Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s family who are poor and living on daily / meagre wages
A woman who owns the property in which she lives, and is also earning handsome amount of rs 35000 pm by bookbinding business, files a false domestic violence case, on her ex-husband, I.e dead husband’s family members… !!! She seeks huge monthly maintenance when the brother in law ( Jeth ) has retired and without money , and other family members are daily wage earners Eking out small amounts to make a living doing odd menial jobs
The respondents reply saying that the woman has taken away the book binding biz from the mother in law and this DV cases is to further terrorise the family
Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010
Delhi District Court
Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010
Author: Sh. O.P. Gupta
IN THE COURT OF SH. O. P. GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – 02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Appeal No. 05/09
CC No. 364/6/07
PS Kamla Market
U/s 12 DV
Ms Beena W/o Late Sh. Raju R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, Behind G.B. Road, Delhi -110006. …. Appellant
1.Kishan Lal S/o Itwari Lal 2.Sh. Kishori S/o Sh. Itwari Lal 3.Sh. Nitin S/o Sh. Ram Chander 4.Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal all R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi. … Respondents
Date of Institution : 22.05.2009
Arguments heard on : 23.08.2010
Judgment Announced on ; 27.08.2010 JUDGMENT
- The wife has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by Ld. MM on petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence act , 2005. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the appellant is widow, respondent no.1 and 2 are jeth of appellant, respondent No. 3 is son of another jeth and respondent No. 4 is son of respondent No. 1/jeth.
- The admitted facts are that appellant was residing on theground floor of H. No. 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi and was carrying on the business of book binding there. The said premises were in the tenancy of husband of appellant and respondents No. 1, 2 and other brothers. Appellant contributed her share of rent. According to the appellant she had two minor children. Daughter Shalu is handicapped. After the death of her husband, the respondent, and their family started harassing appellant in one way or the other. She made numerous complaints to the police. She filed her affidavit in evidence.
- The respondent filed a joint reply pleading that the complaint was false and fictitious and has been cooked up. The husband of complainant died in August 1997. The complainant was earning more than Rs. 35,000/- from the business of book binding. Respondent no. 1 was working in printing press as daily wager and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Respondent No. 2 was retired and was not getting any pension. However he was earning Rs. 36/- to Rs. 48/- per day. Respondent No. 3 was drawing salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and had to support his mother, one studying brother and one handicapped sister. Respondent No. 4 was a daily wager and getting Rs. 65/- per day. The complaint had been filed to deter the respondents from claiming any share in the business of complainant which she had taken over from her mother in law. They denied that they ever harassed or used abusive language.
- The respondents filed their affidavits in their evidence.
- The impugned order recites that the counsel for the complainant stated that matter on record was sufficient to decide the case finally and the same was not objected to by counsel for the respondent. Thus the matter was finally heard and decided on the basis of affidavits of both the parties.
- In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that Ld. Trial Court over looked the report of protection officer. In para 7 of reply the respondents have made bald and wild allegation that the appellant was living a loose life.
- I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset I may mention that in petition before Ld. Trial Court, the appellant prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant and her children towards loss of income and earning, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house hold expenses. In appeal the appellant has added medical expenses @ Rs. 7,000/- per month, food, cloths and basic necessities to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-, school fee to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month, enhanced demand of house hold expenses from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. I do not think that the appellant can claim something beyond the petition, for the first time in appeal.
- It is not clear as to what is the difference between food, cloths and basic necessities for which Rs. 7,000/- have been claimed and house hold expenses for which Rs. 3,000/- per month has been claimed.
- The counsel for the respondent urged and rightly so that the appellant did not mention even an iota of word about her income from book binding. Without that she could not claim any expenses. Not only this despite specific plea in the written statement that complainant was earning Rs. 35,000/- she did not no better in replication except simply denying that she was earning Rs. 35,000/-. This time too she did not come out with a counter reply as to what her income was.
- The report of the Protection Officer on which much reliance has been placed by the appellant does not serve any purpose. The same is simply reproduction of what the appellant told the Protection Officer. The Protection Officer did not make any inquiry from neighbourer and did not try to find out the truth. Form No. I & II attached with the report contain particulars of complainant, respondents, children. Date, place and time of variance as contained at page 2 of form No. I were never pleaded in the petition. Form No. II is the proforma of petition to be filed by complainant. The counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant is not entitled to any relief on account of loss in income & earning because the complainant nowhere specified as to what her income was and to what extent the same was reduced. Without that, loss any income cannot be calculated. The arguments appears to be convincing.
- The counsel for the appellant strongly pressed into service the allegations made in para 7 of reply. It is true that it contains certain allegations about character of the appellant which were not necessary. But nevertheless such conduct alone is not sufficient to grant the relief to the appellant.
- The Ld. MM has already directed the respondents not to evict the complainant and her children without due process of law. It is only the denial of monetary reliefs which have compelled appellant to file the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find that the appellant is entitled to any monetary relief.
- Last but not the least fact is that during arguments in appeal, the counsel for the respondents stated that the appellant has purchased the house in which she and respondents are residing. Now respondents are tenant of the appellant. For ascertaining this fact I recorded statement of appellant in which she admitted that she had purchased the property from previous owner Mohd. Ibrahim about two years ago for Rs. 1,30,000/-. This fact alone is sufficient to deny the monetary reliefs to the appellant.
- As a result of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in appeal. The same is dismissed.
Announced in the open Court (O.P. GUPTA) on 27.08.2010 Additional Sessions Judge-02 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi