Category Archives: DV case

Actor Arman Kholi pays 50,00,000 for freedom from live-in girlfriend 😳😳😳😳Bombay High Court quashes FIR against Armaan Kohli

BOMBAY HIGH COURT QUASHES FIR AGAINST ARMAAN KOHLI

Friday, 15 June 2018 | IANS | Mumbai

30A88F81-74B5-4E43-9919-62FBA9F00625

The Bombay High Court on Friday quashed an FIR against Bollywood actor Armaan Kohli for assaulting his girlfriend.

Armaan was arrested from Lonavala on Tuesday after an FIR was lodged by his live-in partner Neeru Randhawa for assaulting her physically.

“The High Court has directed the superintendent of Arthur Road jail to release him (Armaan) as the matter has been quashed and nothing remains pending,” Armaan’s lawyer Lakshmi Raman told IANS.

The case has been quashed after Armaan paid a hefty compensation to Neeru.

“It is a full and final settlement between Armaan and Neeru, where he earlier paid an amount of Rs 50 lakh and today he paid two post-dated cheques of Rs 25,000,” Raman said.

The High Court judge also demanded an affidavit from Armaan saying he regrets whatever happened and that he will never attempt such an act ever again.

According to Raman, this affidavit was submitted in the court on Friday.

— Read on www.dailypioneer.com/potpourri/bombay-high-court-quashes-fir-against-armaan-kohli.html

Advertisements

DV case NOT to continue when original RCR case compromised and dismissed ! Rajasthan HC

  • Original RCR case is dismissed ( compromised between parties).
  • So magistrate strikes off names of parties in a DV case.
  • However the Sessions court strikes down that order (of magistrate !! ) .. so parties run to HC.
  • Hon HC orders that once the original RCR case is dismissed based on a compromise between parties then the DV case has no reason to continue !!

====================================

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER IN
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.4990/2015
(With Stay Application No.4697/2015)

1. Vishnu Dutt Goyal son of Shri Govind Prasad Goyal,
resident of Friends Colony, Alwar C/o Bajaj Bazar, Near Tripolia Temple, Alwar

2. Dr. Madan Mohan Gupta son of late Ramswaroop Marjiya,
resident of Kiran Palace, Near Oswal Chungi Naka, Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur (Rajasthan)

…Petitioners

Versus

Smt. Kalpana Gupta @ Mamta Daughter of Late Shri Vishnu Chand Gupta, wife of Gaurav Agrawal,
by caste Mahajan, resident of A-207, 80 feet Road, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur

…Respondent

Date of Order ::: 20.09.2016

Present
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, counsel for petitioners
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, counsel for respondent
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick


By the Court:-

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by petitioners challenging order dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.234/2015, by which he set aside order dated 07.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Case No.297/2014, by which learned trial court allowed the application filed by petitioners and ordered to strike out the names of petitioners from the array of non-applicants in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated at the instance of the respondent against her husband Gaurav Agrawal. The petitioners happen to be the husband of sister of Gaurav Agrawal.

Learned counsel for the respondent has produced for perusal of the court the order dated 12.12.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat attached to the courts at Hindauncity, and submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Family Court, where the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed on the basis of the compromise.

If that be so, there is no reason why the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act continue.

In that view of the matter, the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.234/2015, is set aside and the order dated 07.04.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Case No.297/2014, is restored.

Criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly allowed in view of the compromise between the parties. This also disposes of the stay application. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

//Jaiman//94

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


25000 to MCom BEd Wife based on husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence etc Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

Rs 25000 p.m. to a well qualified MCom BEd wife, purely based on DV case being filed and husband’s earnings. NO debate about why pay ? where’s violence proven etc …. Do discussion about woman’s own responsibility to maintain herself !! Sad state of matrimonial life in India !

most women get away with maintenance the moment they file a DV case or a sec 125 case !! Here, a honourable court’s orders 25000 p.m to a well qualified Mcom BEd wife

In this decision, every aspect of the husband’s salary and deductions are discussed. A huge sum of Rs 25 K month is awarded, which is easily equivalent to 50 lakhs deposit in a nationalised bank (7.5% interest, 5% net of tax )

This is granted to the woman though she was working as Government primary teacher under U.P. State Government. Though She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and the husband arguing that she can easily maintain herself ….

