Category Archives: 498a and DV

498a Dv 125 wife torments sisters in laws & drives one out ! Husband wins divorce @ P&H HC. 16 years of misery ends !!

  • Married in 2000, the wife is sick for a long time with husband meeting all medical expenses
  • She leaves matrimonial home circa 2002 and never returns
  • In spite of husband calling her back many times she refuses. Finally goes on to file false 498a against the husband “…. Ultimately she got registered FIR No.163 of 2002 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against the husband and his family members. She also filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the husband….” in which case the husband and others are acquitted “…competent criminal Court in the trial arising out of FIR No.163 dated 08.09.2002, registered under Sections 406/198- A/323/34 IPC, at Police Station Julana. Accused Chattar Singh, Dhanno and Naveen were acquitted by the criminal Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2009. Chattar Singh and Dhanno are the parents of Naveen (husband). The criminal Court while acquitting the accused in the aforesaid case recorded the findings that admittedly there was no medical evidence to support the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding beatings and unconscious breathlessness of the victim for 3-4 days. The complainant herself admitted that she came to the parental house along with her daughter of her own and in these circumstances, no fault could be attributed to the accused persons….”
  • Even during her stay she is so cruel to her husband and her sister’s in law (bhabi) that she drives out one of her bhabis and victimizes another bhabi !! “…Respondent-Husband further alleged that the attitude of the wife was so cruel that she also made life of her Bhabi namely Gayatri Devi wife of Devender Singh a hell in her house and thereafter the wife along with her family members turned out Gayatri Devi from her matrimonial house in village Julana. Gayatri Devi also moved an application against the appellant- wife in Mahila Police Station. The wife along with her family members harassed and humiliated the second wife of Devender namely Kavita, who also left the house and lodged the complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC against the appellant-wife and her family members. Appellant-wife played active role in the occurrence where Kavita was victimized. With these allegations the original petition came to be filed…
  • finally husband wins divorce at family court in 2006. Wife goes on appeal and that drags on for a decade
  • at the HC the wife’s counsel argues that the words ‘benefit of doubt’ is used in the husband’s 498a acquittal and so his acquittal is not on merits and so he should NOT be granted divorce
  • The Hon P & HC appreciates the facts, and dismisses the wife’s appeal, thereby confirming husband’s divorce !! “….[20]. The words ‘benefit of doubt’ cannot be appreciated in the manner as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant. The acquittal was on merits as there was no incriminating evidence available on record, therefore, use of words like ‘benefit of doubt’ was the result of standard practice in the trial courts and was simply a misnomer. The entrustment of dowry was not proved. Guilt of the accused could not be brought to the hilt. The order of acquittal recorded by the criminal Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court in appeal as well……”
  • Additionally the Honourable court also confirms an important dictum that “…. The parties were living separately from 10.02.2002. The decree was granted on 01.03.2006 during pendency of the criminal case. The acquittal recorded during pendency of the appeal can be taken into consideration by way of judicial notice...” and so considers the acquittal in 498a case as valid grounds for divorce

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-M No.65-M of 2006 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 31.05.2016

Smt. Mukesh ……Appellant

Vs

Naveen Kumar …..Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondent.

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. Appellant-wife being respondent in the original petition filed before the Additional District Judge, Sonepat suffered the contested decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), dissolving the marriage amongst the parties by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She has ventured to file the present appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006.

[2]. Brief facts as gathered from the record are that the respondent-husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act against the appellant-wife on the averment that the marriage among the parties was solemnized on 07.11.2000 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The wife started living with the husband as his legally wedded wife. Marriage was consummated and one female child took birth out of this wedlock on 30.08.2001, who was living with the appellant-wife. The marriage was simple and dowry-less. Respondent-husband attributed allegations of arrogance and hostile behavior of the appellant-wife towards him and his family members. Husband also alleged that the wife was short tempered and used to pick quarrels on trivial issues. She remained ill from the very first day of the marriage and was provided medical attention till the date of delivery. She was treated in Kuldeep Nursing and Maternity Home, Gohana on 14.12.2000 and her treatment continued till 30.06.2001. Ultimately child took birth on 30.08.2001 in PGIMS, Rohtak. The entire expenses were borne by the husband. She was again checked up in the Hospital and CT scan was also got conducted.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

[3]. It was further alleged by the respondent-husband that he treated the appellant-wife with all love and affection, but inspite of that her behaviour never changed towards him and his family members. After the birth of the child, the wife started leaving the matrimonial house without prior consent of the husband and his family members. The persuasion of the husband became futile. Husband was unemployed and was having no source of income. The wife was in the habit of extending taunts and also pressurised respondent-husband to settle at her parental house at Julana with her brother, who was employed in Health department.

