Category Archives: dv case won by husband

42yr old wife files DV on 52yr husbnd 8yrs later! Huge maint.& residnce sought ! Kar HC DV quash

A 42 year old wife files DV on a 52 year old husband approx 8 years after separtion. Pertinent to note that she ALREADY has won a maintenance of Rs 1000, p.m. which she wishes to enhance to Rs. 10,000 p.m. !! now. She also wants residence rights in his OWN house etc etc !! Hon KARNATAKA HC quashes the case quoting Sec 468 CrPC

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014

BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11476/2013

BETWEEN:

1. GURUDEV S/O. HANAMANT GURAV
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MALALI VILLAGE, TQ:MUDHOL
DIST: BAGALKOT

2. BASAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA GURAV
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. MALALI VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PAVAN B DODDATTI, ADV.)

AND

JAYASHREE W/O. GURUDEV GURAV
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.MALALI VILLAGE,
TQ:MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S C HIREMATH, ADV.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL.MISC.NO.110/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MUDHOL, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Though this petition is posted for admission, with the consent of both the Counsels, the matter is heard o n merits.

2. It is seen from the records that the respondent-Jayashree W/o the first petitioner-Gurudev S/o Hana mant Gurvar lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for several reliefs. That is to say restraining the petitioners from dispossessing from the house and also for awarding Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance etc. and also claiming Rs.15,000/- towards damages. It is also alleged in the petition that the applicant therein has a right to share the house at Bagalkot with opponent No.1. The op ponents ill-treated and tortured her, thereafter about 8 y ears back by beating his wife and daughter drove her out from the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that since t hen the petitioner is staying in the adjacent house of the opponent and opponent has neglected and even now harassing her under one or other pretext. Therefore, she is comp elled to file petition under Domestic Violence Act.

3. In the petition it is not specified as to what is the nature of harassment that has been given by the pet itioners herein. The learned counsel for the petitioners st renuously contended that the petition is barred by limitatio n. The petition is filed alleging the incident taken plac e about 8 years back. Therefore, he contends that the petiti on under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – wife submits that, she has filed a suit for partiti on and separate possession and the said suit was decreed i n respect of landed property and now she is residing in the house situated adjacent to the house of the petitio ners herein. It is also submitted that the first petiti oner filed a petition for divorce and the same is pending. There fore, the petition under Domestic Violence Act is maintainabl e before the trial Court. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the order passed by this Court in a similar matter in Crl.P.No.2419/2009 on 05.04.2013 and submits that t he said order passed by this court is applicable to th e facts and circumstances of this case. For the purpose of bet ter understanding whether the said order passed by this Court is applicable to the present case or not, it is jus t and necessary to look into the orders passed in that ca se.

“In the said case also, the wife alleged that she lived with her
husband in the matrimonial home up to November 2004 and she was
pregnant by then. She was treated cruelly by the petitioner and his
parents during that time. The wife left the matrimonial home as she
could not tolerate the torture of her husband and she was compelled
to eat certain substance in order to abort pregnancy. Making such
allegations she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court has taken
cognizance of an offence which has taken place in the year 2005 and
issued summons to the petitioners. The learned judge of this Court
has observed the cause of action in the said case was 4 years prior
to the filing of the complaint. Under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the
complaint could have been filed within one year. If the allegations
made in the complaint are proved, the punishment is one year. On
these grounds, this Court allowed the petition under Section 485 of
Cr.P.C. and quashed the entire proceedings.”

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Divorce petition, an amount of Rs.1,000/- has already been awarded. It is admitted fact that the respondent has claimed maintenance in the divorce petition filed by her husband. She can workout her remedy so far as maintenance in the said Divorce Petition.

7. With these observations, I am of the opinion that, this petition under Domestic Violence Act is liable to be quashed which was filed after lapse of 8 years. In view of the same and in view of the observations made by this Court in similar matters noted above, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed.

Hence, I Pass the following order:

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent herein in Crl.Misc.110/2003 before the P rl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol is hereby quashed. Further th e respondent is at liberty to agitate all these grou nds in the Divorce Petition.

(SD/-)

JUDGE

Rms

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

 

Wife’s DV dismissed by Delhi Sessions court as she does NOT lead evidences 2 support her case !!

