Daily Archives: December 6, 2015

Neither police nor court can impound passport. RPO can. If police/court impound they shall return it.

In this case
* police seize passport and submit to court in a 306 case
* the learned Magistrate holds the passport
* the affected party does NOT get his passport back and finally approaches the Madras HC
* madras HC appreciates the law laid out by the Hon SC and orders as follows
“…..  For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court and the same is to be declared as an order passed without properly considering the scope of the power under Section 104 Cr.P.C. and also either in ignorance of or in utter disregard for the earlier judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court and that hence, the said order is liable to be set aside….”
and
“…The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to return the passport of  the revision petitioner to him within a week from this day, after getting the leaves of the passport xeroxed and certified to be true copies which shall be retained in the case bundle……”
and
“....It is also made clear that if the respondent/Police would still want to get the passport impounded, it can be done only by approaching the Passport Authority under Section 10 or the Authorities under Section 10-A of the Passport Act….”

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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 29/03/2012

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

CRL.R.C(MD)No.116 of 2012

S.Narmadha            ..Petitioner

Vs

The State. represented by the Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station,
(Cr.No.109 of 2009)     ..Respondent

Prayer

Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C.,praying this Court to call for the records and to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,Sattur, made in Crl.M.P.No.7982 of 2011, dated 28.02.2012.

For Petitioner  … M/s.C.M.Arumugam

For Respondent  … Mrs.S.Prabha Govt.Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) has taken notice on behalf of the respondent.

2. The submissions made by Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned counsel for the petitioner  and that of the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) referred to above are heard.  The grounds of revision and the documents produced in the form of typed- set of papers including the copy of  the impugned order are also taken into consideration.

3.  The petitioner figures as an accused in Cr.No.109 of 2009,  on the file of Alangulam Police Station. The said case was registered for an alleged offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, the respondent/Police seized the passport of the petitioner and produced it before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur as a case property in the above said crime number. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,sattur  praying for the return of his passport. The learned Judicial Magistrate, by the order impugned in the present Criminal Revision Case, dismissed the said petition on 28.02.2012. The legality  of the said order is challenged in the present revision case. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4.  Since this  revision can be disposed of on a question of law itself, this Court deems it fit to pass an order at the time of admission itself even without calling for the records from the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, holding that the materials placed before this Court along with the grounds of revision shall be enough for taking a decision in this revision case.

5.  The question that arises for consideration in this revision is: “whether the refusal to handover the passport and retention of the passport by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur in whose court the said passport was produced after the same was seized by the respondent/Police  would amount to impounding of the passport? Whether the power of the police to seize the property under Section 102 of Cr.P.C or the power of the Court to impound the document produced before it contemplated under Section 104 Cr.P.C will include a power to impound the passport which is governed by the provisions of a special enactment, namely, the Passport Act?”.

6. The same was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda.vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 121, wherein, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in clear terms that the power of the police under Section 102 Cr.P.C., to seize a document could not be interpreted to include a power to impound the document. It was also held that the power of seizure contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. was different from the power of the Court to impound a document under Section 104 Cr.P.C. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that though  power has been conferred upon the court to impound a document under Section 104 Cr.P.C, the said power is not available in respect of a passport  because impounding of the passport is governed by the provision of a special law, namely Passport Act, whereas the Code of Criminal Procedure is general law and hence the provisions of the special law will prevail over the general law.  Their Lordships have also held in clear terms that though the police do have power to seize the passport, if they want to get the passport impounded after the seizure of the passport, they have to submit the passport to the Passport Authority with a requisition for impounding the same.  Similar observation has been made in respect of the procedure to be followed by the Court. In either case, whether it be the Police or the Court, they cannot retain  the passport and retention of the passport by the Court will amount to impounding of the document.

7. In the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that an order dismissing the petition for return of the passport was obnoxious and against law, set aside the said order and directed the return of passport to the holder of the passport.  The Honourable Supreme  Court also incidentally observed that it was open to the authorities to approach the Passport authority under Section 10 or the authorities under Section 10-A of the Act for impounding passport in accordance with law.