[4]. Respondent-Husband further alleged that on 10.02.2002, the wife along with minor daughter left the matrimonial house. The respondent-husband and his family members kept on searching her and they went to the parental house where both of them were present. She was reluctant to come to the matrimonial house and gave threat to the husband and his family members for implicating them in false criminal case. Ultimately she got registered FIR No.163 of 2002 under Sections 498-A/406 IPC against the husband and his family members. She also filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the husband. Wife was an educated lady whereas the husband was unemployed, who was in search of job. Husband was fully dependent upon the income of his parents.

[5]. Respondent-Husband further alleged that the attitude of the wife was so cruel that she also made life of her Bhabi namely Gayatri Devi wife of Devender Singh a hell in her house and thereafter the wife along with her family members turned out Gayatri Devi from her matrimonial house in village Julana. Gayatri Devi also moved an application against the appellant- wife in Mahila Police Station. The wife along with her family members harassed and humiliated the second wife of Devender namely Kavita, who also left the house and lodged the complaint under Sections 406/498-A IPC against the appellant-wife and her family members. Appellant-wife played active role in the occurrence where Kavita was victimized. With these allegations the original petition came to be filed.

[6]. Appellant-wife being respondent in the original petition contested the case by filing written statement. All the allegations were denied. Filing of criminal case was admitted. Source of income available with the husband was asserted. Filing of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was also admitted. The story viz-a-viz. wives of Devender Singh namely Gayatri Devi and Kavita was denied and appellant-wife claimed that she never participated in those episodes. No Panchayat was ever convened. She showed her willingness to join the matrimonial house with the respondent-husband, provided that he changes his rude behaviour. The filing of the petition was claimed to be a devise to avoid payment of maintenance.

[7]. Both the parties went to the trial on the following issues:- “1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition, as alleged? OPP  2. Relief.”

[8]. Both the parties led their respective evidence to prove their case.

[9]. After leading evidence, trial Court appreciated the material on record and accepted the petition vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006. That is how the present appeal came to filed by the appellant-wife.

[10]. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.

[11]. During pendency of the appeal civil misc. No.7308-CII of 2014 was filed by the respondent-husband seeking to adduce additional evidence in the form of Annexures P-1 to P-4, which are nothing but the orders passed by the concerned Courts from time to time. In order to properly appreciate the controversy, the said application is allowed and the accompanying documents are taken on record as additional evidence for deciding controversy effectively and appropriately between the parties.

[12]. With the pleadings and evidence on record, whether the instances of cruelty and desertion as alleged are made out or not became inconsequential in view of the development which took place later on for which this Court is always competent to take judicial notice. More particularly, as per information submitted by the respondent by moving application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, it is a settled principle of law that the Court is always competent to take notice of subsequent events for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

[13]. Annexure P-1 as adduced along with the said application for additional evidence is the decision rendered by the competent criminal Court in the trial arising out of FIR No.163 dated 08.09.2002, registered under Sections 406/198- A/323/34 IPC, at Police Station Julana. Accused Chattar Singh, Dhanno and Naveen were acquitted by the criminal Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2009. Chattar Singh and Dhanno are the parents of Naveen (husband). The criminal Court while acquitting the accused in the aforesaid case recorded the findings that admittedly there was no medical evidence to support the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding beatings and unconscious breathlessness of the victim for 3-4 days. The complainant herself admitted that she came to the parental house along with her daughter of her own and in these circumstances, no fault could be attributed to the accused persons. The criminal Court also found that the accused had faced the allegations twice and it was doubted whether family of the complainant was using the method of filing complaint for grabbing the money from the accused persons and that is why the complainant already tried to involve as much relatives of the husband as they wanted. As regards offence under Section 406 IPC, the prosecution relied upon the version of complainant Mukesh and her mother whereas both the versions were found to be different. Entrustment of the dowry articles to any of the accused was not proved.

