Wife serving in CISF marries a guy working in CISF after a love marriage. Even the parents of the boy are NOT present at the wedding !! After some time she happily files DV case on husband. Regular tales of beating, drinking etc.
As per records wife is earning more than the husband.
Husband does NOT attend the case, is decreed exparte but still has a VERY favourable judgement !! wife does NOT get maintenance, does NOT get an order to stop alienation of assets, does NOT get medical costs, does NOT get the compensation of 10 lakhs that she seeks
All that is allowed is Rs 2000 p.m. total for the child and out of that Rs1000 p.m. to be borne by the husband !! Wife also gets Rs 5000 as compensation for injuries (this must be one time only !!)
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
ID no. 02405R0350472013
D/o Sh. Sudhir Mandal
R/o Viil. Fatehpur, Post Ganganian, PS Sultanganj,
Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar , PIN 811211
( Permanently Serving in CISF (L/ASI/ EXE)
CISF No 072760385
R/o C/o Sh Sher Singh Rana
H No 425, Poll No 226
Near Punjab National Bank
Bijwasan, ND – 110061) …..Applicant
Ct Bhagban Singh Sahu
S/o Sh Bishwanath Sahu
Vill & Post Sunapalli
Distt Ganjam (orissa)
Presently serving in CISF
C/o CISF ID No 0723025-34
CISF Camp, Bijwasan
COY -53, ND – 110061 …..Respondents
Date of Institution : 16.12.2013
Date of Order : 18.11.2015
Date of Order : 09.12.2015.
EX PARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall decide application u/s 12 DV Act filed by complainant Smt. Nutan against her husband Ct Bhagban Singh Sahu.
2. The complainant states that she got married to respondent on 27.02.2009. It was a love marriage and only few friends of complainant and some relatives of the respondent were present. The parents of respondent were not present. Complainant conceived twice but each time respondent neglected her. As a result the health of the complainant deteriorated and the pregnancy was terminated. Complainant alleges that respondent used to physically abuse her and steal money from her purse. Later she came to know that respondent had taken loan from a number of person and these people started coming to their house and insulting the complainant infront of everybody. Finally, two avoid further embarrassment complainant repaid the loan. Complainant also came to know that respondent has a bad official record and many cases of theft and cheating have been registered against him. Respondent also turned out to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. Complainant came to know that respondent has extra marital relationship. When the complainant confronted him with this fact, he gave merciless beatings to her and left the matrimonial house on 16.07.2013. Since then complainant is living at rented accommodation at Bijwasan and has been deserted by the respondent. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.11.2013 to the respondent requesting him to take her back but to no avail.
It is stated that respondent is working with CISF and has a monthly salary of Rs 25000/-. On the other hand, complainant is finding very difficult to maintain herself. At the time of filing of petition she was 8 months pregnant and suffering from a problem of appendix.
Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondent from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Further, she has prayed that respondent be restrained from alienating his assets. She has further prayed that respondent be restrained from coming in contact with dependents/ relatives of the complainant.
Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act i.e restraining the respondent from disturbing or harassing in the peaceful residence of complainant and directing him to provide suitable accommodation to the complainant as per his status. She has also prayed that respondent be restrained from renouncing her rights in the assets/ estate of respondent and properties falling in her share by way of inheritance.
Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 5000/-pm, maintenance of Rs 10000/-pm for food, clothes, medication and other basic amenities. She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act Rs 10 lakhs on account of mental torture, emotional distress and injuries caused by acts of respondent.
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 17.10.2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Evidence In her support complainant examined herself as CW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.CW1/1. She additionally stated in her affidavit that she had given birth to a female child named Kumari Tejal on 01.02.2014 at Metro Hospital, Gurgaon and all her medical expenses were borne by her. She relied on her salary slip Ex CW 1 /2 and photocopy of rent agreement with her landlord as Mark A1. Complainant filed her affidavit of assets.
Brief Reasons for Decision and Decision :
Complainant has deposed that she was physically and verbally abused by respondent and since 16.07.2013 respondent has completely deserted her. Respondent has not filed his reply to dispute either the factum of marriage, the birth of child Kumari Tejal or the allegations of domestic abuse. 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 respondent from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant or from coming in contact with dependents/ relatives of the complainant. Since it has remained undisputed that respondent verbally and physically abuse complainant during the subsistence of their marriage, complainant is entitled to protection order. Respondent is restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant or coming in contact with her dependent/ relative.
Further, she has prayed that respondent be restrained from alienating his assets. However, complainant has not mentioned what assets are referred to . Therefore, this relief is denied.
Monetary Relief Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 5000/-pm. Complainant has claimed that she is suffering from problem of appendix. However, she has not filed even single document and show that she is under treatment for any illness/ disease. Moreover, complainant is a Govt. employee and is expected to be covered under medical policy of the employer. Accordingly, this relief is accordingly denied.
Complainant has also claimed maintenance of Rs 10000/- pm for food, clothes, medication and other basic amenities. Complainant has filed her affidavit of assets claiming that she is getting net salary of Rs 21054/- pm. Her form 16 reveals that she got annual gross salary of Rs 433958/- i.e Rs 36163/- pm. It is to be considered that complainant was eight months pregnant when she filed present petition and today she has 22 months old child with her. DV act is the beneficial legislation and it must be interpreted in a manner so as to fulfill the social purpose that it seeks to serve. Therefore, I consider the fact of birth of the child an important fact for deciding the present case.
As per complainant, respondent is earning Rs 25000/- pm while she is earning Rs 36163/- pm. As such complainant is capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled for maintenance. However, child is the responsibility of both the parents. Both mother and father should contribute towards the maintenance of the child in the same proportions as that of their salaries. Taking into account the status of the parties and the prevalent inflation, complainant should be spending around Rs 2000/- on the child per month. Since the complainant is also constrained to live in a rented accommodation, she should bear half of the child’s monthly expenditure. Accordingly, respondent is directed to pay a maintenance of Rs 1000/- pm towards the child Kumari Tejal till the marriage of the child.
Complainant has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury. However, complainant has not stated how she has arrived at this figure. Still keeping in view the nature of the allegations of desertion and physical abuse, complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs 5000/- pm on account of mental injury, harassment etc.
Residence Order Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act i.e restraining the respondent from disturbing or harassing in the peaceful residence of complainant. Since it is not disputed that complainant and respondent are living separately and in view of the protection order granted in favour of complainant, respondent has restrained from disturbing or harassing the peacefully residence of complainant.
Complainant has also prayed for suitable accommodation. Complainant is earning more than respondent and this prayer has already been taken into account while fixing the maintenance of the child. As such this relief is denied.
Complainant has also prayed that respondent be restrained from renouncing her rights in the assets/ estate of respondent and properties falling in her share by way of inheritance. This relief is denied since it is unclear whose and what assets are being referred to.
Compensation Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act Rs 10 lakhs on account of mental torture, emotional distress and injuries caused by acts of respondent. Complainant has already been granted Rs 5000/- on account of monthly injury. Her claim to compensation of Rs 10 lakhs appears to be inflated and is without any reason. This relief is accordingly denied.
Application U/s 12 PW DV Act is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
TODAY ON 09.12.2015
( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )
MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
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