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

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