerated demands of the respondent and as per his ability sent about Rs. 80,000/- on the occasion of “chuchak” but the respondents were not happy and insulted the father of complainant. On 13.08.2008, one unknown person visited the matrimonial house of the complainant and she overheard that respondents were planning to kill complainant and her daughter and plan to bury their dead bodies in jungle and to lodge complainant of their missing. The complainant feared for her life as well as life of her daughter and ran from her matrimonial house alongwith her infant daughter and whole night they stayed at the Railway Station Ajmer. She somehow contacted her parents and reached parental house. On 29.08.2008, the respondents using their high connection lodged false case against aggrieved person/complainant U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C and police from Ajmer came to Delhi and arrested her father. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

The respondent no. 1 is diploma holder in Instrumentation Engineering and is drawing Rs. 18000/- per month. He is also earing rental income of Rs. 15000/- per month from the property registered in name of complainant and respondent no. 1. He is also taking tuitions and earning Rs. 7000/-. He has no other liability except to maintain the complainant and her infant daughter. The house at Ajmer which is in the joint name of complainant and respondent no. 1 is now in possession of respondent no. 1 and its market value is not less than Rs. 25 lakhs. The complainant is not very educated and not able to earn anything for maintaining herself and her minor daughter. Her father recently died and her mother is also financially very week. She and her minor child is dependent on her brother who is the only bread earner of the family. The complainant and her minor child have been ousted from the matrimonial house and the respondent have grabbed the matrimonial house which is in the joint name of complainant and respondent no. 1. The FIR No. 93/2009 U/s 406/498A/34 IPC was also registered against the respondents.

4. Joint WS was filed by respondents. In the WS, the respondents have denied in toto all the allegations made by the complainant against them, as completely false and motived. They have further stated it is a fact that the complainant, in a pre-meditated and pre-planned manner has hatched a conspiracy with her family members and complainant herself absconded from the matrimonial house and systematically implicated the respondents in number of cases with the sole intention of amassing wealth by illegal means. Hence, the complaint is without any merits. She never wanted to stay in the matrimonial house. The present petition is a part of the series of malicious and frivolous acts on the part of the applicant who has already implicated the respondents in case under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C is being pursued in the Court of Ms. Deepa Sharma, Principal Judge, Family Court. Another case U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C to register an FIR U/s 498A IPC is also being pursued before the Hon’ble Court of Shri Vijay Shankar, M.M. Dwarka. As such the intention of the complainant is manifestly malafied, only to harass the respondents physically, mentally and morally through multifarious legal proceedings. Hence, the application under reply is likely to be dismissed with heave cost. The complainant and her family members were clever enough and succeeded in getting the one and only ancestral family property of the respondents registered in joint name of complainant and respondent no. 1 well before the marriage, which clearly shows the deep conspiracy and wickedness of complainant.

The respondent no. 1 is neither a qualified engineer, nor he is earing Rs. 40,000/- nor he has any income from the ancestral land of about 10 acres as alleged by the complainant. The respondent no. 1 was only a teacher working in a private school. During the year 2007, respondent no. 1 lost the job, due to arrest in the false case U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, filed by the complainant and now he is totally dependent on his parents.