[14]. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-wife that the articles were lying in the police station from where the same were not claimed by the complainant was a misnomer only in view of the positive findings recorded by the criminal Court that entrustment of the dowry articles was not proved with the accused. The criminal Court while disbelieving the prosecution story ultimately held that the offence whatsoever against the accused was not proved by the prosecution and the court felt no doubt to acquit the accused persons by extending benefit of doubt in their favour. The words used as ‘benefit of doubt’ by the criminal Court were the standard observations of the court and was a misnomer, otherwise the evidence on record before the criminal Court was sufficient to discard the prosecution story to the hilt.

[15]. Counsel for the respondent-husband also relied upon Annexure P-2 the orders passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein the complaint filed under Section 12 of the aforesaid Act was held not maintainable though that order is of not much significance so far as the controversy involved in the present case is concerned.

[16]. Annexure P-3 is also an order passed by the competent Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance in favour of wife. The petition was disposed of on the basis of consensus arrived at between the parties and, therefore, this order is also of no significance in the present context.

[17]. Annexure P-4 is the judgment rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in appeal, against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.07.2009 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Jind, which was challenged by the State and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.04.2011.

[18]. The parties were living separately from 10.02.2002. The decree was granted on 01.03.2006 during pendency of the criminal case. The acquittal recorded during pendency of the appeal can be taken into consideration by way of judicial notice.

[19]. In the light of aforesaid facts the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant Radha Rani vs. Har Bhagwan, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 508 and (Smt). Asha Gupta alias Anju Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, 2005 (1) RCR (Civil) 663 do not advance the case of the appellant in any manner. Case laws cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are on different premise and are of no help to the appellant-wife. After acquittal of the husband in criminal case, ground of cruelty came to the fold of the respondent-husband, who can effectively put up this ground to allege cruelty and to seek divorce. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

[20]. The words ‘benefit of doubt’ cannot be appreciated in the manner as sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the appellant. The acquittal was on merits as there was no incriminating evidence available on record, therefore, use of words like ‘benefit of doubt’ was the result of standard practice in the trial courts and was simply a misnomer. The entrustment of dowry was not proved. Guilt of the accused could not be brought to the hilt. The order of acquittal recorded by the criminal Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court in appeal as well.

[21]. In view of aforesaid, this Court does not find any worth in the appeal filed by the wife and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)                             (M. JEYAPAUL)
JUDGE                                               JUDGE

May 31, 2016

Atik

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

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

DIL visiting inlaws fewdays is NOT in dom relation wid them, NO DV! 498a, DV cocktail @ Delhi Sessions court

 

A young woman, a daughter in law, is invited to a party thrown by the father in law retiring from service. To attend this party, she stays at the in father in law’s place a few days. But some domestic quarrel develops between herself and her husband. She files Domestic violence case on four of in laws saying it all happened when she was at their place !!

The court appreciates the facts and says (a) this DIL is not in domestic relationship with the in laws and visiting them a few days does not become domestic relationship (b) The is a distinction between an offence or violence between people in a domestic relationship and those outside. For other alleged quarrels / fights / offences a separate 498a etc FIR has been lodged based on wife’s complaint and so that can’t be DV!! Quoting cornerstone cases, The Hon court discharges all the in laws !!

Excerpts :

“…….It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri……”

” …….. 9. So far as the incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 is concerned, a separate FIR has been registered under Sections 324/498A/34 IPC at PS Janak Puri but the said incident cannot be covered under the D.V. Act. There is a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. For taking this view I am supported with the judgment Vijay Verma (supra)…..”

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

Delhi District Court

Satish Solanki & Ors vs Sujata on 22 December, 2015

Author: Sh. Parveen Kumar

IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBI­III, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Appeal No.70/15

Satish Solanki & Ors. ……..Appellants
vs.
Sujata ……..Respondent

File received on assignment on : 03.10.2015
Arguments heard on : 15.12.2015
Judgment announced on : 22.12.2015

JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court North­West, Rohini Courts, Delhi on application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘D.V. Act’) whereby appellants were summoned to appear before the trial court.