8. While sitting in the Principal Bench of this Court, two similar matters were considered by myself in M.Ramachandar Singh and others .vs. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, CBI/SCB made in Crl.R.C.No.1037 of 2010, reported in MANU/TN/2462/2010 and Veenitha Gupta .vs. The State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch,Chennai-600 006 reported in (2011) 1 MLJ(Crl) 326, wherein, the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in this regard was followed and the orders concerned in those cases were set aside with the direction to the concerned court to return the passports to the petitioners therein.  For the sake of elucidation, the following observations made in Veenitha Gupta .vs. The State, represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigtion, Anti-Corruption Branch,Chennai – 600 006 reported in (2011) 1 MLJ(Crl) 326, are reproduced hereunder:

“8.  In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Honourable Supreme
Court has observed that a seizure of a document is made at a
particular moment when a person or authority takes into his
possession some property and if the seized property or document
is retained for some period of time, then such retention would
amount to impounding of the property or document.

9.  If the facts of the case are considered in the light of the
above said observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, the
impugned order passed by the trial Court, will no doubt, amount
to an order impounding the passports of the petitioner and minor
daughters of the petitioner, which could not have been done by
the Court below.  The relevant observation found in paragraph 15
of the said judgement of the Supreme Court and the same is
extracted as under Suresh nanda.vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation(supra) (2008) 1 MLJ(Crl) 1195 at Page 1200:

|      “15.  In our opinion, even the Court cannot impound a passport.
|      Though, no doubt Section 104 CR.P.C states that the Court may,
|      if it thinks fit, impound any document or thing produced before
|      it, in our opinion, this provision, will only enable the Court
|      to impound any document or thing other than a passport. This is
|      because impounding of a “passport” is provided for in Section
|      10(3) of the Passports Act. The Passports Act is a special law
|      while Cr.P.C is a general law. It is well settled that the
|      special law prevails over the general law vide G.P.SINGH’S
|      PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION(9th Edn P.133). This
|      principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non
|      derogant. Hence, impounding of a passport cannot be done by the
|      Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C though it can impound any other
|      document or thing.”

10. While arriving at the conclusion that the order passed by
the learned trial Judge, which is impugned  in this Criminal
revision case amounts to impounding of the passports and the
same would not have been legally done, this Court should also
take into account, the contention of the learned Special Public
Prosecutor that the passports of the petitioner and her two
minor daughters are vital documents to be exhibited in the trial
in proving the charges against the accused.  Whether the
retention of the original document for the above said purpose is
absolutely necessary is the pertinent question to be answered.

11.  In this case, some of the entries found in the passports
are sought to be used as evidence for the prosecution in proof
of the charges  levelled against the accused persons. For that
purpose, the passports need not be impounded, much against the
provisions of the Passports Act dealing with the impounding of
passports, xerox copies or typed copies of the passports can be
prepared and the same can be certified by the Court and retained
in the case bundle to be used as evidence in the trial.  In such
an event, the petitioner, who is also figuring as an accused,
cannot contend that the copies were not true copies of the
passports, that too, with out producing the passports to show
the dissimilarity of the original and the copy.  Therefore,
there won’t be  any impediment for the Court below to return the
passports  of the petitioner and her two minor daughters after
getting the copies of the passports prepared and certified,
which could be marked as evidence in the trial.  The other
course available  to the prosecution is to refer the passports
to the passport authorities with a request to impound them.  For
making such a request, it is not necessary to send the passport
along with such a requisition.  Keeping the passport with the
Court below any more will amount to continuous impounding of the
passport, which is not permissible.”

9.  For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case cannot withstand the scrutiny of this Court and the same is to be declared as an order passed without properly considering the scope of the power under Section 104 Cr.P.C. and also either in ignorance of or in utter disregard for the earlier judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court and that hence, the said order is liable to be set aside.

10.  Accordingly the criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, dated 26.02.2012 made in C.M.P.No.7982 of 2012 is set aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to return the passport of  the revision petitioner to him within a week from this day, after getting the leaves of the passport xeroxed and certified to be true copies which shall be retained in the case bundle. It is also made clear that if the respondent/Police would still want to get the passport impounded, it can be done only by approaching the Passport Authority under Section 10 or the Authorities under Section 10-A of the Passport Act.

vsn

To

1.  The  Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Sattur.

2.  The Inspector of Police,
Alangulam Police Station.

3.  The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

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

Lorry Driver’s wife files DV, gets 6000 p.m. So… women’s lib has reached all sections !! Jai Hind !!

Lorry Driver’s wife files DV, gets 6000 p.m. So… women’s lib has reached all sections !! Jai Hind !!

* template DV, template cries and complaints. in fact some of the claims are so similar to the other case I posted today, one would be confused as to which case he / she is reading !! 🙂 🙂
* In this case wife claims husband earns 25000 p.m., Hon court does NOT accept the same, court re assesses drivers wages at Rs 11000 p.m.
* Hon court refuses many of wife’s claims. Court disputes her medical exp claim as she has provided NO proof
* Hon court refuses order against alienation of assets as list of assets , details NOT provided
* Hon court grants Rs. 2500 for kid and Rs 1500 for wife. wife gets maintenance till her lifetime ! She also gets Rs 2000 p.m. for alternate accommodation (so in all Rs. 6000 p.m.)
* Since wife is living with her parents court also refuses to restrain husband from alienating assets !!

This case highlights how DV cases have reached all rungs of society and there is NO escaping from this menace, whether you are rich or poor

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

IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01,
MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI

CC No. 952/1/14
PS BHD Nagar
ID no. 02405R0236992014

Smt. Pooja
W/o Sh. Jai Singh
D/o Sh Randhir Singh
R/o RZ 156A, Block R
Dharampura Extn, Najafgarh
New Delhi -110043 …..Applicant

Versus

1. Jai Singh
2. Smt Kailasho devi
3. Sant Ram
4. Mahender
5. Praveen …..Respondents

( All R/o H. No 214, Hari Dass Enclave, near College, Jaroda Kalan Village, ND)

Date of Institution : 15.10.2014
Date of Order : 24.11.2015
Date of Order : 30.11.2015

EX PARTE JUDGMENT

1. Vide this order, I shall decide application u/s 12 DV Act filed by complainant Smt. Pooja against her husband Sh Jai singh / respondent no 1, Kailasho Devi (MIL) / respondent no 2, Sant Ram (FIL)/ respondent no 3, Mahender (BIL)/ respondent no 4, Praveen (BIL)/ respondent no 5.

2. The complainant states that she got married to respondent no 1 on 11.03.2012 and the couple was blessed with a baby girl Riya on 02.02.2013. Complainant states that soon after the marriage respondents started harassing her. On 20.04.2013, respondent no 2, 4 and 5 beat the complainant and threw her out of the matrimonial house. Complainant filed a complaint with PS BHD Nagar but no action was taken. It is also alleged that when complainant gave birth to child, she remained admitted in the hospital for 20 days but none of the respondents ever visited her or paid a single rupee towards the medical expenses. Complainant states that she remained for her parents house for 30 days after the delivery. Complainant alleges that she was harassed and tortured for the demand of Rs 50,000/- and she also gave a complaint with PS Dwarka sec 9 in this regard. The matter was referred to Mediation Centre, Dwarka and was compromised on 03.10.2013 under fear of registration of case. However, complainant was still harassed at her matrimonial house by the respondents and was beaten by respondent no 1. She alleges that respondent no 1 and 4 threatened to kill her but she was saved due to intervention of neighbours and relatives. Complainant states that she is totally dependent on her parents for herself and for the child while respondent no 1 is working as a driver and earning Rs 25000/-pm . It is further stated that respondent no 1 has no liability except to maintain the complainant and the child. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondents from committing/ aiding / abating any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Further, she has prayed that respondents be restrained from contacting her in any manner or alienating any assets held jointly by the couple or separately by them. She has further stated that respondent be restrained from causing violence through her relatives.

Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act I.e restraining the respondents from dispossessing the complainant or disturbing her possession in the shared household, restraining them from alienating the shared household or in the alternative secure same level of alternative accommodation or sum of Rs 8000/-p.m towards rent. She has also prayed that she be given possession of all her jewelery worth Rs 2 lakhs which is with the respondents.

Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 3000/-pm, maintenance of day to day needs @ Rs 15000/-pm for herself and for the child. She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 5 lakhs on account of mental agony, harrassment etc .

3. The respondent was duly served and he entered appearance, however, he did not file reply despite repeated opportunities and accordingly he was proceeded ex parte on 23.09.2015.

Evidence In her support complainant examined herself as CW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.CW1. She relied on copy of her complaint dated 02.05.2013 as CW 2, copy of tuition fee card of child Riya as CW 3 and copy of her adhar card as CW4.

Complainant filed her affidavit of assets.

Brief Reasons for Decision and Decision :

Complainant has deposed that she was physically and verbally abused by respondents and in this regard she has relied on her complaint EX CW2, which reiterates similar allegations as made in the present complaint. Respondent has not filed his reply to dispute either the factum of marriage, the birth of child Riya or that the couple were living in a shared household of the complainant. Since the respondents are ex parte, all the averments of complainant remained unrebutted. Accordingly, following orders are passed :

Protection Order :
Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondents from committing/ aiding / abeting any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Complainant has substantiated her allegations of physical / verbal abuse by relying on her complaint which is dated almost 1.5 yrs before filing of the present complaint. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to protection order. Respondents are restrained from committing/ aiding / abeting any act of domestic violence against the complainant. They are further restrained from contacting her in any manner or causing violence through her relatives.

Complainant has also prayed that respondents be restrained from alienating assets but no details have been provided. As such this portion of the prayer is denied.

Monetary Relief

Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act . She has claimed medical expenses of Rs 3000/-pm but complainant has failed to disclose where she is incurring such expenses. Complainant has not mentioned even once if she or the child are suffering from any health condition as would require a monthly expenditure of Rs 3000/-. This relief is accordingly denied.

Complainant has claimed maintenance of day to day needs @ Rs 15000/-pm for herself and for the child. She has filed her affidavit stating that her monthly expenditure is Rs 20000/-. She has claimed that she is spending Rs 2000/-pm on the school fees of the child and Rs 3000/- pm on the other expenses of the child. She claims that she is spending approximately Rs 9000/-pm on household expenditure apart from other miscellaneous expenditure of Rs 1000/-pm and medical expenses. She claims that she is unemployed while respondents no 1 is earning Rs 30000/-pm as a driver.

Even though, the evidence of complainant is unrebutted, complainant seems to have given an inflated figure for respondent no 1’s monthly earnings as a driver. Taking into account the minimum wages for a skilled labour, the monthly income of respondent no.1 is assessed to be Rs 11,000/-.

Although the monthly school fess as mentioned by the complainant in her affidavit is Rs 2000/- but her own document Ex CW3 reveals that it is Rs 1,000/- per month. Apart from that the monthly misc expenditure of Rs 3000/-pm seems to be inflated keeping in view the status of the parties. Accordingly, it is directed that complainant is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs 2500/- towards the child and Rs 1500/- towards herself. This amount shall be payable till the marriage of the child Riya and till the life time of complainant respectively.

She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 5 lakhs on account of mental agony, harrassment etc . However, complainant has not explained how she has arrived at this amount. Therefore, this relief is denied.

Residence Order
Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act I.e restraining the respondents from dispossessing the complainant or disturbing her possession in the shared household. However, admittedly complainant has been is residing with her parents since Oct 2013. Therefore, there is no question of restraint against her dispossession or disturbing her possession in the shared household.

It has already been observed that complainant has proved that she was verbally and physically abused in her matrimonial house. Further, complainant has been ousted from the matrimonial house, which is in itself sufficient to constitute abuse. As such complainant is justified in living separately from the respondents. She has also prayed that she be provided alternative accommodation of the same level or be given a monthly rent of Rs 8000/-. As per complainant’s own case, she was living in a joint family at her matrimonial house which is her shared household. She has also claimed that her husband is a driver earning Rs 30000/-pm. Seeing such status of the parties, the rent claimed by complainant is not justifiable. In her own affidavit of assets she claims to be spending only Rs 3000/-pm on rent. Therefore, she is additionally entitled to a monthly rental of Rs 2000/- only. This amount shall be payable till the life time of complainant.

Since separate rent has been provided for, no order is passed restraining respondents from alienating the shared household.

Complainant has also prayed that she be given possession of all her jewelery worth Rs 2 lakhs which is with the respondents. However, she has neither described what such property is nor has she mentioned which of the respondents is in the possession of her articles. As such this potion of the prayer is declined.

Application U/s 12 PW DV Act is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT

( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )

TODAY ON 30th November, 2015

MM-01(SW), Mahila Court, Dwarka/Delhi

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

DV wife gets just 4000 litigation exp & NOTHING ELSE from hubby allegedly earning 1 lakh p.m. !! 

