Daily Archives: November 27, 2015

Wife’s DV dismissed by Delhi Sessions court as she does NOT lead evidences 2 support her case !!

* Wife files DV cases
* On completion of pleadings, arguments on interim relief were heard. Vide order dt 30.05.2014, interim application disposed off
* matter was fixed for complainant evidence (CE)
* despite availing numerous opportunities, complainant (wife) did not lead any evidence in support of her case.
* She was burdened with the nominal cost of Rs.200/­ which she deposited only after repeated directions !!
* Imposition of cost did not deter her & as she failed to lead complainant evidence even after imposition of cost on some pretext or the other !!

* So ……. the court understands that “…. It appears that the complainant was not serious in pursuing the case and somehow wanted to gain precious judicial time, which was required to be deprecated…..”
……” and then dismisses wife’s case !!

I feel this is a good case / precedent that men can use to seek dismissal of case IF wife does NOT lead evidences

*****************************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 Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr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. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM: MAHILA COURT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

CC No. 3/13/13
PS: SARAI ROHILLA
UID No.2401R0007122013

IN THE MATTER OF: ­

SMT. KALPANA
W/o SH. UMESH
R/o JHUGGI No. 101,
SUBZI MANDI, KISHANGANJ
DELHI­110007 ……….. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. SH. UMESH
S/o SH. NEM CHAND

2. SMT. LADLI
W/o SH. NEM CHAND

3.SH. NEM CHAND
S/o NOT KNOWN

4. SH. JACKY
S/o SH. NEM CHAND.

5.MS. SUNITA
D/o SH. NEM CHAND
ALL R/o G­69, GALI NO. 3,
BHRAM PURI­ DELHI­53 ………. RESPONDENTS

CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS.

Date of Institution : 04.01.2013
Date on which matter was reserved for order : 26.11.2015
Date of Judgment : 26.11.2015

BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE :­

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents. Respondent no. 1 is the husband and other respondents are in laws of the complainant. It is stated that the marriage between complainant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 27.02.2009 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. It is further stated that the parents of the complainant spent huge amount in the marriage but despite of that, the respondents harassed the complainant for dowry.

2. It is stated that the the complainant was taken to matrimonial house on 27.02.2009 but the respondents were not happy with the dowry articles given in the marriage. On next day of marriage, the respondents commented upon the dowry articles and demanded one motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac from the complainant but she kept quite. The respondents took all the jewellery articles on the ground that there is apprehension of theft.

3. It is further stated that on 05.03.2009, the complainant came back to her parents house and she told her parents about the demand of the respondents. The parents of complainant convinced her that “SAB THIK HO JAYEGA”. It is further stated that on 02.07.2009, the complainant reached her matrimonial house but the respondents started repeating the demand of motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac for respondent no. 1 to start some business. The complainant told them that her parents are poor and unable to arrange such a huge amount and motorcycle. On refusal, she was beaten by the respondents. It is further stated that on 12.07.2012, complainant was beaten by the respondents for demand of dowry and she sustained injury on her hand. The police visited the spot and called the parents of the complainant, and she was sent to her parents house with her parents. It is further stated that on 20.09.2009, the parents of the complainant took her to her matrimonial house and tried to convince the respondents with the help of relatives and some respectable persons of society

4. It is further stated that on 04.10.2009, the respondents abused and beaten the complainant for not pressurizing her parents to provide motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac to the respondents to start their own business. The respondents took the complainant forcibly and left her on road near her parent’s house of the complainant with the threats that they would not take the complainant back with them till the complainant brings the motorcycle and Rs. One Lac from her parents. It is further stated that the complainant told her parents about the threats given by the respondents. The parents along with their relatives visited the matrimonial house of complainant for compromise on several dates but the respondents refused to accept the complainant till her parents arrange one motorcycle and Rs. One Lac.

5. It is stated that respondent no. 1 has deserted the complainant since 04.10.2009 without any sufficient reason and has not provided any maintenance to her till date. The complainant is facing hardship and starvation and unable to maintain herself. It is further stated that finding no other alternative, the complainant made complaint to CAW Cell against the respondents on 19.09.2012 vide complaint No. 332/2012. It is further stated that the complainant is a house wife and has no source of income of her own. She is fully dependent on her parents for the livelihood and unable to maintain herself.

6. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 is a man of means and has been working as a cutting master and earning more than Rs. 25,000/­ per month approx. & leading a luxurious life. The respondents have neglected the complainant without any cause & reason and has refused to maintain her. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. The following orders have been requested to be passed:­

A. Protection orders under section 18 of the Act,

(i) prohibiting acts of domestic violence by granting an injunction against the respondents from repeating any of the acts of violence,

(ii) prohibiting any form of communication by the respondents or abetting in the commission of her action of domestic violence or causing to the dependent and other relative or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence,

(iii) prohibiting the respondents from committing any other act as specified in the protection order,

(iv) Prohibiting alienation of assets by the respondents.

B. Monetary relief under section 20 of the Act,

(i) directing the respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 15,000/­ per month as maintenance,

D. Compensation Order @ Rs. 2,00,000/­ under section 22 of the Act,

8. Vide order dated 04.01.2013, the respondents were directed to be summoned. On the next date of hearing, the respondents expressed their willingness to contest the petition. On this, they were directed to file reply within two weeks with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving, thereafter, complainant was also directed to file replication within a week with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving. Subsequent thereto, on completion of pleadings, arguments on the point of interim relief were heard. Vide order dated 30.05.2014, the interim application was disposed off after recording the submissions of the parties and matter was fixed for complainant evidence (CE).

9. The complainant was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving a week prior to next date of hearing. It be observed that despite availing numerous opportunities, the complainant did not lead any evidence in support of the case. She was burdened with the nominal cost of Rs.200/­ to be deposited with DLSA, which she deposited only after repeated directions but the imposition of cost did not deter the complainant as she failed to lead complainant evidence even after imposition of cost on some pretext or the other. Considering the overall conduct of complainant, complainant evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for proper order.

10. The court has carefully perused the entire record. In the present case,the complainant has not led any evidence in support of her case despite availing opportunities. Only she could have thrown light upon the facts of this case but in the absence of any evidence on record, the present case cannot lead to any logical conclusion. The court is of the view that the happening of the very incident and allegations of the complainant are not made out. It appears that the complainant was not serious in pursuing the case and somehow wanted to gain precious judicial time, which was required to be deprecated.

Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed. Respondents are discharged.

11. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.

Announced in the open court on 26.11.2015
(MONA TARDI KERKETTA ) MM­02/ Mahila Court
THC/Delhi/26.11.2015

*******************************************************************************

CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA
KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS.
CC No.3/1/13
PS: S. Rohilla

Kalpana Vs. Umesh & Ors.

26.11.2015

Present: Complainant with Ld. Proxy counsel Sh. S.S. Solanki
Respondents are absent.
Matter is fixed for CE by way of last opportunity.

Today again adjournment has been sought for the want of main counsel. Perusal of record shows that the case has been pending at the stage of CE since 19.09.2014. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, no complainant evidence (CE) has been led in support of the case. No cogent reason has been assigned for not leading CE till date. Despite specific direction to ensure the presence of the main counsel, the complainant has again sought adjournment for the want of main counsel. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

In such circumstances, granting of further opportunity shall not be justified. CE is closed.

Put up for proper orders at 04.00 pm.

MM/THC/Delhi/26.11.2015 At 4.00 Pm.

Present:­ None for the parties.

Matte is fixed for proper order.

Vide separate detailed order, the present complaint is dismissed. Respondents are discharged.

File be consigned to record room.

(MONA TARDI KERKETTA )
MM­02 Mahila Court THC/ Delhi/
26.11.2015
CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS

Looking for a 498a 406 quash to save UR parents ? This should help

Second time marrying woman files Fake 498a 406 etc combo on many in-laws including sister in law who’s married and settled abroad !! court appreciates the truth and quashes case against all except husband !!!

‘… The respondent No.2 ( the woman who filed these false cases) was earlier married. She married for the second time with the applicant No.1 at Ahmedabad…..

It’s an inter religious marriage as well , And who knows, this man could have / may have fallen in love with this fake case filing woman !!! ‘….. The respondent No.2 is Hindu by caste. The applicants before me are Christians. …’

* she promptly filed 498a 406 etc etc cases on father and mother in law who lived separately i.e. Away from the couple
* she also filed cases on a married sister in law who was married much before this marriage and who Lived abroad during the time of the incident !!

* all quashed except case on husband

*********** order copy below ************

Gujarat High Court

Ivan Albom D’Souza & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 November, 2015

R/CR.MA/1742/2015 
ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
 FIR/ORDER) NO. 1742 of 2015 
IVAN ALBOM D'SOUZA & 3....Applicant(s) Versus 
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) 
Appearance: 
MR RC KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1-4 
HARSHESH R KAKKAD, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1-4 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 
MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 24/11/2015 ORAL ORDER

1. At the outset, this application is not pressed so far as the applicant No.1-husband is concerned.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code, the applicants-original accused persons seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R.No.I-94 of 2014 registered with the Bopal Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural) for the offence punishable under sections 323, 376, 377, 498A, 506 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. The applicant No.2 is the father-in-law, the applicant No.3 is the mother-in- law and the applicant No.4 is the married sister-in-law of the first informant. The respondent No.2 was earlier married. She married for the second time with the applicant No.1 at Ahmedabad. I am told that the rituals were performed in Ahmedabad whereas the registration was done at Pune. The respondent No.2 is Hindu by caste. The applicants before me are Christians. It appears that after the marriage, sometime in 2007, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Pune up to 2011. While they were residing at Pune, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the in-laws were residing at Manglore, State of Karnataka. The applicant No.4-sister-in-law is residing even as on today at Doha, Katar. She is a married lady. In the year 2011, the applicant No.1 and the first informant decided to migrate to Doha. They stayed at Doha up to 2014. Matrimonial disputes cropped up between the husband and wife and, therefore, the first informant had to return to India in the year 2014. In the wedlock, a son was born. After the wife returned to India from Doha, she thought fit to lodge the first information report at the concerned police station on 12 th December, 2014.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the allegations levelled in the first information report, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the first information report should be quashed as prayed for. Mr. Kakkad, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the allegations levelled in the first information report are absolutely false, baseless and frivolous. He submitted that for no reason the first informant went to the extent of levelling serious allegations against the applicants in the first information report. According to Mr. Kakkad, the case is one of maladjustment in the marital life and the allegations of cruelty are without any basis.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the first informant would submit that more than a prima facie case could be said to have been made out having regard to the allegations levelled in the first information report. He would submit that the plain reading of the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences and the police should be permitted to complete the investigation in accordance with law.

6. Mr. Patel, the learned APP, submitted that the first information report, prima facie, discloses commission of cognizable offences and the police is investigating into the same. He pointed out that charge-sheet has not been filed till this date.

7. I am of the view that no case for quashing of the first information report is made out so far as the applicant No.1- husband is concerned. The plain reading of the first information report discloses commission of a cognizable offence so far as the husband is concerned. It would be too early to say anything as regards the accusation being false. I should not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations are true or false at this stage. However, having regard to the dates referred to above, I am of the view that so far as the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned, the case can be considered for quashing.

At the cost of repetition, I may point out that after the marriage, up to 2011, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Pune. At that point of time, the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were residing at Manglore, State of Karnataka whereas the applicant No.4 married since 1998, was residing at Doha, Katar. After 2011, till the date of filing of the first information report, the applicant No.1 and the first informant stayed at Doha, Katar. In such circumstances, it is difficult for me to accept the submission that the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are equally responsible for the alleged misdeeds and acts of cruelty on the part of the husband. Since the investigation is still in progress, I refrain myself from going further into the merit of the matter as that would hurt the applicant No.1 in one way or the other.

8. In the result, this application is partly allowed. The application so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, stands rejected. The investigating officer is directed to complete the investigation at the earliest in accordance with law. So far as the applicants Nos.2,3 and 4 are concerned, the first information report stands quashed. The interim relief granted earlier as regards no coercive steps to be taken, stands vacated forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service is permitted.

 (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)