Throughout the order, NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING is discussed about who is the erring party, why should the wife be paid maintenance, has she proven domestic violence, why should a well educated woman be paid etc etc ?

Now ppl may revert saying this must be at the interim stage…which is PRECISELY my point… IF the “interim” stage means Rs 3 lakhs per annum and drags on for three / four years, what happens to “justice” ? and “merits of the case” ???


Delhi District Court

In The Matter Of :­ vs Sumant Sahni on 24 May, 2016

Author: Naresh Kumar Malhotra

IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA: ASJ­05 : WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

C.A No. ­5/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0055272015

In the matter of :­
Aarti Jain,
W/o Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
R/o 42, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi­ 110026. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­51
Also at:
Colt Technology Service India Pvt. Ltd.
1st ­ 4th Floor, Building No. 4, Unitech Sez, Tikri,
Sector­ 48, Gurgaon­ 122002. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 30.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

AND

C.A No. ­ 45/15 & Old No. 1/4/15.

Case ID No. 02401R0001902015

In the matter of :­
Sumant Sahni,
S/o Late Kulbhushan Sahni,
R/o C­15, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi­ 110051. ………… Appellant.

VERSUS

Smt. Aarti Jain,
W/o Sh. Sumant Sahni,
D/o Sh. D.K. Jain,
At 42, G.F, Arihant Nagar,
Punjabi Bagh West, Delhi­ 110026. …………. Respondent.

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.01.2015

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 19.05.2016

DATE OF DECISION : 24.05.2016

JUDGEMENT

  1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide the appeal bearing No. 05/15 filed by appellant Aarti Jain against her husband Sumant Sahni against the order dated 24.11.2014, vide which the Ld. MM has directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders. Ld. MM has also held that this amount includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well. Respondent was also directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within five months from the date of this order. It was also ordered that amount paid or payable by the respondent to the complainant either in this case or in any other proceedings shall be adjusted accordingly.

The respondent Sumant Sahni has also challenged the order dated 24.11.2014 and filed CA No. 45/15. As both the appeals bearing No. 5/15 & 45/15 are arising out of order dated 24.11.2014, I am deciding both the appeals together.

  1. The appellant Arti Jain has filed the appeal bearing No. 5/15 on the ground that order dated 24.11.2014 has been passed by the Ld. MM without applying judicial mind and facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. MM has ignored the cogent evidences submitted by the appellant. Ld. MM has not considered the fact that amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month is at lower side and same is liable to be enhanced according to the status and life style of the parties. The respondent has deliberately not filed complete information in the affidavit. Ld. MM has not taken adverse inference of the proved facts and the respondent has not disclosed his real income. The respondent has not disclosed about the bank statements, the bank accounts, income, investment and other assets. The respondent has not filed ITR of the previous year. The respondent is a CA and he has also done C.S from ICAI Delhi and ICSI, Delhi. The respondent is capable of doing multiple dimensional jobs and has multiple source of income other than the salary. He has intentionally concealed his income. The respondent is also visiting abroad and doing private practice. It is also mentioned that ITR of the respondent does not show his correct income. Ld. Trial Court has also mentioned in the order that respondent has not disclosed his correct income. It is also mentioned that respondent in his Jeevansathi profile has mentioned his yearly income as Rs. 15­20 lacs. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside and the appellant be granted interim maintenance of Rs. 1,20,000/­ per month.
  2. The respondent Sumant Sahni has also filed appeal bearing No. 45/15 on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in law thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the respondent on account of interim maintenance and that too without any basis. The respondent in the present appeal Smt. Aarti Jain has failed to file complete bank statement. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that Aarti Jain is working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government and this fact is concealed by Aarti Jain deliberately. Ld. Trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent i.e. Aarti Jain is a well educated lady, post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she has enough source of income. It is prayed that order dated 24.11.2014 be set aside.