* wife files DV against six of husband’s family with a standard list of accusations
* claims she was beaten, claims she was staved, claims she was forced into miscarriage, claims dowry demand etc etc
* as usual the husband is supposedly earning 1 lakhs per month and wife wants the moon
* inter alia, wife seeks
* medical expenses Rs 10000/-pm,
* maintenance of day to day needs @ Rs 30000/-pm for herself & child
* Compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury & also prayed for litigation expenses.
* last but not the least she wants compensation u/s 22 DV Act i.e Rs 15 lakh for mental torture, distress etc. !!!

* But finally the honourable court grants her ONLY Rs 4000 as ONE time litigation expenses !! and nothing more
* The Hon court says, family court has already granted Rs. 3000 as maintenance and so matter cannot be re agitated !!

Yes the wife can appeal such cases, but my guess is that it will take AGES before she sees any money out of this case !!

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

IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01,
MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI

CC No. 955/1/14
PS BHD Nagar
ID no. 02405R0237722014

Smt. Preeti
W/o Sh. Bijender
D/o Sh Dhanpat Singh
R/o Village Dhingpura,
PO Dichaon Kalan,
New Delhi -110043 …..Applicant

Versus

1. Bijender
2. Mahinder
3. Murti
4. Smt. Bala
5. Smt Dinesh
6. Smt Rajni …..Respondents

( All R/o H. No 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi )

Date of Institution : 16.10.2014
Date of Order : 24.11.2015
Date of Order : 30.11.2015.

EX PARTE JUDGMENT

1. Vide this order, I shall decide application u/s 12 DV Act filed by complainant Smt. Preeti against her husband Sh Bijender / respondent no 1 , Sh Mahinder (FIL) / respondent no 2, Murti (MIL)/ respondent no 3, Smt Bala (SIL)/ respondent no 4, Dinesh(BIL)/ respondent no 5, Rajni (SIL)/ respondent no 7. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

2. The complainant states that she got married to respondent no 1 on 28.11.2008 the couple was blessed with a baby girl Anshika on 27.11.2010. Complainant states that soon after the marriage respondents started harassing her and pressurizing her for bringing more dowry from her parents. They also threatened to throw her out of the matrimonial house. Complainant alleges that on the very next day of marriage respondent no 1,2,3 ,4 and 7 called her in a room and reprimanded her that they were defamed in the society by her father by giving less dowry. They also stated that they had expected atleast a Santro car and a cash of Rs 4-5 lakhs. Thereafter, complainant came to her parental house and when she returned back to the matrimonial house she was beaten up by the respondents who pressurized her to bring more dowry. She alleges that she was not given proper food and treated like a slave. She further alleges that when she conceived, respondents gave her something that terminated the pregnancy. Complainant called parents who took her to Nangloi for treatment. However, fearing that the truth will be revealed, respondent no. 4,7 along with other sisters in law forcibly took her to Mahindru Hospital. Next day they took her back to the matrimonial house. Thereafter, complainant again conceived but in the similar manner respondents terminated her pregnancy.

On 16.04.2010 all the respondent gave merciless beatings to the complainant due to which she had to be taken to a hospital and her MLC was also prepared. Thereafter, complainant was thrown out of the matrimonial house without any belongings. At that time complainant was on the family way. Finally on 27.11.2010 complainant was blessed with the child. Thereafter, respondent no 1 filed a false and fabricated case for restitution of conjugal rights. Upon intervention of family and friends, the matter was compromised on 19.11.2011 and complainant was taken back to the matrimonial house along with the child. Complainant alleges that the ill treatment continued even thereafter. She alleges that she was beaten by respondent no 2 for a demand of Rs 5 lakh. It is further alleged that on 05.05.2012 respondents beat the complainant and the minor child due to which they both became unconscious . Respondent took them to Kalawati Hospital and ran away. Complainant called her parents and on 10.05.2012 the child was discharged. Thereafter, complainant made several request to respondent no 1 to take them back but he refused and demanded that the dowry demand be first satisfied. Since then complainant is living with her parents.

She alleges that she has no source of income while respondent no 1 has a transport business in Delhi and Haryana and earning more than Rs 1 lakh p.m. She alleges that she has filed a complaint with PS BHD Nagar but to no avail. She further states that respondent no 1 is not paying anything either for her or for the child.

Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondents from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Further, she has prayed that respondents be restrained from alienating any assets held by respondent no.1. She has further stated that respondent be restrained from causing violence through her relatives.

Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act I.e directing the respondents to allow the complainant and the minor child to reside in the shared household/ matrimonial house and restraining them from disturbing the peaceful residence of the complainant and the child therein . She has also prayed that respondent no 1 be restrained from renouncing his assets/ estate/ share by way of inheritance.

Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 10000/-pm, maintenance of day to day needs @ Rs 30000/-pm for herself and for the child. She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury . She has also prayed for litigation expenses.

Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act i.e Rs 15 lakh for mental torture, distress etc.

3. The respondents were duly served and they entered appearance, however, they did not file reply despite repeated opportunities and accordingly they were all proceeded ex parte on 26.10.2015.

Evidence In her support complainant examined herself as CW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.CW1/A. She relied on copy of her election identity card and copy of adhar card as EX CW1/1 and EX CW1/2. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Brief Reasons for Decision and Decision :

Complainant has deposed that she was physically and verbally abused by respondents. She has further alleged that she has not been allowed to enter the shared household at H. No. 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi. Respondent has not filed his reply to dispute either the factum of marriage, the birth of child Anshika or that the property at H. No. 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi is a shared household of the complainant. Since the respondent is ex parte, all the averments of complainant remained unrebutted. Accordingly, following orders are passed :

Protection Order :
Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondents from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant. She has further stated that respondent be restrained from causing violence through her relatives. It has already been observed that complainant has proved that she was subjected to abuse since she has not been cross examined by the respondents. Further she has been thrown out of the shared household which is her matrimonial house, and this itself amounts to abuse of the complainant. As such complainant is entitled to protection order. Respondents are restrained from committing any act of domestic violence themselves or through their relatives against the complainant.

Further, she has prayed that respondents be restrained from alienating any assets held by respondent no.1. However, complainant has not mentioned what such assets are. As such this portion of the prayer is declined.

Monetary Relief :
Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 10000/-pm, but complainant has failed to disclose where she is incurring such expenses. Complainant has not mentioned even once if she or the child are suffering from any health condition as would require a monthly expenditure of Rs 10000/-. This relief is accordingly denied.

Complainant has prayed for maintenance of day to day needs @ Rs 30000/-pm for herself and for the child. However, the question of maintenance has already been decided by LD family court and complainant has been granted maintenance of Rs 3000/- per month. The issue cannot be re-agitated and therefore, no maintenance is being granted in this case.

She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury . However, complainant has not explained how she has arrived at this amount. Therefore, this relief is denied.

Complainant has also prayed for litigation expenses. She is entitled to litigation expenses of Rs 4000/-.

Residence Order :
Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act i.e directing the respondents to allow the complainant and the minor child to reside in the shared household/ matrimonial house at H. No. 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi. She has alleged that she and her daughter were beaten up by the respondent who had the child admitted to a hospital and fled away. She alleges that thereafter she has been requesting the respondent to take them back but he has refused and she is compelled to live in her parental home with the child. Respondent has not disputed that the property at H. No. 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi is a shared household of the complainant. Regardless of the ownership of the shared household, the complainant, being the wife of respondent no.1 and the daughter in law of the house of other respondents has the legal right to live in the shared household. Respondents are under the obligation to allow her and the child Anshika to live in the shared household, as long as the matrimonial relationship between her and respondents no.1 subsists. Reliance is placed on judgment in the case of Smt. Preeti Satija vs Smt. Raj Kumari And Anr. decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 15 January, 2014 Therefore it is directed that the respondents shall allow the entry of complainant and the minor child Anshika to reside in the shared household/ matrimonial house at H. No. 470, Kakrola Housing Complex, Kakrola, New Delhi and shall not disturb the peaceful residence of the complainant and the child therein till the marriage between the complainant and respondent no.1 subsists.

Complainant has also prayed that respondent no 1 be restrained from renouncing his assets/ estate/ share by way of inheritance. However in the absence of any details of such property/assets, I do not deem it fit to pass any blanket order. This relief is accordingly denied.

Compensation Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act i.e Rs 15 lakh for mental torture, distress etc. However, complainant has not explained how she has arrived at this amount. Therefore, this relief is denied.

Application U/s 12 PW DV Act is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )

TODAY ON 30th November, 2015 MM-01(SW), Mahila Court Dwarka/Delhi

CC No 955/1/14

PS BHD Nagar

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