5. The complainant examined herself as CW-1 in order to prove her case. The complainant led her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and reiterated and reaffirmed on oath the avernments made by her in her complaint. She relied on documents i.e. photocopy of Provisional Diploma Certificate in Instrumentation Engineering of respondent no. 1 as Mark-D1, photocopy of Certificate of Senior Secondary Examination of respondent no. 1 as Mark-D2, photocopy of certificate of Secondary School Examination of respondent no. 1 as Mark-D3 and copy of registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.2007 of plot bearing no. 02, Patel Nagar, Todara situated in land Khasra No. 4367 is Ex. CW1/1(colly. 5 pages). She further deposed that before marriage of complainant with respondent no. 1, it was also settled that both the parties bear all the expenses of marriage equally. The respondents refused to share marriage expenses as promised as earlier and all the expenses were borne by the father of the complainant. Respondent no. 2 assured to pay half of the expenses at the time of Gauna. After marriage and Gauna, whenever father of complainant requested the respondent to pay half of the expenses, they flatly refuse for the same. It was also settled that respondent no. 4 and his wife/respondent no. 5 would shift to Jaipur and would not interfere in the matrimonial life of complainant and respondent no.1 in any manner. She further deposed that the respondent no. 1 gave RS. 25000/- to his bhabhi/respondent no. 5 out of sum of Rs. 75,000 paid by complainant to respondent no. 1. When complainant objected to the same, respondent no. 1 explained that respondent no. 4 & 5 are in need of money and very soon return the money. After shifting to Merta, respondent no.1 starting showing his true colours and used to pass comments on complainant and her parents. While residing at Merta, the complainant got pregnant and requested the respondent no.1 that she need some elder person to advice her and requested respondent no. 1 to call his parents to stay with her but he flatly refused. When complainant came to Ajmer for delivery of her child, she was apprised that respondent no. 4 & 5 had started residing in Ajmer and had left Jaipur. When complainant objected to the same, her inlaws gave her severe beating and threatened her that “tumhe Merta le jan to ek bahana tha taaki ye log ghar me akar reh sake or hamne to tumhe ghar se bahar nikalne ke liye ek bahana chahiye tha ab tum hamara kuch nahi kar sakti ho”. On the occasion of chuchak of her daughter, the respondents,the respondents threw father of the complainant out of the matrimonial house of the complainant without allowing him to meet the complainant. The respondents told the father of complainant not to visit the matrimonial house again and also told him not to send any other relatives to meet the complainant. The complainant was confined to the house and was not even allowed to talk to her parents and she was treated worst than a servant. Respondent no. 5 used to abuse the complainant in very filthy language and respondent no. 4 on many times tried to molest her.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that she is 9th passed and is residing with her parents since 14-8-2008. She has not filed any document regarding income of respondent no.1 and she does not know whether she has filed the copy of legal notice sent by respondent no.3 before marriage. She admitted that after receipt of legal notice, she made a complaint to Mahila Panchayat, Janakpuri against all the respondents,i.e. Her would be husband, father in law, mother in law and she does not know as to what was the fate of the complaint made by her before Mahila Panchayat, Janakpuri. She stated that she has sent the reply to the aforesaid legal notice through her counsel that the marriage shall be solemnized on the date already fixed however she did not remember the date, month and year when reply to the legal notice was sent. She has further stated that compromise was effected after the registration of FIR with the help of respectable members of the society but she is not aware about the terms of compromise as same was effected by her father. She stated that she has not placed on record any written proof/ document wherein the terms of settlement qua equal sharing of expenses of marriage was effected between her father and her father in law. She denied that no such settlement of equal sharing of expenses of marriage was effected.

She stated that she has resided in her matrimonial home in Ajmer for around 3-4 months after her marriage and then shifted to Merta, Rajasthan along with her husband as her husband was employed there. She is not aware whether her husband was employed as a teacher when they shifted to Merta or not as she was told by her husband that he was employed as a teacher. She stated that she resided in Merta till 12.05.2008 and her delivery took place on 13-5-2008 in Chandok Hospital, Ajmer. She admitted that members of her in laws family used to visit JNL Hospital for general care of her daughter who was admitted there. She admitted that routine medical checkups during her pregnancy was got conducted by her husband in Merta itself. She stated that her father was in a private job at the time of her marriage and prior to that he was in government service. She admitted that her father was terminated from government job. She admitted that Ex.CW1/1 containing 5 pages is the registered sale deed jointly registered on 18-5-2007 in favour of her and her husband of a plot bearing no.02, Patel Nagar, Topdara.

She stated that she has not filed any written complaint qua demand of Rs.1 Lac made by her husband in Merta as she wanted to stay amicably with him. She stated that she has not filed any written proof/ document qua the payment of Rs.75,000/- against demand of Rs.1 Lac made by her father to her husband however she can produce bank account. She volunteered that payment of Rs. 75,000/- was handed over to her by her father and she has given the same to her husband. She has produced the bank passbook of the bank and photocopy of relevant entries as Ex.CW1/1. She admitted that account is in the name of her brother and amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from said account and remaining Rs.25000/- was arranged by her father. She stated that she has not mentioned in her affidavit that a sum of Rs.75000/- were paid from the account of her brother. She volunteered that she has mentioned in her affidavit that a sum of Rs.50,000/- were paid to her husband and she has no proof of Rs.25,000/- which were paid to Bhabhi of her husband.

She stated that she got pregnant after three months of her marriage and she delivered a female child at Ajmer and all the in laws were present with her at the time of her delivery. She denied that all the expenses of her delivery were born by her husband and in laws. She stated that she has no proof that all the expenses of her delivery were borne by her father. She stayed in hospital for about 19-20 days and she does not remember the exact date when she got discharged from the hospital. After discharge from hospital, she came back to her matrimonial home. She stated that in chuchak, her father had spent Rs.80,000/- however she has no proof for the same and her in laws were present when chuchak was given by her father and she has no list of articles given in the chuchak by her father. She denied that no chuchak was given. She stated that she has not filed any complaint regarding the harassment and torture by her in laws after the delivery of her child. She denied that no cruelty or torture was made by the respondents. She admitted that on 13-08-2008, she came from Ajmer to her parental home along with her child and she has not made any complaint on 13-08-2008. She admitted that she has received a sum of Rs.34,500/-in present case as maintenance @ Rs.1500/-. She admitted that respondents lodged a case of extortion against her father in which her father was arrested. She stated that no other family members were involved in the said extortion case. She denied that all the contents of her affidavit are false and fabricated or that whatever about the income of respondent no.1 has been mentioned in her affidavit is false and baseless or that she has deposed falsely.