  3. Reply to both the appeals filed by the respondent therein and they denied the contents of the appeal.

  4. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties in both the appeals and perused the records of both the appeals as well as Trial Court Record very carefully.

  5. Perusal of the file reveals that Aarti Jain has filed petition u/s. 12 r/w Section 18,19,20,22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 with the averments that she was married with Sumant Sahni on 06.05.2011. After marriage the respondent i.e. Sumant Sahni started demanding flat, a Honda City Car, gold items (2­3 tolas), cash of Rs. 10 lacs. It is also mentioned that she was harassed and tortured for not bringing adequate dowry. She has also mentioned that respondent Sumant Sahni is a man of means, well settled and monthly income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2 lacs per month. He is also having income from shares/ debentures and from private practice. The total income of the respondent is more than Rs. 2.5 lacs per months. The respondent is having properties at Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, Noida and F­214, Unitec Vista, Sector 70A, Gurgaon.

7. In reply, the respondent Sumant Sahni has denied that appellant Aarti Jain was ever harassed or tortured on account of dowry. The complainant used to threaten him. She had taken all the jewellery articles and filed a false case against him. As per respondent his in hand salary is Rs. 95,000/­ pm out of which he is paying the installment of loan amount. It is also mentioned that complainant is a qualified lady and she was working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. She is post graduate in Commerce (M.Com), B.Ed. From Delhi University and she can easily maintain herself.

  1. The Ld. MM vide order dated 24.11.2014 directed the respondent Sumant Sahni to make the payment of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the appellant upto 10th of each English Calender month from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.04.2014 till further orders.

9. The respondent Sumant Sahni has filed affidavit before the Ld. Trial Court and in the affidavit he has mentioned his monthly income as Rs. 1,07,155/­. He has also placed on record the pay slip for the month of June, 2014 which shows that his monthly income is Rs. 1,91,786/­, Rs. 11,309/­ is being deducted on account of provident fund, a sum of Rs. 23,560/­ is being deducted on account voluntarily provident fund and a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ is being deducted on account of Matching Grant Scheme. Thus, after deduction monthly income of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 1,07,155/­.

During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that a sum of Rs. 45,940/­ is being paid by the respondent as house loan. This fact is not denied any where by the appellant that respondent has not taken housing loan and he is not making payment of Rs. 45,940 as house loan. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that respondent Sumant Sahni has filed an application for change of home loan from HDFC bank to SBI and this application was allowed by the Ld. MM vide order dated 04.01.2014. Thus, it is not denied that respondent is paying housing loan of Rs. 45,940/­. If we deduct the amount of Rs. 45,940/­ from 1,07,155/­, the salay in hand of Sumant Sahni comes to Rs. 61,215/­. Thus, Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of respondent to Rs. 75,000/­ to 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for respondent Sumant Sahni had placed reliance on judgment (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 372 titled as “Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs. Mansi Meen alias Harpreet Kaur”.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”.

  1. During arguments, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for appellant Aarti Jain that respondent Sumant Sahni is also earning by doing private practice but no document has been placed on record to show that respondent Sumant Sahni is also doing private practice.

11. It is vehemently contended by Ld. Counsel for the respondent Sumant Sahni that appellant Aarti Jain is highly qualified and she was working at the time of marriage as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government.

No document has been placed on record by the respondent Sumant Shani to show that Aarti Jain is still working as Government Primary Teacher under U.P. State Government. Thus, it cannot be said that Aarti Jain is working at present.