* Wife files DV cases
* On completion of pleadings, arguments on interim relief were heard. Vide order dt 30.05.2014, interim application disposed off
* matter was fixed for complainant evidence (CE)
* despite availing numerous opportunities, complainant (wife) did not lead any evidence in support of her case.
* She was burdened with the nominal cost of Rs.200/­ which she deposited only after repeated directions !!
* Imposition of cost did not deter her & as she failed to lead complainant evidence even after imposition of cost on some pretext or the other !!

* So ……. the court understands that “…. It appears that the complainant was not serious in pursuing the case and somehow wanted to gain precious judicial time, which was required to be deprecated…..”
……” and then dismisses wife’s case !!

I feel this is a good case / precedent that men can use to seek dismissal of case IF wife does NOT lead evidences

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

IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA: MM: MAHILA COURT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI

CC No. 3/13/13
PS: SARAI ROHILLA
UID No.2401R0007122013

IN THE MATTER OF: ­

SMT. KALPANA
W/o SH. UMESH
R/o JHUGGI No. 101,
SUBZI MANDI, KISHANGANJ
DELHI­110007 ……….. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. SH. UMESH
S/o SH. NEM CHAND

2. SMT. LADLI
W/o SH. NEM CHAND

3.SH. NEM CHAND
S/o NOT KNOWN

4. SH. JACKY
S/o SH. NEM CHAND.

5.MS. SUNITA
D/o SH. NEM CHAND
ALL R/o G­69, GALI NO. 3,
BHRAM PURI­ DELHI­53 ………. RESPONDENTS

CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS.

Date of Institution : 04.01.2013
Date on which matter was reserved for order : 26.11.2015
Date of Judgment : 26.11.2015

BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE :­

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondents. Respondent no. 1 is the husband and other respondents are in laws of the complainant. It is stated that the marriage between complainant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 27.02.2009 according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Delhi. It is further stated that the parents of the complainant spent huge amount in the marriage but despite of that, the respondents harassed the complainant for dowry.

2. It is stated that the the complainant was taken to matrimonial house on 27.02.2009 but the respondents were not happy with the dowry articles given in the marriage. On next day of marriage, the respondents commented upon the dowry articles and demanded one motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac from the complainant but she kept quite. The respondents took all the jewellery articles on the ground that there is apprehension of theft.

3. It is further stated that on 05.03.2009, the complainant came back to her parents house and she told her parents about the demand of the respondents. The parents of complainant convinced her that “SAB THIK HO JAYEGA”. It is further stated that on 02.07.2009, the complainant reached her matrimonial house but the respondents started repeating the demand of motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac for respondent no. 1 to start some business. The complainant told them that her parents are poor and unable to arrange such a huge amount and motorcycle. On refusal, she was beaten by the respondents. It is further stated that on 12.07.2012, complainant was beaten by the respondents for demand of dowry and she sustained injury on her hand. The police visited the spot and called the parents of the complainant, and she was sent to her parents house with her parents. It is further stated that on 20.09.2009, the parents of the complainant took her to her matrimonial house and tried to convince the respondents with the help of relatives and some respectable persons of society

4. It is further stated that on 04.10.2009, the respondents abused and beaten the complainant for not pressurizing her parents to provide motorcycle and Rs. 01 Lac to the respondents to start their own business. The respondents took the complainant forcibly and left her on road near her parent’s house of the complainant with the threats that they would not take the complainant back with them till the complainant brings the motorcycle and Rs. One Lac from her parents. It is further stated that the complainant told her parents about the threats given by the respondents. The parents along with their relatives visited the matrimonial house of complainant for compromise on several dates but the respondents refused to accept the complainant till her parents arrange one motorcycle and Rs. One Lac.

5. It is stated that respondent no. 1 has deserted the complainant since 04.10.2009 without any sufficient reason and has not provided any maintenance to her till date. The complainant is facing hardship and starvation and unable to maintain herself. It is further stated that finding no other alternative, the complainant made complaint to CAW Cell against the respondents on 19.09.2012 vide complaint No. 332/2012. It is further stated that the complainant is a house wife and has no source of income of her own. She is fully dependent on her parents for the livelihood and unable to maintain herself.

6. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 is a man of means and has been working as a cutting master and earning more than Rs. 25,000/­ per month approx. & leading a luxurious life. The respondents have neglected the complainant without any cause & reason and has refused to maintain her. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

7. The following orders have been requested to be passed:­

A. Protection orders under section 18 of the Act,

(i) prohibiting acts of domestic violence by granting an injunction against the respondents from repeating any of the acts of violence,

(ii) prohibiting any form of communication by the respondents or abetting in the commission of her action of domestic violence or causing to the dependent and other relative or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence,

(iii) prohibiting the respondents from committing any other act as specified in the protection order,

(iv) Prohibiting alienation of assets by the respondents.

B. Monetary relief under section 20 of the Act,

(i) directing the respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 15,000/­ per month as maintenance,

D. Compensation Order @ Rs. 2,00,000/­ under section 22 of the Act,

8. Vide order dated 04.01.2013, the respondents were directed to be summoned. On the next date of hearing, the respondents expressed their willingness to contest the petition. On this, they were directed to file reply within two weeks with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving, thereafter, complainant was also directed to file replication within a week with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving. Subsequent thereto, on completion of pleadings, arguments on the point of interim relief were heard. Vide order dated 30.05.2014, the interim application was disposed off after recording the submissions of the parties and matter was fixed for complainant evidence (CE).

9. The complainant was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit with advance copy to the opposite party against receiving a week prior to next date of hearing. It be observed that despite availing numerous opportunities, the complainant did not lead any evidence in support of the case. She was burdened with the nominal cost of Rs.200/­ to be deposited with DLSA, which she deposited only after repeated directions but the imposition of cost did not deter the complainant as she failed to lead complainant evidence even after imposition of cost on some pretext or the other. Considering the overall conduct of complainant, complainant evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for proper order.

10. The court has carefully perused the entire record. In the present case,the complainant has not led any evidence in support of her case despite availing opportunities. Only she could have thrown light upon the facts of this case but in the absence of any evidence on record, the present case cannot lead to any logical conclusion. The court is of the view that the happening of the very incident and allegations of the complainant are not made out. It appears that the complainant was not serious in pursuing the case and somehow wanted to gain precious judicial time, which was required to be deprecated.

Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed. Respondents are discharged.

11. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.

Announced in the open court on 26.11.2015
(MONA TARDI KERKETTA ) MM­02/ Mahila Court
THC/Delhi/26.11.2015

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

CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA
KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS.
CC No.3/1/13
PS: S. Rohilla

Kalpana Vs. Umesh & Ors.

26.11.2015

Present: Complainant with Ld. Proxy counsel Sh. S.S. Solanki
Respondents are absent.
Matter is fixed for CE by way of last opportunity.

Today again adjournment has been sought for the want of main counsel. Perusal of record shows that the case has been pending at the stage of CE since 19.09.2014. Despite availing sufficient opportunities, no complainant evidence (CE) has been led in support of the case. No cogent reason has been assigned for not leading CE till date. Despite specific direction to ensure the presence of the main counsel, the complainant has again sought adjournment for the want of main counsel. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

In such circumstances, granting of further opportunity shall not be justified. CE is closed.

Put up for proper orders at 04.00 pm.

MM/THC/Delhi/26.11.2015 At 4.00 Pm.

Present:­ None for the parties.

Matte is fixed for proper order.

Vide separate detailed order, the present complaint is dismissed. Respondents are discharged.

File be consigned to record room.

(MONA TARDI KERKETTA )
MM­02 Mahila Court THC/ Delhi/
26.11.2015
CC No. 3/1/13 PS: S. ROHILLA KALPANA VS. UMESH & ORS

No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts.

No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. Sadly 10 yr life gone & NO punishment to ablaa after she filed false cases

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

Neetu Jain Vs Vikas Jain and others

COMA/41794/2013

In the court of Sh. Rajinder Singh Nagpal, PCS, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

Criminal Complaint No. 23
Date of Institution: 28.04.2012
Computer I.D. No. COMA/41794/2013
Date of Order: 17.09.2015

Neetu Jain daughter of Sh. Sat Pal Jain wife of Sh. Vikas Jain, resident of 4036, Street No. 7, New Madhopuri, Ludhiana………Applicant/Aggrieved person

VERSUS

1. Vikas Jain son of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain,
2. Vinod Kumar Jain son of Not Known,
3. Veena Jain wife of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain,
4. Varun Jain son of Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain, all residents of 1016-8A, Akashpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana………Respondents

(Application U/S 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005)

Present: Sh. Surinderpal Singh Gupta Advocate for the applicant.
Sh. Munish Gupta Advocate for the respondents