2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present criminal appeal are that respondent was married to Vikas Solanki on 17.7.2013 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both were divorcee before their marriage. After marriage, respondent and her husband­ Vikas Solanki lived at Flat No. 1094, 9th Floor, SBI Enclave, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. On 3.11.2013, they shifted to House No. H­19/129, Sector­7, Rohini, Delhi and lived there upto 13.3.2014. Thereafter, the respondent left the company of her husband from their house at Rohini and stayed at her parental house. In May 2014, respondent again joined the company of her husband and stayed with him till 2nd July, 2014. It is averred that since 3.7.2014, respondent has been living at her parents house. On these allegations, application u/s 12 of D.V. Act was filed by respondent against her husband and appellants herein.

3. Appellant no. 1 is the father­in­law, appellant no. 2 is the mother­in­law, appellant no. 3 is the brother­in­law (Devar) and appellant no. 4 is the sister­in­law (Devarani) of the respondent. All were/are residents of B­1/152, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

4. I have heard Ch. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Sh. D. K. Ahlwat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that appellant no. 1 has retired on superannuation as Supdt. from Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 30.6.2014 and on the eve of his retirement, a party was arranged at Janak Puri, New Delhi in the night of 30.6.2014. The said party was attended by respondent, her husband and others. The respondent and her husband were called from their residence at Rohini a few days before the day of party for helping in making arrangements. In the night of 2.7.2014, some domestic quarrel took placed between respondent and her husband whereupon she visited the Police Station Janak Puri on 3.7.2014 at about 6.00 PM and lodged a complaint. On her said complaint, FIR no. 748/2014 under Section 324/498A/34 IPC was registered. According to Ld. Counsel, only the violence committed in the shared household is covered under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The house at Janak Puri, a self acquired property of the father of appellant no. 1, cannot be considered a shared household as respondent and her husband were living separately in Vikas Puri and Rohini. They have come to the house of appellant no. 1 at Janak Puri on 30.6.2014 to attend the party thrown by him and stayed there for few days. Secondly, it is contended that the alleged incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 cannot be treated as an incident of domestic violence as separate FIR has been lodged for the said incident. In support of his contentions Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgments­S. R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra, 2007 (3) SCC 169; Vijay Verma vs. State, 2010 (118) DRJ 520; Sangeeta vs. Om Parkash, 2015 (3) JCC 1896; Preeti Gupta vs. State, 2010 (4) Crimes 19 (SC); Pushpendu vs. State, 2015 (2) JCC 1359 and Ashish Dixit vs. State, 2013 Crl. LJ 1178.

6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

7. I have gone through the record.

8. Domestic relationship is defined under section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act. Domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person (respondent) had lived together with the appellants in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition, or ‘at any point of time’. The phrase ‘at any point of time’ under the D.V. Act has been defined in judgment Vijay Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that it only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in a shared household as a matter of right. It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household.

9. So far as the incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 is concerned, a separate FIR has been registered under Sections 324/498A/34 IPC at PS Janak Puri but the said incident cannot be covered under the D.V. Act. There is a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. For taking this view I am supported with the judgment Vijay Verma (supra).

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that summoning of the appellants on an application u/s 12 of the D.V. Act filed by the respondent was not justified. Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Appellants are discharged. The criminal appeal stands disposed of. Trial court record be sent back with a copy of the order and appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 22.12.2015.

Special Judge (PC Act),
CBI­III, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

 

no DV cases on relatives (say in laws) who are NOT in domestic relationship ! Andhra HC

In this case a wife after loosing her false 498a case (quashed by the court) files DV case on husband and his relatives. Relatives NOT living under the same roof seek a quash of the DV case stating that they are living separately and NOT in domestic relationship with this woman

The Honourable court accepts their contention and quashes the case

The court holds that “……5. (g) Therefore, in the well-considered view of this Court, for a person to be made a respondent in a DV case filed by an aggrieved woman, such respondent, must have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have been living or must have lived together in a shared household along with the aggrieved person when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Therefore, when any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household and who has/had no domestic relationship cannot be made a respondent to a case filed by the woman under the provisions of the Act.….”

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

Andhra High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

Criminal Petition No.8112 of 2012

19-01-2015

Smt. P.Sugunamma and others ……Petitioners

State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor …. Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Srinivas
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri G.Venkateswara Rao

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

Criminal Petition No.8112 of 2012

ORDER:

This is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the CrPC, for brevity) by the petitioners, who are the respondents 2 to 6 in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, requesting to quash the proceedings against them in the said DV Case.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/applicant in the DV Case and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. I have perused the material record. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the petitioners and the 2nd respondent as arrayed in this criminal petition.

3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows: The 2nd respondent herein, by name, P. Anantha Lakshmi is the wife of P.Giri Babu, the 1st respondent in the DV Case. The present petitioners are the brothers-in-law, co-sister and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent herein had filed a case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act, for brevity) seeking orders for protection under Section 18, Residence Order under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, custody order under Section 21 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act. In fact, in the DV case, she had also sought prohibition of alienation of assets besides Rs.35,000/- towards monthly maintenance and a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The total amount claimed by her is Rs.50,00,000/-. She had also earlier filed a case against her husband for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and the said case is stated to be pending in the Court at Medchal. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Now, the points for determination are:

1. Whether the petitioners had made out valid and sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings against them in DVC 18 of 2012?

2. Whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint of the 2nd respondent do not disclose even a prima facie case against the petitioners?

3. Whether the application of the 2nd respondent should not have been entertained by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of the petitioners with the 2nd respondent?

5. POINTS:

5. (a) The case pleaded by the petitioners in support of the request for quashing the proceedings against them in the DV case, is as under: According to the case of the 2nd respondent, while she was studying B.Com 2nd year, she fell in love with the 1st respondent in the DV case. After her marriage with the 1st respondent in the DV case, they had lived together for some time. Under the lawful wedlock, she gave birth to a girl child. According to the 2nd respondent, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and that her husband made demands for additional dowry. Her husband had threatened her that he would marry a second time if she failed to bring the dowry amount. On account of the harassment, she went away to her parents house at Hyderabad. Thus, the 2nd respondent had not made a single allegation against the present petitioners. They are living separately. However, a DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent against her husband and also the present petitioners. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on file. The marriage between the 2nd respondent and her husband is a love marriage and after their marriage in the year 2004, they both had lived separately. Except the blood relation, there is no other business or joint family relationship between the 2nd respondent on one hand and the petitioners herein on the other. All the petitioners are residents of Bheemarajuvari Street, Ongole of Prakasam District. At no point of time, the 2nd respondent and her husband on one hand and the petitioners on the other lived under one roof. There is no domestic relationship between the 2nd respondent and her husband on one hand and the petitioners on the other. At no point of time, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent had lived together in a shared household. The petitioners are facing much trouble in traveling from Ongole to Medchal, which is at a distance of more than 240 KMs. They are not involved in any offences. The continuation of DV case against them is an abuse of process of Court and law. Hence, the present petition is filed for quashing the proceedings against them.

5. (b) At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners had reiterated the case pleaded in the petition. Along with the petition, the copy of the household card of the 5th petitioner and his wife, who is the 2nd petitioner, is filed showing that they are residents of Bheemarajuvari Street, Ongole of Prakasam District. Similarly, the household card of the 4th petitioner and his wife Ramanamma, i.e., the 3rd petitioner is filed showing that they are also residents of Ongole of Prakasam District. Similarly, the copy of the household card of the 1st petitioners husband P.Rama Rao is filed showing that she is a resident of Vijayawada of Krishna District.

5. (c) The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had forcefully contended that the petitioners herein, who are the respondents 2 to 6 in the DV case are admittedly relatives of the husband of the 2nd respondent herein and that they are related by blood or consanguinity and marriage and that in the DV case it is specifically averred that the husband of the 2nd respondent had harassed the 2nd respondent by making demands for additional dowry and that he used to abuse her in filthy language and torture her, both mentally and physically and that he had taken away forcefully her pusthela thadu and had abused the 2nd respondent a number of times for not getting additional dowry and that the mediations held by the elders did not yield any results and that the husband of the 2nd respondent did not even provide food to her and used to confine her to the house by locking her in the house and that on account of the ill treatment meted out to the 2nd respondent by her husband, her health was spoiled and therefore, she was constrained to file the DV case. Thus, he has reiterated the contents in the DV case while admitting that the 5 year old daughter is with the husband of the 2nd respondent.