  1. In the appeal filed by appellant Aarti Jain, she has also prayed that residential order in matrimonial shared household be granted. The appellant Aarti Jain has placed reliance on judgments 2014(I) TVT 461 (Del.) titled as “Navneet Arora Vs. Surender Kaur & Ors.”, Criminal appeal No. 5660/2010 titled as “Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain”, Crl. M.C. No. 1859/2008 titled as “Rajeev Preenja Vs. Sarika & Ors.” and 181 (2011) Delhi Law Times 602 titled as “Jayant Bhargava Vs. Priya Bhargava”. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the Ld. MM in the order dated 24.11.2014 has mentioned that the amount of Rs. 25,000/­ per month includes the rental charges for the suitable accommodation as well.
  • In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.11.2014 and the Ld. MM has rightly assessed the income of Sumant Sahni as Rs. 75,000/­ to Rs. 80,000/­ per month and rightly granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/­ per month to Aarti Jain. Both the appeals filed by Aarti Jain & Sumant Sahni are without any merits are same are hereby dismissed.

  • Copy of this common judgment be sent alongwith the TCR.

    Appeal files be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.

    Announced in the Open Court on 24.05.2016

    (Naresh Kumar Malhotra)
    ASJ­05 (West)/THC/Delhi

    *****************************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 filing wife gets just Rs 5000 for 3 kids in spite of appeal @ sessions !!

    Many women think DV act means money, means moolah and they will get what they ask for. The reality is far from that. There are umpteen cases where the woman get next to nothing, especially when the husband is working in the un-organised sector !! Ultimately such women end up paying more lawyer’s fee than anything else !

    It is also possible that some of these women have come up with exaggerated claims and so are unable to prove things in court !

    Here is a case where a woman files DV and gets just 5000 p.m. for 3 kids. Husband seems to be in the unorganised sector and wife has NO proof of what she claims as his income !!


    IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
    ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS 02
    (CENTRAL) DELHI

    Crl. A NO. 47/15

    Smt Kusum Kataria
    w/o Sh Manish Kataria
    r/o 3517/B, Block ­93­B
    First Floor, Sant Nagar,
    Burari, Delhi. ……..APPELLANT

    versus

    1. Mr Manish Kataria
      s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria
    2. Sh Khem Chand Kataria

    3. Smt Krishna Kataria
      w/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria

    4. Kapil Kataria
      s/o Sh Khem Chand Kataria

    all resident of 3517/B, Block 93­B
    Sant Nagar, Burari
    Delhi.  …….RESPONDENT