JUDGEMENT:-

1. The present application for protection of woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005 has been filed by the applicant Neetu Jain on the allegations that the applicant has been got married with respondent no. 1 on 28.04.2011 at Ludhiana according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies at Ludhiana. After the marriage, both the parties started residing in House No. 1016-8A, Akash Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of marriage, all the respondents had demanded huge dowry articles and as such her parents spent huge amount in the marriage and gave huge dowry and Istridhan articles at the time of marriage, which a hope that their daughter will remain happy in her matrimonial home. The entire dowry and Istridhan articles are in possession of the respondents. However, after sometime of the marriage, all the respondents even started treating the applicant with utmost cruelty on demand of some dowry and to fulfill their illegal demands, the applicant brought one TV set, CD player, Blower and other household goods from her parents with a hope that better sense may prevail upon the respondents. The applicant gave birth to two sons, one of the son is in the custody of the applicant. The respondent then started pressurizing upon the applicant to bring an amount of ? 5,00,000/- from her parents on the pretext that they wanted to install more machinery in their factory and when even the applicant refused to accept to their said illegal demand, she was subject to severe beatings from the hands of the respondents and ultimately on 7.11.2011 on the demand of 5,00,000/-, the respondents after giving beatings to the respondents taken her out of the matrimonial house which is also share household alongwith younger son and since then she is residing in her parents house. During the period she stayed with the respondents she was being maltreated and was given beatings by the respondents on the demand of more dowry and cash amount. The respondents have illegally retain the other son of the applicant and she also went the custody of the said son from the respondents. The daughter and son-in-law of the respondent no. 1 also used to join hands with the respondents. This act of the respondents amount to domestic violence and prayed for permanently monthly maintenance allowance from respondent Vikas Jain Rs. 50,000/- per month alongwith other relief i.e. protection order, residence order and monetary order.

2. Notice of the present application was issued to the respondents, who appeared through counsel and filed detailed written statement wherein they took preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable at all and the applicant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present petition. The applicant has not come to the court with clean hands and she has concealed the material facts from the court. Her marriage was solemnized with respondent no. 1 on 28.04.2011 and after marriage, two sons namely Vansh Jain and Bharat Jain have born from this wedlock. The marriage was performed in simple manner and only 50 persons from the side of the respondent no. 1 attended the marriage. No dowry was either demanded or given in the marriage as it was a dowry-less affair. However, parental family members of the applicant were having dishonest and fraudulent intentions from the very beginning and she started acting as per the asking of her parental family members. The applicant started quarreling with the respondent no. 1 on petty matters and started forcing him to live separately from his parents after getting his share in their properties. The parental family members of respondent no. 1 used to visit the house of the respondent no. 1 and applicant after committing theft of one or the other thing including gold ornaments used to give the same to them in their active connivance. The respondent number 1 and his family members never demanded any dowry from the applicant and her parental family members. The applicant and her parental family members were having malafide intentions and they wanted that the respondent number 1 may give younger son Bharat Jain to Sheena Jain wife of Vikram Jain as they were having no child nor any child could have born to them. The respondent no. 1 did not agree. The respondent no. 1 was doing labour job of embroidery work. The respondent no. 1 was having his own embroidery machines. The father of the applicant like other customers also used to come to the respondent no. 1 for getting done embroidery work. He used to instruct the colours of which embroidery was to be done on the garments, clothes etc and he took the respondent no. 1 in confidence. After some time, the respondent no. 1 found that there was also short of the embroidery clothes and goods etc and the goods were never completed and respondent no. 1 thought that some labour is doing this illegal theft and seeing the strict behaviour of the respondent no. 1, the labour started leaving the job and the embroidery work became stand to still and customers also started leaving the respondent no. 1 as they found irregularities. Though, the respondent no. 1 engaged new labour, but the goods were never remained complete and respondent no. 1 was unable to understand whether goods were being theft from the house or work place as the goods having more value used to be taken to the house for doing cutting thread and embroidery for giving finishing touch. There was no allowance of entering of stranger to the house of the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 started keeping strict eagle eye. The respondent no. 1 was not resourceful to get installed CCTV. On keeping strict watch in the house, the respondent no. 1 came to know that Satpal and his son Rajiv were visiting the house of the respondent no. 1 in his absence in routine and there was very much understanding between the applicant and her family members and they used to leave the house before reaching of the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 started making recordings of the phone calls on account being suspicious and after going through the recordings, the respondent no. 1 came to know that the applicant’s parental family members in pre-planned manner used to set the time of visit to the house of the respondent no. 1 and commit theft and it also revealed that not only factory goods are being theft, but also also valuable household articles and gold ornaments are also being stolen. Applicant Neetu Jain played active role and she was master and behind all these thefts. The applicant had also made duplicate keys of the entire house rooms etc and were using the same as per their convenience and they committed theft of cash, jewellery from the main alimrah whose keys always remain with mother of the respondent no. 1 and even from the personal alimary of the respondent no. 1, blank cheques, drafts, parties’s signed parchis, ATM Cards etc. were stolen. About all this when the respondent no. 1 asked questions from the applicant Neetu Jain, she started quarreling with the respondent no. 1 and started asking him to appoint a security guard and respondent no. 1 came under depression and he could not understanding anything. Thereafter, in absence of the respondent no. 1, applicant Neetu Jain ran away from the house and when the respondent no. 1 did not find her in the house she made inquiries and came to know that she had gone to her parental house and when the respondent no. 1 made calls to the parental house of Neetu Jain, then father of the applicant Satpal Jain abused the respondent no. 1 very badly and threatened to implicate in false cases. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 informed the matter to the police, but police did not take action and ultimately the respondent no. 1 approached the Police Commissioner, Ludhiana and thereafter, the respondent no. 1 received calls from Police Station Kotwali, Chaura Bazar and thereafter, police officials received documents and recorded statement, but no action was taken thereafter. The applicant and her parental family members thereafter again dared to come to the respondent no. 1 and gave beatings to him. They are threatening to kill the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 has suffered huge losses. The respondent no. 1 now without any work and is in jail. There is an apprehension of misuse of the blank cheques, papers etc of which theft is committed by the applicant. In this manner, the applicant has committed fraud and has deserted the respondent no. 1 without any sufficient cause. On merits, the marriage of the applicant and respondent no. 1 is an admitted. All the remaining averments made by the applicant in the application have been denied by the respondents and prayed for dismissal of the applicant.

3. In order to prove her case, the applicant Neetu Jain herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and tendered her duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW1/A, in which she reiterated the entire version of the application.

4. The applicant further examined Satpal Jain son of Parkash Chand Jain as PW2, Reeta Jain wife of Satpal Jain as PW3, Gurinder Singh son of Basant Singh as PW4, Hitesh Chopra son of Suresh Chopra as PW5, who come present and tendered their duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW5/A and corroborated the version of the applicant examined as PW1.

5. The applicant further examined Rajeev Jain son of Satpal Jain as PW6, who come present and tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW6/A and proved on record photocopy of the certificate issued by Shifaly Public School in the name of Bharat Jain as Ex.P1.

6. The applicant further examined Anoop Dubey, Tax Assistant, Office of Additional C.I.T Range, Ludhiana as PW7, who come present and stated on oath that he is a summoned witness and has brought the uncertified record of returns of Satpal Jain having PAN number ABNPJ3625J with returns for the assessment year 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014. This is confidential record of their office and they do not disclose to the third party in the interest of confidentiality and protection of privacy, but as per this record, the gross total income of Satpal Jain for the assessment year 2011-2012 was 4,25,748/-, for the assessment year 2012-2013 was ? ? 5,02,972/-, for the assessment year 2013-2014 was 7,18,208/- ? (gross total income is termed as proprietor’s fund). So far as certified copies of acknowledgements of these returns are concern, these acknowledgements are generated electronically in their income tax office of Banglore and he is not in a position to produce the same. Copy of the summons sent by the court is enclosed as Annexure-A.

7. Thereafter, the applicant closed her evidence by making separate statement and the case was fixed for evidence of the respondents.

8. To rebut the case of the applicant, respondent no. 1 Vikas Jain himself stepped into the witness box as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.RA and proved on record certified copy of the order dated 24.04.2015 as Ex.R1, copy of order dated 15.12.2014 as Ex.R2.

9. The respondents further examined Vansh Jain as RW2, who come present and fully corroborated the version of the respondent no. 1 and thereafter, respondent no. 2 tendered the documents certified copy of the order dated 01.04.2015 as Ex.R3, certified copy of the statement of Neetu Jain in case titled as “Neetu Jain Vs Vikas Jain” as Ex.R4 and thereafter, counsel for the respondents closed the evidence on behalf of the respondents.

10.I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for the respondents and have gone through the entire material placed on record. Now it has been contended by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was married with the respondent no. 1 on 28.04.2011 at Ludhiana according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. However, thereafter, she was ill-treated by her husband and his relatives and illegal demands of dowry were made and finally on 07.11.2011 she was expelled from her matrimonial home. Hence, she is entitled to the reliefs as claimed. On the other hand, the respondents have denied the allegations of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the same.

11.Now the witnesses examined by the applicant stated on the lines of the applicant under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The applicant has contended that she was ill-treated and illegal demands were made from the side of the respondents and when she failed to fulfill the same she was ultimately expelled on 07.11.2011. However, after going through the entire material placed on record, this court is of the considered view that the allegations of illtreatment and demand of dowry are vague and are not liable to be believed. Though there are general allegations in the body of the application and stated by the applicant witnesses, but despite that the story putforth by the applicant does not appear trustworthy. PW1 Neetu Jain admitted in her cross examination that during the birth of her two sons she was admitted in the hospital and all the medical expenses were borne by the respondents. She also stated that she had not mentioned the company of the TV which was demanded by them. She also admitted that after her marriage her in-laws had already two TV sets. She also stated that she do not know what Vikas Jain was doing for the last 10 years. She also admitted that she had no proof regarding the demand of TV set, CD player, Blower from the respondents and that she even had no bills etc to show that they had supplied the same to the respondents. She also could not mention the date, year etc when she was given beating by Vikas Jain. She also admitted that she had no bills etc. regarding the dowry articles which were given to the respondents. She also admitted that she had no proof regarding the business of M/s V Jain Fabrics which was run by the respondents and had even no proof of his occupation. She also could not mention the income of the said firm. She also stated that she gave no application to the police authorities against Vikas Jain and his family members during the 10 years of their marriage. She also admitted that during these 10 years of their marriage her relatives used to visit the house of Vikas Jain. She also admitted that she is not ready to go to the house of Vikas Jain and that she will first see the portion only then she could visit. Similarly, PW2 Satpal Jain stated in his cross examination that before 7.11.2011 he had no altercation with Vikas Jain. He also admitted that before that date even no scuffle took place between Neetu Jain and Vikas Jain in his presence. He also stated that even he never had any altercation with Vinod Kumar Jain and with Veena Jain. He also stated that even his wife had no scuffle or altercation with Veena Jain or with her family members and that whenever he and his wife used to visit the house of Vinod Kumar Jain and they were treated warmly. He also admitted that Vikas Jain had two T.V. Sets and CD player earlier and that he had no proof regarding the delivery of 5,00,000/- to the respondents. ? Rita Jain while appearing as PW3 admitted in her cross examination that at the time of marriage Neetu Jain used to live in rented accommodation and marriage ceremony was conducted immediately i.e. within eight days after meeting. She also admitted that she can send her daughter to in her-laws provided the circumstances exist there as they used to be at the time of marriage i.e. the financial condition of in-laws. She also admitted that she had no proof of the income of Vikas Jain and his family members and about what he is doing these days. Further in her statement which is Ex.R4 on record made during the proceedings of petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C Neetu Jain even admitted that till date she had filed no petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. She also admitted that Vikas Jain is neither alcoholic nor had other bad habits and is even maintaining Vansh Jain. Thus, from the above mentioned evidence, it is clear that the applicant has miserably failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry articles as alleged by her. It was incumbent upon the applicant to have clearly established on record the various instances of cruelty committed by the respondents and to establish that persistent and illegal demand of dowry were made by them due to which she was ultimately expelled from the matrimonial home. However as mentioned above there are only general allegations in the body of the application and the same appears to be vague and are not liable to be believed. The applicant Neetu Jain alongwith her father Satpal Jain clearly admitted in their cross examination that at the time of marriage of the applicant the respondents had earlier two TV sets and CD player. Further Neetu Jain also admitted that she had no proof i.e. bill etc regarding the TV set, CD player, Blower which she alleges to have been given to the respondents to meet their illegal demand. Further, she also admitted that she had placed no list of dowry articles on record to show that dowry articles were given at the time of her marriage. She also admitted that she never gave application to police officials during the 10 years of her marriage against the respondent Vikas Jain and his family members. Similarly, Satpal Jain also admitted that before 07.11.2011 he or his wife never had any altercation with Vikas Jain and his family members and whenever they visited their house they were always treated good. Further as mentioned above, Neetu Jain herself admitted in her cross examination that she is not ready to go to the house of the respondents and that she can think about only after watching the financial conditions of the respondents. The same admission was made by PW3 Rita Jain. Further, Rita Jain also admitted that the marriage was solemnized within eight days after meeting the respondents. Thus all these circumstances and the above mentioned evidence clearly shows that the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry articles by the applicant are without any basis. It is highly improbable that the respondents would demand TV set, CD player, Blower from the applicant when they already had these articles. Further even the applicant has failed to establish on record that sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. PW3 Rita Jain clearly admitted that the marriage was solemnized within eight years. Further no list of dowry articles were placed on record in support of this contentions. Also the allegation regarding the demand of 5,00,000/- appears to be ? vague. No evidence qua this fact was also produced on record in the shape of any bank statement etc. As clearly admitted by the applicant and her father they could not even produced on record any bills etc. Regarding the articles i.e. CD Player, Blower and TV set which they allege to have given to the respondents in order to meet their illegal demand. Further as admitted by the applicant herself that she never moved any application to the police officials regarding the ill-treatment by the respondents within 10 years of her marriage. Even PW3 Satpal Jain also admitted that before 07.11.2011 they never had any altercation with the respondents and their family members. All these factor clearly goes to show that the allegation of cruelty and demand of dowry articles leveled against the respondents are without any basis. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

12.Now as clearly mentioned above, the applicant has miserably failed to prove on record allegation of cruelty and illegal demand of dowry articles. Further it is also an establish fact on record that the applicant is not residing with the respondents. Neetu Jain while appearing as PW1 clearly admitted in her cross examination that she is not willing to go to the house of the respondents and that she could only think of that after seeing the residence of the respondents. Similar admission was made by PW3 Rita Jain who also stated that she cannot send her daughter to her in laws house provided the financial condition of her in-laws is better. Now in the present case, it has been contended by the applicant that she is entitled to maintenance to the tune of 50,000/- from the ? respondents as he is running a factory under the name and style of M/s V. Jain Fabrics and is earning more than 2,00,000/- per ? month. However, after hearing the contentions of counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent and after going through the entire material placed on record, this court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to any such maintenance amount. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was treated with cruelty and persistent demand of dowry articles was made and due to all these factors she had reasonable ground for not residing with the respondents. In the present case, the applicant has failed to prove as to why she is residing out of her matrimonial home. The allegations of cruelty leveled against the respondents are not proved on record. Therefore, merely alleging that the financial condition of the respondents is not good and thereafter she cannot reside with the respondents is no ground at all for staying away from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove any just and sufficient ground for her living separately and is accordingly, not entitled to maintenance.

For that reliance is placed on the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1994 (1) HLR 350:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125 (old section 488). Husband serving in Bengal. Wife wanted him to leave service and live in Village. Wife has no right to force her husband to leave service. Wife living separately. Wife not entitled to maintenance”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in 1989 (1) HLR 278:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 125. Maintenance. Revision by husband against his wife. Allegation of wife that husband used to beat her treat her with cruelty and was not caring for her food and clothes. Husband earing 1500/- ? per month. Husband neglected her. Beating turned her out of house. Maintenance claim of 500/- per ? month. Wife earning. She is teacher in Muslim Girls Madarsa. Wife admitted in cross examination that husband never misbehaved with her. Petition dismissed. However session court allowed 400/- ? per month as maintenance. Nothing on record to show that at any stage of proceedings there were talks of compromise between the parties. Wife failed to proved that husband had been cruel to her. Wife not entitled to any maintenance allowance and petition was rightly dismissed by the Magistrate. Husband not guilty of neglect or refusal to maintain wife”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2012(4) Law Herald 3118:

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24. Maintenance pendente lite. Wife is not entitled to double maintenance. If, she has already been awarded maintenance under section 125 that would merge with the maintenance pendente life awarded by the trial court invoking the provisions under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Meaning thereby, Court while dealing with the maintenance pendente life under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, will have to take into account the amount awarded under section 125 of the direct payment of maintenance pendente lite”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Bombay High Court in 1989 (1) HLR 269:-

“Civil Procedure Code, 1973. Section 125. Scope. Maintenance. Wife failed to prove her case for maintenance on the ground of cruelty. Trail Court rejected her application of respondent (wife) for maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Appellate Court reversed the order of Trial Court and held the wife entitled to maintenance under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. The material placed on record show that the Trial Court took the possible view. Appellate Court erred in reappreciating the evidence without pointing out the patent or material illegality committed by Trial Court in reaching to the conclusion that applicant (wife) had failed to prove her case and she is not entitled to maintenance. Allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty beyond the scope of section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Appellate Court while Reversing the order of Trial Court completely misdirected himself in approach and exercise of the jurisdiction. Order of appellate Court be set aside”

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Calcutta High Court in 2002 (2) HLR 286:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125. Maintenance. Justification of husband obtaining divorce on ground that wife left matrimonial home voluntarily. Wife claiming maintenance. Wife refused to live with her husband. No cogent ground shown by wife of live separately from husband. Wife also failed to prove that she was unable to maintain herself. Held, wife not entitled to maintenance from husband. Trial Court held not justified in allowing application under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Order granting maintenance set aside”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Rajasthan High Court in 1999 CriLJ 1789:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 and 397. Maintenance claimed by wife for herself and for two minor children. She was living separately and refused to live with husband in spite of his offer to maintain in her and her children. Magistrate rightly refused maintenance. Revisional Court by reappraising evidence overstepped its jurisdiction and allowed maintenance. Wife living separately without just cause, not entitled to maintenance. However, her children are entitled for maintenance. Revisional jurisdiction and its scope. Clarified”

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Uttarakhand High Court in 2013 (2) U.D. 572:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125(4). Claim of maintenance of wife refusing to live with her husband. Even if it is proved that the husband is having sufficient means and his wife is unable to maintain herself, the wife is not entitled to maintenance allowance, if she refused to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, as has been provided under sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Bombay High Court in 2002 (1) ALL MR (Cri) 704:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section 125. Decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband. Wife not joining husband without justification. Wife not entitled to maintenance” “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125. Wife must prove neglect on part of husband. Ill-treatment cannot be substantiated on basis of general allegations of wife in absence of details thereof”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1991 (1) HLR 457:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125. Maintenance. Wife herself left house of husband and refused to live with him because he was living in a small accommodation jointly with his sister and brother-in-law. Held. Wife was guilty in refusing to live with husband. Wife not entitled to maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Calcutta High Court in 2000 (4) AICLR 462:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125. Maintenance. Wife seeking maintenance alleging that she was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by her husband in-laws. However, failed to prove the same. Wife having failed to prove any just and sufficient ground for her living separately. Not entitled to maintenance in view of provisions of section 125 (4). Criminal Procedure Code”.

Further reliance is placed on the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court 1991(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 281:-

“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, section 125. Wife deserting husband taking with minor child. Minor child entitled to maintenance even if he was kept away wrongly by the wife. Wife not entitled to maintenance”.

13.However as far as the minor child is concerned, it is the legal and moral obligation of the respondent no. 1 to maintain him. Regarding the maintenance amount no proof of the exact earning of the respondent no. 1 have been placed on record. It has been admitted by PW1 Neetu Jain as well as her witnesses that they had not knowledge about the exact earning of Vikas Jain. Further they also admitted that they have no proof regarding the income of the respondent firm i.e. M/s V Jain Fabrics. Hence, in such likes circumstances and considering the fact that Vikas Jain is an able bodied person, therefore, maintenance to the tune of 3000/- per ? month should be paid by him to the minor son who is in the custody of the applicant. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

14.Thus, in view of the above mentioned discussion, the reliefs which are claimed by the applicant under section 18 of Domestic Violence Act i.e. Protection Order and under section 17 of Domestic Violence Act regarding her claim of maintenance are hereby dismissed. Even no ground at all is made out for granting compensation order in her favour. However, as mentioned above, the minor son of the applicant in her custody is legally and morally entitled to be maintained by his father namely Vikas Jain respondent no. 1. Hence, respondent no. 1 is directed to pay ? 3000/- per month as maintenance to the minor son of the applicant from the date of this order. The petition is accordingly dispose of. File be consigned to the record room. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Court.

17.09.2015 Rajinder Singh Nagpal, PCS

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class

Ludhiana