6. The respondent no. 1 Vishwas examined himself as RW-1 to prove his defence.

RW-1, Vishwas led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and deposed on the same lines as in his written statement. He relied on documents i.e. Copy of notice dated 17.10.2006 as Mark-A, Copy of FIR no. 75/2007, U/s 420/384/406/34 IPC as Mark-B, Copy of Compromise Deed dated 18.05.2007 as Mark-C, Copy of Complaint filed by respondent to National Commission of Women, DCP Delhi, Chief Minister of Delhi as Mark-D (Colly.) and copy of FIR no. 87/2008 U/s 384/385/386/467/468/120 IPC filed by respondent against the complainant and her family members as Mark-E.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that Radhey Shyam who had mediated the marriage is Fufa of the complainant and he is his real Mama. He admitted that on 16.05.2004, he alongwith his mother came to the paternal house of the complainant where rokka ceremony was held. He admitted that after the rokka ceremony a ring ceremony was held on 02.07.2005 at the residence of the complainant in which he, his parents, his brother and his bhabhi participated. He also admitted that ring ceremony was also attended by the relatives and friends and well wishers from the side of complainant. He stated that nothing was given from the side of the complainant except pant shirt and Coconut. He stated that from his side, five times of gold, 7-8 saris, some fruits and cosmetics were given. The five gold items consists of ear ring, tikka, bangles, nose pin and one ring. He admitted the photographs Ex. RW1/C1 to C6 (colly). He denied the suggestion that in th said ring ceremony a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- was spent in the jewellery articles, clothes, kind and other expenses, beside this a sum of Rs. 51,000/- was given as cash. He admitted that a list of expenses of Rs. 1,75,000/- has been annexed in the case U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending before this court. However, he submitted that said list is false and forged. He denied the suggestion that said list is Mark A which are of the expenses of the ring ceremony. He admitted that his sister namely Payal was got married in the year 2006. He denied the suggestion that a sum of RS. 1 lakh was demanded and paid by the father of the petitioner at the time of marriage of his sister. He admitted that his marriage with the complainant was fixed by priest for 13.12.2006. He denied the suggestion that on 01.10.2006, his parents called the parents of the complainant at Ajmer and they demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and they threatened that if they will not pay the same, they will not bring the Barat. He admitted that a legal notice dated 12.10.2006 Ex. RW1/C7 was sent by his mother to the father of the complainant and Fufa of the complainant namely Radhey Shyam. He admitted that reply of the said notice was sent from the side of complainant’s family to them on 13.11.2006 Ex. RW1/C8. He admitted that in reply of the notice dated 13.11.2006, a notice was issued from their side on 22.01.2007 Ex. RW1/C9. He stated that they had not refused to bring the Barat on the fixed date of the marriage i.e. 13.12.2006. He denied the suggestion that when they refused to bring the Barat, a complaint was filed on behalf of complainant to the Commissioner of Police. He admitted taht upon the said complaint, a case was registered on 05.03.2007 vide FIR No. 189/07, U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in PS Dabri which is pending in this court. He admitted that after the registration of the case a compromise was arrived between the complainant’s family and his family on 18.05.2007 and both the parties signed their affidavit Ex. RW1/C10. He admitted that that on 18.05.2007 itself a Sale Deed Ex. RW1/C11 of the property i.e. Patel Nagar, Topadara Novelty, Ajmer, Rajasthan was executed in the his name and in the name of complainant. He denied the suggestion that father of the complainant paid certain amount towards the execution of the above said property in hisjoint name and the name of complainant. He denied the suggestion that the said property was executed in the name of the complainant to secure the future of the complainant. He admitted that earlier marriage date which was fixed for 13.12.2006 was postponed and further fixed for 23.07.2007 and the same was solemnized between him and the complainant according to Hindu rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. He denied the suggestion that father of the complainant spend huge amount in the above said marriage and presented jewellery, ornaments and domestic articles in the said marriage.

After his matriculation he completed his Poly Technical Diploma in Instrumental Engineering. At present, he is teaching in a Shiv & Ram Senior Secondary School, Bikarnia Kala, Nagor District and earning Rs. 5000/- per month. He is teaching 8th Class. He has not enclosed the certificate of earning as stated above in the present file. His parents are living in the house which is in joint name of him and complainant and he is living at the place of his work at Nagor. He has not mentioned about the fact of working and teaching of Nagor District and the earning thereof in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A . His bhabhi and elder brother are residing at Jaipur. A case vide FIR no. 75/2007 U/s 420/384/406/34 IPC filed by him against complainant and her family members is pending in District Court Ajmer. He denied the suggestion that after the death of the father of the complainant, the said case was dismissed and at present case FIR no. 75/2007 U/s 420/384/406/34 IPC is not pending in District court Ajmer. He denied the suggestion that after dismissal of this case, they preferred again a complaint case in District Court Ajmer, Rajasthan. He denied the suggest that as per the compromise the cases were not withdrawn as they started harassing and torture the complainant on account of insufficient dowry. He denied the suggestion that his bhabhi and brother are also residing alongwith his parents at Ajmer. It is a matter of record whether he has stated in his written statement the fact that the complainant used to demand rent of the house and the pension of his father as deposed by him in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A.

He denied the suggestion that he has demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lac while he was living at Merta (Rajasthan) for purchasing of domestic articles. He denied the suggest that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to him on 30.11.2007 out of which a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank account of brother of the complainant and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was arranged by borrowing from the relatives. He denied the suggest that on 23.05.2008 the chuchak was given by the parents of the complainant on the birth of the female baby. He admitted that they are living separately since 13.08.2008. He also admitted that complainant is living at her parental house since 13.08.2008 alongwith the child. He does not know whether his daughter is having medical problem and cannot hear without the aid of hearing machine. He voluntarily stated that his daughter was all right at the time of leaving his house with his wife. He does not know whether a machine worth about Rs. 1 lac has been purchased for his daughter for her hearing.