    DATE OF INSTITUTION :04/07/2015
    DATE OF JUDGMENT :16/05/2016

    J U D G M E N T

    1. The present criminal appeal u/s 29 of D V Act has been filed by the present appellant against the order dated 05/05/15 passed by Ms Mona T. Kerketta, Ld MM, Central District, Delhi whereby the Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/­ per month as interim maintenance to the children of the parties from the date of filing of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
    2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal as stated by appellant are that marriage between appellant & respondent no. 1 was solemnized on 21/02/2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Three children were born out of this wed lock. It is stated by the appellant that after few days of marriage, respondent no, 1 along with his family members started treating the appellant with cruelty. The appellant filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act along with an application u/s 23 of D V Act. Vide order dated 05/05/15, Ld Trial Court has directed the respondent no. 1 to pay a composite sum of Rs.5,000/­ per month as interim maintenance to the children from the date of filing of the petition.
    3. Being aggrieved with the order of Ld Trial Court, appellant has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
      • a) That Ld Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
      • b) That Ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents of the property no. 3517/B, Block ­93­B, First Floor, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi in favour of respondent no. 1. That Ld Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that respondent no 1 is also paying the home loan as per affidavit given by respondent no. 1 in the court.
      • c) That the Ld Trial Court has failed to consider that the PAN card mentioned by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit, is not in the name of respondent no. 1 but the same is in the name of Sh Chet Ram.
      • d) That Ld Trial Court has not considered the fact that respondent no 1 is the owner of of two properties, one is shared household, which is in the name of respondent no 1 and there is another property, which is owned by respondent no 1 under the home loan, and respondent no 3 who is claiming to be the owner of the shared household did not place on record any document in this regard.
      • e) That Ld Trial Court has completely ignored the fact that respondent no 1 in his income affidavit has mentioned that statements of all bank is annexed herewith , but respondent no 1 has not filed any bank statement.
    4.  With these and similar grounds, appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order .
    5. I have heard arguments from Ms Alka Singh, Ld counsel for the appellant as well as from Sh A. K. Singh, Ld counsel for respondents.
    6. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for parties and gone through the trial court record.
    7. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of Ld Trial Court dated 05/057/15, whereby Ld Trial Court has granted composite interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ to the appellant and her children.
    8. It is admitted facts of parties that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent no. 1 and three children were born out of this wed lock. From the trial court record, it is clear that appellant/complainant is earning Rs.15,000/­ per month, whereas Respondent no. 1 has claimed to be earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. From the documents placed on record, it is clear that respondent no. 1 is IIT electrical diploma holder, hence the Ld Trial Court has rightly not accepted the version of the respondent no. 1 of earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. Ld Trial Court has taken the monthly income of respondent no. 1 as per Minimum Wages Act of skilled person at Rs.11,000/­ per month, which in my opinion is the correct procedure. Thus, same does not suffer from any infirmity. On the other hand, appellant has Cr. A NO. 47/15 Page 4 of 5 pages stated that respondent no. 1 owns two properties but she has not filed on record any document to substantiate her claim. Hence, I am of the opinion that Ld Trial Court has rightly granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ to the children after considering the monthly income of respondent no. 1/husband as Rs.11,000/­ per month. Even otherwise, this is an interim maintenance order and final order of maintenance is yet to be passed after evidence will be led by the parties.
    9. In view of above observations, the appeal as filed by the appellant is dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
    10. Trial court record be sent back with the copy of the order.
    11. File of appeal be consigned to record room.

    ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16th of May, 2016.

    ( SHAIL JAIN )

    ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)

    DELHI
     

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


    Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s poor family

    Woman earning 35,000 pm files fake DV on dead husband’s family who are poor and living on daily / meagre wages

    A woman who owns the property in which she lives, and is also earning handsome amount of rs 35000 pm by bookbinding business, files a false domestic violence case, on her ex-husband, I.e dead husband’s family members… !!! She seeks huge monthly maintenance when the brother in law ( Jeth ) has retired and without money , and other family members are daily wage earners Eking out small amounts to make a living doing odd menial jobs

    The respondents reply saying that the woman has taken away the book binding biz from the mother in law and this DV cases is to further terrorise the family


    Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

    Delhi District Court

    Ms Beena vs Kishan Lal on 27 August, 2010

    Author: Sh. O.P. Gupta

    IN THE COURT OF SH. O. P. GUPTA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE – 02, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

    Cr. Appeal No. 05/09
    CC No. 364/6/07
    PS Kamla Market
    U/s 12 DV

    Ms Beena W/o Late Sh. Raju R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, Behind G.B. Road, Delhi -110006. …. Appellant

    Versus

    1.Kishan Lal S/o Itwari Lal 2.Sh. Kishori S/o Sh. Itwari Lal 3.Sh. Nitin S/o Sh. Ram Chander 4.Sh. Mahesh S/o Sh. Kishan Lal all R/o 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi. … Respondents

    Date of Institution : 22.05.2009
    Arguments heard on : 23.08.2010
    Judgment Announced on ; 27.08.2010 JUDGMENT