5. (d) I have bestowed my attention to the facts and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. Earlier, on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein, a case in Crime No.204 of 2010 was registered by the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Ongole for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 384, 420, 464, 465 and 498-A of the IPC against the husband of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners herein and two others, namely, the husband of the 1st petitioner-P.Sugunamma herein and one Sai Bhargav, who is the Son of the 4th petitioner herein. All the petitioners in the said crime had filed Criminal Petition No.9382 of 2010. This Court, by a common order dated 04.10.2012 made in Crl.P.Nos.9382 and 9492 of 2010 quashed the proceedings in the aforementioned crime 204 of 2010 of I Town Police Station, Ongole. It is undisputed that the 2nd respondent had much earlier gave a report to the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla on 05.08.2010 to the effect that she was subjected to harassment by all the accused and that on 25.06.2010, A1 had approached her and forcefully obtained her signature on divorce and other papers. This Court, in the said order observed that the allegations made in the subsequent report are all false and therefore, quashed the proceedings in the aforementioned crime. Therefore, as rightly contended, the present D V case is a fresh case after the proceedings against the petitioners herein and others in the earlier crime registered for the alleged offences punishable under the provisions of the IPC were quashed as per the orders of this Court. In the DV case allegations were made only against the husband who was arraigned as the 1st respondent in that case but no allegations much less specific allegations attributing any acts or omissions constituting domestic violence are made against the present petitioners.

5. (e) Coming next to the contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present petitioners for the reason that they have no domestic relationship and that they have never shared the household or lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Under Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.

Section 2 (a) defines aggrieved person; and, it reads as follows:

2 (a) aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

The above definition makes a reference to domestic relationship between the aggrieved woman and the respondent in the DV case. The definition also makes a reference to domestic violence.

Domestic relationship which is defined in Section 2(f) reads as under:

2 (f) domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family Thus, Section 2 (f) of the Act dealing with domestic relationship refers to shared household; and, shared household as defined in Section 2(s) reads as follows:

2 (s) shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared house-hold.

Section 2 (q) defines respondent as follows:

2 (q) respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner Domestic violence which is defined in Section 2(g) reads as under:

2 (g) domestic violence has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3.

Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence. The said provision reads as follows:

3. Definition of domestic violence:- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it

(a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Thus, Section 3 of the Act also in the introductory part makes a reference to the word respondent.

5. (f) A plain and analytical reading and a harmonious consideration of all the provisions of the Act, particularly, the above definitions brings to the fore the following aspects:

A person can be arraigned as a respondent in a DV case provided he is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The proviso to Section 2(q) says that an aggrieved wife may also file a complaint against the relation of a husband. A plain reading of the said definition would make it manifest that any person who can be arraigned as a respondent must be a person who is or has been in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have subjected the aggrieved person to any act of domestic violence. Unless the said requirements are fulfilled a person cannot be arraigned as a respondent in a DV Case. Coming to the aspect of domestic relationship, the domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who either are living together or had at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition of shared household is already extracted supra.

5. (g) Therefore, in the well-considered view of this Court, for a person to be made a respondent in a DV case filed by an aggrieved woman, such respondent, must have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and must have been living or must have lived together in a shared household along with the aggrieved person when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Therefore, when any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household and who has/had no domestic relationship cannot be made a respondent to a case filed by the woman under the provisions of the Act.

5. (h) To put it in other words, in order to arraign a person as a respondent in a DV case filed under section 12 of the Act, there must be a domestic relationship either in present or in the past between the aggrieved person and the respondent. In any case, the domestic relationship must be in existence at the relevant time when aggrieved person has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. It is noticeable from the provisions that a domestic relationship arises between the aggrieved person and another, in case when either they are living together or have at any point of time lived together in a shared house hold and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The aggrieved person and the respondent need not be living together in a shared household at the time of the filing of the case/petition and it would be sufficient if they had lived together at any point of time in the past, when the alleged acts/omissions/conduct complained of had taken place.

5. (i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.

6. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.

M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

19th January 2015

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