He admitted that during the court hearings his daughter used to come in the court alongwith the complainant. He has made efforts to talk to his daughter. He voluntarily stated that but mother of complainant never allowed him to talk with his daughter. He noticed that his daughter was having machine in her ear but he was not aware why such machine has been put in her ear. His daughter was three months old when his wife took her from his house. He has not given any maintenance to his wife and for his child before court order. He voluntarily added that he told her to live with him but she refused. He admitted that a sum of Rs. 3,000/- has been awarded for the maintenance of his wife and child under the provision of 125 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that more than Rs. 1 lac is pending arrears in the said case and he has not paid the same. He voluntarily added that he is paying Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. He denied the suggestion that he is paying the amount after 3-4 months on the court dates.He denied the suggestion that he is not paying regularly the amount which is fixed under the provision of 125 Cr.P.C. He admitted that after leaving the matrimonial house on 13.08.2008, a complaint in the CAW Cell was filed by his wife and upon that complaint a case U/s 406/498A IPC was lodged against him and his family members which is pending in Dwarka Courts. He also admitted that a case U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is also pending against his family members in Dwarka Courts. He admitted that on 02.07.2005, the ring ceremony was held at Delhi. He denied the suggestion that on 01.10.2006, they demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the father of the complainant. He stated that he knows the contents of the legal notice sent by his mother Ex. RW1/C7. He denied the suggestion that the house which is in the joint name of him and his wife, they are not allowing the complainant to live in the said house. There is no agricultural land at his native village Jagner, U.P. He has provision for his wife to live with him at Merta City, Nagor District, Rajasthan. He does not wants his wife to stay in her matrimonial house at Ajmer. He voluntarily added that he want her to stay with him at Merta City, Nagor District, Rajasthan.) He denied the suggestion that he is not allowing his wife to live at her matrimonial house despite her being joint owner of the said house. He denied the suggest that during the stay at her matrimonial house, he gave beatings to his wife and under the apprehension she left the matrimonial house and constrained to stay at her parental house. He denied the suggest that the complainant after the marriage resided at her matrimonial house and she used to visit Merta off and on. He denied the suggestion that he has not arranged any residence for the living of complainant and the child. He denied the suggest that he filed a false affidavit in the court and he is deposing falsely.

7. Detailed arguments were advanced by both the counsels. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record.

Brief Reasons for decision:
*****************************************

8. In order to be entitled to claim relief against any person arraigned as respondent, it is essential for the aggrieved person to show that she shared domestic relationship with the said respondent.

The term domestic relationship has been defined in section 2 (f) which reads 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;

The term respondent has been defined in section 2 (q) which reads as under:

“respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the
aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act;

Whether the domestic relationship between complainant and respondent no. 2 to 6 is established:-

9. The complainant admitted during her cross-examination that after her marriage with respondent no. 1 solemnized on 23.07.2007, she alongwith her husband shifted to Merta, Rajasthan within 3-4 months. Thus, the complainant lived with respondent no. 2 to 6 in the matrimonial house only for 3-4 months after marriage and for the remaining period she was living separately with her husband at Merta, Rajasthan. The complainant voluntarily stated in her evidence that she used to often visit her inlaws during her stay at Merta.

10. It shall be apposite herein to refer to judgment of Hon. High Court of Delhi in Harbans Lal & Malik and ors Vs. Payal Malik 2010 (3) LRC. It was observed in para 12 that:

“It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two
persons, who have lived together in a shared household and 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. The definition speaks of living together
at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at
any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and
if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared
household, the person can be a respondent but if the relationship
does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is
not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground
of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the
aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the
time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this
relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the
domestic relationship cannot be said to be there…………….”

The term Hindu Undivided Family was further elaborated in para no. 17 of the said judgment. It reads that:

“……………………A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided
Family (HUF) or a joint family is an extended family arrangement
prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many
generations living under the same roof. All the male members are
blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives,
unmarried daughters or widowed relatives, all bound by the common
sapinda relationship. The joint family status being the result of
birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family
together is not property but the relationship. The family is headed
by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decision on
economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The
patriarch’s wife generally exerts control over the kitchen, child
rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common
pool and all property is held jointly. The essential features of a
joint family are:

•Head of the family takes all decisions.

•All members live under one roof.

•Share the same kitchen.

•Three generations living together (though often two or more
brothers live together or father and son live together or all the
descendants of male live together) •Income and expenditure in common
pool- property held together •A common place of worship.

•All decisions are made by the male head of the family-patrilineal,
patriarchal.

Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it
is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship
must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are
living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives
related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live
separate from their son like any other relative, the family of the
son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the
family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/ or are
living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not
dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents
shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children
shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic
relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not
living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship
of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the
wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are
born abroad……”.

The complainant got married to respondent no. 1 on 23.07.2007. She stayed in her matrimonial house with respondent no. 2 to 6 for 3-4 months and thereafter, shifted with her husband at his work place at Merta, Rajasthan where she stayed till 13.05.2008. Applying the aforesaid law to facts of present case, it is clear that there was no live and subsisting domestic relationship between the complainant and respondent no. 2 to 6 in the present case at the time of filing of present petition. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief qua respondent no. 2 to 6.

Whether the complainant has proved domestic relationship with respondent no. 1:-

11. The marriage of the complainant with respondent no. 1 and paternity of a child is not disputed. The complainant resided with respondent no. 1 for around 1 year after her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 1. So, domestic relationship is established between the complainant and respondent no. 1. Now, the next question is whether the complainant has succeeded in showing that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent no. 1 ?

12. The complainant has stated in her evidence that the respondent no. 1 and his family members raised demand of dowry after engagement ceremony was performed between the complainant and respondent no. 1 and subsequently an FIR No. 189/2007 PS Dabri U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against respondents. However the evidence reflects that it was the mother of respondent no. 1 who sent legal notice dated 12.10.2006 to the father of the complainant Ex. RW1/C7 in which it was stated that the father of complainant played fraud on the respondents by showing his daughter in place of daughter of his neighbour, for solemnization of marriage with respondent no. 1. Consequently, the engagement ceremony was performed in which the respondents gave several articles besides jewellery. Later on, respondents came to know the said fraud and as the complainant and respondent no. 1 were under degree of Prohibited Relationship under Hindu Marriage Act, father of the complainant was asked to return the articles and jewellery received on the engagement and for ending the relationship. Only after receiving said notice, the father of complainant through his counsel sent legal notice dated 13.11.2006 Ex. RW1/C8 in which the father of complainant alleged raising demand of dowry by respondent no. 1 and his family members. So, no allegation of raising demand of dowry by respondent no. 1 and his family members was raised from side of complainant before receiving legal notice Ex. RW1/C7 from mother of respondent no. 1 and the allegations were raised only after receiving said legal notice dated 12.10.2006 from the mother of the respondent no. 1. The mother of respondent no. 1 duly replied the said notice sent by father of complainant by legal notice dated 22.01.2007 Ex. RW1/C9 in which all the allegations were denied and was specifically stated that respondents never raised any demand for dowry. Thus, father of the complainant raised allegation of demand of dowry by respondents only after receiving legal notice from mother of respondent no. 1 whereby she called upon to end the relationship and demanded return of articles and jewellery. No reason has been given by complainant for not filing any complaint regarding the said alleged dowry demands by the respondents before receiving legal notice Ex. RW1/C7 and the possibility of the raising allegation of dowry demands being as an after thought cannot be ruled out.

13. In Ex. RW1/C8, the father of complainant had claimed to spent Rs. 50,000/- on the engagement of the complainant and spending around Rs. 1,75,000/- on the ring ceremony which include giving Rs. 51,000/- in cash to the respondent no. 1 and his family members and amount spent on other arrangements. It is further claimed in the said legal notice that on 22.01.2006, the respondents demanded Rs. 1 lakh for the marriage of their daughter which was given by the father of complainant. It is further stated in the said legal notice Ex. RW1/C8 that on 01.10.2006 again a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was demanded by the respondents. It is note worthy that complainant in her entire evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A has not affirmed on oath the allegations of dowry demands by respondent and spending of such huge amount in the engagement and ring ceremony of the complainant as embodied in the legal notice Ex. RW1/C8. The said legal notice has also not been relied on by the complainant at the time of leading her evidence. The respondent no. 1 in his cross-examination has accepted receiving such notice Ex. RW1/C8. However, it was essential for complainant to affirm the said allegations in her evidence as the legal notice Ex. RW1/C8 was not sent by the complainant and was in fact sent by her father. In Ex. RW1/C8, father of complainant has alleged that respondent made huge demand of dowry and such allegations can be read against the respondents only if the complainant affirms the same on oath. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

14. The engagement ceremony of complainant and respondent no. 1 was performed on 02.07.2005 and marriage was scheduled for 13.12.2006. The marriage of parties was later solemnized on 23.07.2007. The marriage was admittedly performed between the parties on 23.07.2007 after sending legal notice and counter legal notice by parties to each other. This marriage was performed after the parties reached an amicable settlement. The affidavit Ex. RW1/C1 recording the statement between the parties, reflects that it was agreed between the parties that both parties shall withdraw the cases filed by them against each other. The complainant did not withdraw the case filed by her under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act even after reaching the said compromise. The complainant in her evidence by way of affidavit has stated that it was settled before marriage that both the families would bear the expenses of the marriage equally.But later on the respondents retracted from the said settlement. However, Ex. RW1/10 no where reflects any such stipulation. The complainant also admitted in her cross-examination that she has not placed on record any written proof/documents where any such stipulation was recorded. She has not given any explanation for not filing any such document. The evidence further reflects that mother of respondent no. 1 transferred her property vide registered Sale Deed dated 18.05.2007 Ex. CW1/1 at Patel Nagar, Top Dada, situated land Khasra no. 4367, Ajmer, Rajasthan in the name of the complainant and respondent no. 1 before the solemnization of marriage. This shows that mother of respondent no. 1 has to transfer half of her own property in the name of the complainant, as a consideration of solemnization of marriage and respondent no. 1 but despite the same the complainant did not withdraw the case registered by her against the respondents U/s 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant in her cross- examination stated that the said property was purchased by her father who had paid the consideration. The said evidence cannot be relied on as neither in her complaint nor in her entire affidavit Ex. CW1/A she has stated that her father paid the consideration for the said property and she alleged the same only in her cross- examination by Ld. counsel for respondents.

15. The complainant has stated in her affidavit that respondent no. 1 raised demand of Rs. 1 lakh for purchasing household articles and promised to return the same within two months. Her father gave her an amount of Rs. 75,000 which she paid to the respondent no. 1. To substantiate the same, she filed Pass Book of Bank Account of her brother Ex. CW1/1 showing withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/-. She stated that remaining amount of RS. 25,000/- was arranged by her father. However, the documentary proof filed by her was not in tandem with her oral testimony as in her entire pleadings or evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A, she has no where stated that amount of Rs. 50,000/- was withdrawn from the bank account of her brother by her father.

The complainant falsified her own statement made by her on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A at the time of her cross-examination. In her evidence by way of affidavit she stated that her inlaws did not came to the hospital to see her newly born child after her birth. Her newly born child was kept in nursery for 20 days due to the weakness and all the expenditure were borne by father of the complainant. The respondents did not even turn up to visit the hospital to know about welfare of the complainant and her newly born child. However in her cross-examination, she admitted that all her in laws were present with her at the time of delivery of her daughter. She also admitted that her inlaws used to visit JNN Hospital for general care of her daughter who was admitted there after her birth due to her ill health. Thus, she has contradicted her own statement made by her in her affidavit during her cross-examination. The complainant also stated that all the expenses of hospital and medical were borne by her father. However, in her cross-examination she admitted that after her pregnancy all the medical tests got conducted by her husband. So, the testimony of complainant lost its credibility and not very reliable.

16. The complainant has stated that on the occasion of chuchak, the respondents made huge demand for costly articles, jewellery and Alto Car. Her father spent around Rs. 80,000/- on the occasion of chuchak in order to fulfill the demand of respondents. However, the complainant has not filed any proof about the expenditure of Rs. 80,000/-. A single bill has not been filed by the complainant to substantiate her evidence that her father was made to spent about to Rs. 80,000/- on the occasion of chuchak. She also stated that she does not remember the exact date when the chuchak was given by her father. No list was prepared of the chuchak articles. Thus, besides the oral testimony of the complainant, the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence to support her oral evidence that her father was made to spent Rs. 80,000/- on the chuchak of her daughter on account of demand raised by the respondents.

17. The complainant has stated in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. CW1/A that the quarrel took place when she visited her matrimonial house before her delivery as her brother in law(jeth) and sister in law(jethani) had started living permanently at her matrimonial house. Thus, the complainant has not given any other reason for any quarrel except that she was not happy with the fact that her jeth and jethani started living at her matrimonial house. This shows that the property dispute was the real cause of dispute between the parties as complainant never wanted her jeth and jethani to live in the matrimonial house. It is also note worthy that complainant has not made any allegation of any domestic violence perpetrated on her while she was living separately with her husband at District Merta, Rajasthan. She has only made one allegation that he used to pass comments on complainant and her parents. However, no such allegation has been raised by the complainant in her petition filed U/s 12 of DV Act or in any other document and it was raised only for first time in her evidence and the same being an improvement, does not carry much weight.

18. The complainant has stated in her evidence that on 13.08.2008, she left the matrimonial house alongwith her infant daughter as one unknown person came to the matrimonial house and she overheard that respondents were planning to kill complainant and her infact daughter and to bury their dead bodies in jungle and to lodge complainant of their missing. However, the complainant made no complaint after leaving her matrimonial house and only filed the present complaint on 20.12.2008 i.e. three months of leaving her matrimonial house. Pertinent to note herein that Mark-D (colly.) filed by respondents further reflect that it were the respondents who first made complaint to different authorities complaining about the atrocities meted out by the complainant and her father, and complainant approached the court only after the said complaints were filed by respondents. She also stated in her complaint under Section 12 of D.V Act that her father was arrested on 29.08.2008 on the complaint lodged by respondents. So, the belated filing of petition only after arrest of her father on complaint of respondents raises doubts on the veracity of present complaint. Moreover, no complaint to any authority was filed by the complainant alleging domestic violence after her marriage on 23.07.2007 till she approached this court by way of instant petition on 20.12.2008.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that complainant has failed to establish that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent no. 1 and allegations made by her remains unsubstantiated.

19. Even otherwise, maintenance has already been granted in the favour of the complainant and her infant daughter by Ld. Family Court at the time of final disposal of petition U/s 125 Cr. P.C filed by the complainant. The complainant has only during the cross-examination of the respondent no. 1 has raised that her daughter is having some hearing disability and a machine has been put in her ear for the same. However, the complainant has again not filed any medical document of her daughter in order to support the plea raised by her during the cross- examination of RW-1 that daughter of complainant is having disability for which the complainant has to incur medical expenses.

20. So, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the complainant is not entitled to any relief qua respondent no. 1. So, her petition/complaint is rejected. Complaint stands disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT                               (PRIYA MAHINDRA)
ON 28th NOVEMBER 2013                            METROPOLITAN MAGISTRARTE

MAHILACOURT-02/DWARKA

NEW 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