    1. The wife has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by Ld. MM on petition u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic violence act , 2005. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the appellant is widow, respondent no.1 and 2 are jeth of appellant, respondent No. 3 is son of another jeth and respondent No. 4 is son of respondent No. 1/jeth.
    2. The admitted facts are that appellant was residing on theground floor of H. No. 2537, Mohalla Niyarian, G.B. Road, Delhi and was carrying on the business of book binding there. The said premises were in the tenancy of husband of appellant and respondents No. 1, 2 and other brothers. Appellant contributed her share of rent. According to the appellant she had two minor children. Daughter Shalu is handicapped. After the death of her husband, the respondent, and their family started harassing appellant in one way or the other. She made numerous complaints to the police. She filed her affidavit in evidence.
    3. The respondent filed a joint reply pleading that the complaint was false and fictitious and has been cooked up. The husband of complainant died in August 1997. The complainant was earning more than Rs. 35,000/- from the business of book binding. Respondent no. 1 was working in printing press as daily wager and was earning Rs. 80/- per day. Respondent No. 2 was retired and was not getting any pension. However he was earning Rs. 36/- to Rs. 48/- per day. Respondent No. 3 was drawing salary of Rs. 2200/- per month and had to support his mother, one studying brother and one handicapped sister. Respondent No. 4 was a daily wager and getting Rs. 65/- per day. The complaint had been filed to deter the respondents from claiming any share in the business of complainant which she had taken over from her mother in law. They denied that they ever harassed or used abusive language.
    4. The respondents filed their affidavits in their evidence.
    5. The impugned order recites that the counsel for the complainant stated that matter on record was sufficient to decide the case finally and the same was not objected to by counsel for the respondent. Thus the matter was finally heard and decided on the basis of affidavits of both the parties.
    6. In appeal the grievance of the appellant is that Ld. Trial Court over looked the report of protection officer. In para 7 of reply the respondents have made bald and wild allegation that the appellant was living a loose life.
    7. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. At the very outset I may mention that in petition before Ld. Trial Court, the appellant prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the complainant and her children towards loss of income and earning, Rs. 2,000/- per month towards house hold expenses. In appeal the appellant has added medical expenses @ Rs. 7,000/- per month, food, cloths and basic necessities to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-, school fee to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- per month, enhanced demand of house hold expenses from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. I do not think that the appellant can claim something beyond the petition, for the first time in appeal.
    8. It is not clear as to what is the difference between food, cloths and basic necessities for which Rs. 7,000/- have been claimed and house hold expenses for which Rs. 3,000/- per month has been claimed.
    9. The counsel for the respondent urged and rightly so that the appellant did not mention even an iota of word about her income from book binding. Without that she could not claim any expenses. Not only this despite specific plea in the written statement that complainant was earning Rs. 35,000/- she did not no better in replication except simply denying that she was earning Rs. 35,000/-. This time too she did not come out with a counter reply as to what her income was.
    10. The report of the Protection Officer on which much reliance has been placed by the appellant does not serve any purpose. The same is simply reproduction of what the appellant told the Protection Officer. The Protection Officer did not make any inquiry from neighbourer and did not try to find out the truth. Form No. I & II attached with the report contain particulars of complainant, respondents, children. Date, place and time of variance as contained at page 2 of form No. I were never pleaded in the petition. Form No. II is the proforma of petition to be filed by complainant. The counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant is not entitled to any relief on account of loss in income & earning because the complainant nowhere specified as to what her income was and to what extent the same was reduced. Without that, loss any income cannot be calculated. The arguments appears to be convincing.
    11. The counsel for the appellant strongly pressed into service the allegations made in para 7 of reply. It is true that it contains certain allegations about character of the appellant which were not necessary. But nevertheless such conduct alone is not sufficient to grant the relief to the appellant.
    12. The Ld. MM has already directed the respondents not to evict the complainant and her children without due process of law. It is only the denial of monetary reliefs which have compelled appellant to file the present appeal. On the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find that the appellant is entitled to any monetary relief.
    13. Last but not the least fact is that during arguments in appeal, the counsel for the respondents stated that the appellant has purchased the house in which she and respondents are residing. Now respondents are tenant of the appellant. For ascertaining this fact I recorded statement of appellant in which she admitted that she had purchased the property from previous owner Mohd. Ibrahim about two years ago for Rs. 1,30,000/-. This fact alone is sufficient to deny the monetary reliefs to the appellant.
    14. As a result of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in appeal. The same is dismissed.

    Announced in the open Court (O.P. GUPTA) on 27.08.2010 Additional Sessions Judge-02 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi