Category Archives: DV in delhi

wife getting 7 K p.m. u/s 24 HMA, tries DV in addition & COMPLETELY LOOSES ! Delhi MM court

Wife who is getting Rs 7000 p.m. as maintenance under sec 24 of HMA files a fake DV case where she is unable to proove Physical abuse or emotional abuse or economic abuse and completely loosed here case !!

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

IN THE COURT OF Ms. BHAVNA KALIA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: MAHILA COURT­ 01: SOUTH DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI

CC No: 92/1/11, 61/16

Jurisdiction of Police Station : Lodhi Colony

Silky Gulati
W/o Sh. Sandeep Gulati
D/o Sh. Ram Prakash Khurana
R/o H. NO. D­49, B.K. Dutt Colony, New Delhi ………Aggrieved

Versus

(i) Sandeep Gulati
S/o Sh. Amrit Lal Gulati

(ii) Amrit Lal Gulati
S/o Late Sh. Sunder Dass Gulati

(iii) Jyotsa Gulati
S/o Sh. Amrit Lal Gulati

(iv) Shakshi Gulati
D/o Sh. Amrit Lal Gulati

All R/o C­50, Gali No. 10,
New Govindpuri ……..Respondents

Date of filing : 10.03.2011
Date of arguments : 04.11.2016
Date of judgment : 19.11.2016

JUDGMENT

COMPLAINT:

  1. The aggrieved has filed an application u/s 12 of Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aggrieved has prayed for the following reliefs.
  2. Protection order u/s 18 of the Act.

  3. Residence order u/s 19 of the Act.

  4. Monetory relief in the sum of Rs.55,000/­ u/s 20 of the Act.

  5. Monetory relief in the sum of Rs.30,000/­ per month (wrongly mentioned as Rs.25,000/­ as the total comes to Rs.30,000/­) u/s 20 of the Act.

  6. Compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ u/s 22 of the Act.

  7. The aggrieved has asked for the above stated reliefs on the ground that domestic violence was inflicted upon her by the respondents. On the basis of the complaint summons were issued to all the respondents. It is the case of the aggrieved that she got legally married to respondent no.1, namely, respondent no. 1 on 16.02.2008. They had one girl child, namely, Priyanshi from the marriage who is in her care and custody and they both are residing at the aggrieved’s parental house. It is stated that in the marriage, parents of the aggrieved gave dowry as per their status to the respondents. Besides this valuable gold and silver jewelery was also given by the parents of the aggrieved to the respondents. The relatives of the aggrieved and respondent also gave gold and silver jewelery to the aggrieved. aggrieved stated that respondents kept all her istridhan illegally in her matrimonial house. She stated that after marriage she was brought to her matrimonial home where she and respondent no. 1 stayed as husband and wife. The attitude of the respondents was indifferent from the inception of marriage. respondent no. 1 would fight with her and shout at her on petty matters without any valid reason. All respondents misbehaved with her and maltreated her. She was taunted for bringing less dowry and was asked to bring more dowry from her parents. In July 2008, respondent no. 1 asked her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents and when the aggrieved refused to do so, she was beaten mercilessly by him with fists and blows and he also gave her a kick on her private part because of which she sustained a lot of pain. She said that after 6 months respondent no. 1 again asked her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents and when she complained to her in­laws, they supported respondent no. 1 and abused the aggrieved. They told her that respondent no. 1 was their only son and they were expecting more dowry in his marriage. She said that she was beaten by respondent no. 1 at instigation of other respondents. She told her parents about the same and her parents expressed their inability to meet the demand. She told the respondents about the inability of her parents, but they remained adamant and continued to harass and beat her. They tortured her both physically and mentally. She stated that when she was in the advanced stage of pregnancy, respondent no. 1 gave merciless beatings to her by fists and blows and after her delivery, she was again beaten by respondent no. 1 for not giving birth to a male child. She further said that respondent no. 1 had no love and affection towards her and their minor child and hence, in connivance with and at instigation of other respondents, he wanted to get rid of the aggrieved and do second marriage. She said that for this reason, respondent no. 1 also filed a case for divorce. aggrieved also filed a case before CAW Cell, Nanakpura on 23.11.2010, where respondent no. 1 agreed to take her back but till date he did not do so and later flatly refused to keep her as his wife. She said that respondent no. 1 did not pay any maintenance to her, for herself and the child. She was made to work like a maid whole day when she stayed with him. She tried to make him understand that he should care about her and their child’s welfare, but to no avail. She hoped that he would amend his attitude, but he did not do so. She submitted that her sister­in­law stole most of her costly belongings, but when she complained about the same to respondent no. 1, she was beaten mercilessly. She tolerated their behaviour for the sake of her marriage. She said that respondent no. 1 was a habitual drunk and under the influence of alcohol he would quarrel with her and beat her. She said that he spent his earnings on his drinking. On 8.10.2010 she was thrown out of her matrimonial house with her child with threats that till she got Rs. 2,00,000/­ she would not be allowed to reside with respondent no.

  8. Since then she has been residing on rent and is totally dependent upon her parents and other relatives for her day to day needs. She stated that respondent no. 1 has failed to maintain them even though he is working in a private company and earning about Rs. 70,000/­ per month. She said that she is unemployed. She has prayed for protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders and compensation.

  9. Reply to the application was filed by the respondents. It is stated in the reply that the type of relief asked for by the aggrieved has not been specifically mentioned. It is further submitted that in the divorce case filed by the respondent no.1, aggrieved has stated that she wished to stay with him and did not want her articles back. It is further submitted that the present application is filed only to put pressure on the respondents and hence, must be dismissed. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 Gulati has been disowned by his father. Respondent no. 1 has admitted that he got married with the aggrieved on 16.02.2008 and both of them have one girl child, namely, Priyanshi. However, respondent has stated that it was the aggrieved who left her matrimonial house with her father and took the child with her alongwith all her istridhan. He has stated that because of cruelty suffered by him, he has already filed a divorce petition under HMA before the court of Ld. ADJ, Karkardooma Courts. He has denied demanding any dowry from the aggrieved. He has stated that the amount spent by the parents of the aggrieved on the marriage was as per their desire. He stated that even after the marriage, he did not demand for any dowry. He has stated that it was the aggrieved, who started misbehaving with him, which was proved before the CAW Cell and the concerned police officer advised him to file for divorce. Keeping in view all the circumstances, parents of respondent no. 1 disowned him by giving intimation to the concerned police authorities and also by way of publication. Respondent no. 1 stated that aggrieved used to quarrel with him and use filthy language and also used to shout at him. It is stated that her behaviour became intolerable for the respondents and also their neighbours to bear. He further stated that the word ‘brother­in­law’ used in para 5 is incorrect as respondent no. 1 does not have any brother. He stated that it is impossible to accept that on the first day of marriage, he and his parents quarreled with the aggrieved and passed wrong comments against her. He has denied that respondents demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the aggrieved for which aggrieved has not filed any proof. It is submitted that nature of respondents is not such that they would demand any dowry and the allegations are made by the aggrieved only to defame them. Respondents have denied that they beat or tortured the aggrieved as it was not in their character to do so. It is further stated that there is no truth in the statement that respondents were unhappy on the birth of a female child. In fact, respondents stated that for them the birth of female child is considered as coming of Goddess Laxmi. He has stated that the allegations that he wanted to do a second marriage is false. Respondent no. 1 has stated that regular rudeness, habit of abusing the elders, raising hands on him and pushing his parents was the regular habit of the aggrieved for which she was asked to improve herself many times, but she did not improve. It is further submitted that complaint filed with CAW Cell reveals that no incident took place and the IO of the case had advised the aggrieved to improve. It is stated that Rs. 1500/­ to Rs. 2000/­ were being paid to the aggrieved as pocket money which has not been mentioned by the aggrieved. Respondent no. 1 has stated that from the very beginning aggrieved was not interested in marrying him. He stated that as soon as the parties came out of the CAW Cell, aggrieved abused respondents and hence, it was impossible for him to take her back to the matrimonial house. Respondent no. 1 had denied that the aggrieved was treated as a maid. Rather, he has stated, that she was given all the respect and honour which was beyond the expectations of her parents also. Respondent stated that aggrieved was never ready to amend her behaviour. It is denied that respondent Shakshi Gulati stole the articles of the aggrieved or that the aggrieved was beaten mercilessly. It is stated that no FIR was filed for the same. Respondent no. 1 has stated that brother of aggrieved also threatened him on the phone that he had the power to get him killed. Respondent stated that aggrieved and her brother used to visit his office often just to create an atmosphere so that he may be removed from service. Respondent no. 1 had stated that he has never consumed alcohol. It is further stated that one letter dated 08.10.2010 written by the aggrieved is self explanatory as to the fact that the aggrieved left her matrimonial home at her will. It is further stated that the aggrieved has mentioned in para no. (i) that she is residing with her parents, but in para XIX she has stated that she is residing on rent. No rent receipt has been filed. It is further stated that address provided by the aggrieved is of her parents which implies that she stays with her parents. Respondent no. 1 has stated that he loves his daughter a lot and has requested aggrieved to allow him to see her, but she has declined. Respondent denied that he draws salary in the sum of Rs. 70,000/­ per month. He has stated that aggrieved is also qualified and working in a private firm of her relative and earning good salary. It is stated that aggrieved is not entitled to any reliefs under the Act.

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

  1. In her affidavit Ex.CW1, aggrieved has reiterated the contents of the complaint. She has further filed list of dowry articles as Ex.CW1/A. She has filed one copy of complaint filed with CAW Cell, Nanak Pura as Ex.CW1/B. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

During her cross examination, she stated that she had not filed any bills with regard to the articles which were given by her father in the marriage. She has further stated that no jewelery bills have been filed. She has further stated that she has not mentioned the name of any person in whose presence she was beaten or the date on which she was beaten. She has further stated that she has not filed any proof of the same. She has stated that she did not know of any brother­in­law about whom she has mentioned in the affidavit. She stated that even though she is a graduate, she is weak in English language. She has denied the suggestion that because of this reason, name and date of persons who had beaten her up, were not mentioned in her affidavit. She has stated that it was her who had stated the contents of the affidavit to her counsel. She further could not tell as to who had beaten or harassed her for bringing insufficient dowry, on the first day of her marriage. She further said that on the very next day of her marriage, respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 started taunting her and harassing her by saying that her father had not given a Sofa in marriage. She said that the Sofa was given later in the marriage. She admitted that the said fact is not mentioned in her affidavit. She did not file any complaint with regard to the items allegedly stolen by her sister­in­law (respondent no. 4) nor has she filed any list with the court. She said that the items stolen by respondent no. 4 in the month of January/February 2009, were lying in the locker of her Almira the keys of which used to be with her husband. She said that the entire jewelery received by her in the wedding was in that locker. She denied the suggestion that she was not treated like a maid or that she did not do the entire household work. She admitted that she had never seen her husband drink alcohol, but she had seen him several times in drunk condition when he returned home. She could not remember any date when he had done so. She said that she had never complained to her in laws regarding the same. She admitted that she had not mentioned in her complaint given at PS Lodhi Road and PS Jagatpuri that her husband used to drink. She has further admitted that she did not write in these complaints about the beatings given to her for demand of Sofa by respondents. She said that the respondent no. 1 used to spend his entire income on alcohol as he used to say that himself. She was given Rs. 1500/­ per month for running the house. She said that she used the amount for taking care of herself and her daughter. Other expenses were borne by father of respondent as it was a joint family. She admitted that her father­in­law retired much before her marriage. She said that she was told by her husband that the expenses were borne by his father, but she did not verify the same. She said that she did not know whether these facts are mentioned in her affidavit or not. She said that her husband and father­in­law demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from her in July 2008, but she did not remember the exact date. She further had no proof that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on 08.10.2010. She again said that complaint had been filed at PS Jagatpuri, but the said fact was not mentioned in it. She said that she did not file any rent receipt or gave address of premises on which she was residing as tenant. She said that she had not filed any receipt of the play school in which her daughter is going. She did not remember the exact salary of respondent no. 1. She said that she did not take her daughter to any doctor after the incident of throwing of her daughter as mentioned in Ex.CW1/B. She did not know of any girl whom her husband wished to marry. She said that she was not working prior to her marriage, but she had got one FD on 07.08.2013 amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs in her name. She denied the suggestion that she used to assist her father in his business and got income for herself. She denied the suggestion that she is working even today. She said that it is mentioned in her complaint that she was going to her parent’s house on her own with her father. She admitted that she returned to her parental home on 08.10.2010 with her father. She said that by sexual violence, she meant that her husband used to force sexual activities upon her. She did not remember the date when motorcycle was demanded from her. She said that Rs. 2 lakhs were again demanded, but she did not remember the date, time or the year. She admitted that on 0810.2010, she called the police and on the same day went to her parent’s house with her father. She admitted that she had not filed any bills with regard to Ex.CW1/A. She admitted that when she was pregnant, she was beaten by respondents, but she did not file any complaint. She admitted that respondents had agreed before CAW Cell that they would take her back to the matrimonial home, but she denied the suggestion that she objected to the same. She said that her husband used to drink often, but not regularly. She denied the suggestion that she herself was non­ cooperating, both at Delhi and Lucknow. She denied the suggestion that at Lucknow her neighbor met her for keeping good behaviour with respondent. She denied the suggestion that she left her Lucknow matrimonial home and returned to Delhi without informing anyone. She said that she came with her husband. She admitted that she had told her husband that she wished to stay in Delhi and not Lucknow. She admitted that she came to Delhi from Lucknow 2­3 days before 08.10.2010.

No other witness was examined in CE.

RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE

  1. One witness i.e respondent himself was examined in RE. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and relied on copy of letter dated 23.11.2010 (Mark A), copy of istridhan articles of aggrieved (Mark B), Copy of letter dated 08.10.2010 written by aggrieved (Mark C).
  • RW 1 has reiterated the contents of his WS in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A. In addition, he has stated that aggrieved left the matrimonial home with their daughter. It is stated that she went with her father on her own and took all her articles with her. It is further submitted that because of her cruelty, respondent no. 1 had filed divorce petition. It is further submitted that no demand for dowry was ever raised from the aggrieved or her parents as the same was against law. The amount spent on the marriage was as per the desires of aggrieved and her parents. He stated that the aggrieved regularly quarreled with him and used filthy language. He stated that she shouted on him and his parents and this behaviour was regular on part of the aggrieved. Respondent no. 1 stated that the present case has been filed only to defame him and his family. He has stated that there was no reason for him to demand Rs.2 lakhs from the aggrieved. Aggrieved has not filed any proof for the said demand. He stated that the allegations on him that he beat the aggrieved with fists and blows and also gave her a kick are false. Rather, he stated that it was the aggrieved who used to behave like this. He has stated that no proof has been filed by the aggrieved for the same. He stated that he never intended to go for a second marriage and because of the continued misbehaviour of the aggrieved he was forced to file a divorce petition. Certain documents are filed by respondent no. 1, but the same are photocopies and cannot be read in evidence. He said that from the very beginning aggrieved was not interested in marrying him and thus, not interested in living with him.

  • During his cross examination, he stated that since aggrieved left the matrimonial house in October 2010, she had been staying with her parents. He said that he had never beaten or harassed the aggrieved after marriage and he never demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from her. He said that it was not his family’s habit. He said that aggrieved left the matrimonial home on her own by giving in writing to police authorities that she was leaving her matrimonial home with her father. He said that there was only one complaint filed with CAW Cell, which was withdrawn by the aggrieved subsequently. He said that the complaint filed at PS Lodhi Colony was sent back after reconciliation. He further stated that he had filed a divorce petition in Karkardooma Courts on the ground of cruelty and misbehaviour. He denied the suggestion that because he wanted to remarry, he had filed the divorce petition. He denied the suggestion that because he wanted to remarry, he had harassed and beaten the aggrieved.http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

    LEGAL PROVISIONS TO BE SEEN:

    1. In order to claim any Relief under the Act, it is imperative for the aggrieved person to show that she shared a domestic relationship with the respondent and she was subjected to domestic violence during the said period.
  • As per the Act, domestic relationship which is defined in section 2(f) 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.

  • As per section 2(s) of the said Act, shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or has at any time lived in a domestic relationship with the respondents. Shared household means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member 1.

  • In the definition of domestic violence u/s 3 of the Act, it is stated that there must be an act, omission or commission or conduct of respondents 1 Neha Jain & anr. v. Gunmala Devi & Anr. RSA 282/2015 decided on 30.7.2015 which amounts to domestic violence. To constitute Domestic Violence, the conduct of the respondents should be such as to imply that the aggrieved was harassed or tortured by the said act. It is stated u/s 3 (a) of the Act, that there must be harm or injury or endangering the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental or physical of the aggrieved, to cause physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Section 3 (b) provides that domestic violence shall also be committed if the respondent 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. Section 3 (c) of the Act provides that conduct mentioned in clause (a) and clause (b), if, has the effect of threatening to the aggrieved or any person related to her, may amount to domestic violence. Section 3 (d) of the Act, provides that to constitute domestic violence, there may be physical or mental injury or harm caused to the aggrieved person. In the explanation to Section 3 physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse have been defined.

  • Domestic violence is defined in section 3 of the Act as any act or omission on part of the respondent which causes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse to the aggrieved or an act or omission which 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 any dowry or other property or valuable security or an act which threatens or which causes physical or mental harm to the aggrieved.

  • ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS:

    1. PWDV Act contemplates Domestic violence in the nature of harassment for dowry demand or physical abuse or verbal or emotional abuse or sexual abuse or economic abuse or all of these including threatening.
  • In order to see whether domestic violence was inflicted upon the aggrieved, it is important to see whether she was abused in any way as stated in the Act, and the same would be clear from her complaint and evidence of parties. The abuses are dealt with separately as under:

  • (i) Harassment for dowry demand: In the complaint aggrieved has stated that she was harassed again and again to get Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents. During her cross examination, she stated that she could not file any bills with regard to any articles given by her father in marriage. She stated that she had mentioned the name of the person and the date on which the dowry was demanded from her. On perusal of her affidavit, she had stated that she was harassed by her in laws for bringing less dowry. Then she had stated that respondents fought with her and shouted on her on petty matters without any reason. She had stated that in July 2008, respondent no. 1 asked her to bring 2 lakh from her parents, but when she objected, she was beaten. Then after six months respondent no. 1 again demanded Rs. 2 lakhs. When she again refused, she stated that she was abused by all the respondents saying that respondent no. 1 was their only son and they were expecting much more dowry. When she told her parents about the same, they expressed their inability to fulfill the demand. She has further stated that respondent no. 1 was a habitual drunk and neglected to maintain her and respondent no. 2 and 3 used to exert pressure upon her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs cash. During her cross examination, she has stated that on her next day of marriage, she was taunted by respondent no. 2 and 3 for not bringing a Sofa in the wedding. No demand of Sofa is mentioned in the complaint and the same appears to be an after thought. She admitted that she had not seen her husband drinking alcohol, but she said that she had seen him in drunk condition. She said that dowry was demanded in July 2008, but she could not remember the exact date. She said that when the second time Rs. 2 lakh were demanded, she could not remember the date, time and year. However, respondent in his affidavit has stated that no dowry was demanded from the aggrieved as it was not in his nature to do so. He has further stated that no explanation has been given by the aggrieved as to why the dowry was demanded. He has further stated that the allegations are vague. Respondent in his cross examination has stated that he never demanded Rs. 2 lakhs from the aggrieved. There has been no further cross examination of the respondent on this point. Thus, this fact stands admitted that there was no demand for dowry and hence, proved. Further considering that the allegations with regard to beatings and harassment are also vague,it cannot be said that the aggrieved was ever harassed for dowry. Allegations of dowry demand are serious in nature and without proper proof, it cannot be said that respondent no. 1 demanded dowry from aggrieved. The allegations od dowry demand and harassment are vague. Aggrieved could not state as to who demanded dowry from her, when the same was demanded and why wasit demanded. Two demands of Rs. 2 lakhs have been stated, but they are six months apart. It cannot be said that she was harassed or tortured for dowry.

    (ii) Physical abuse: It means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily harm to the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force. In the present case, even though the aggrieved has stated that she was beaten by the respondent, but the bodily harm that might have been caused to her has not been proved. It was on the aggrieved to prove that she received physical injuries because of conduct of respondent but she has not been able to prove even one injury. She could not tell the names of persons in whose presence she was beaten nor when she was beaten. She herself admitted in her cross examination that she had not filed any proof of the same. She could not tell as to who had beaten or harassed her for bringing insufficient dowry, on the first day of her marriage. It is hard to believe that if a person was beaten on the first day of marriage, she would not remember who did it, unless it was someone she did not know. Thus, aggrieved has not been able to prove physical abuse.

    (iii) Verbal and Emotional abuse: It includes insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling or insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child. In her complaint, aggrieved has stated that after the delivery of her child, she was beaten by respondent no. 1 mercilessly for not bearing a male child. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 had no love and affection towards the minor child as he was unhappy as the child was a girl and not a boy. She has stated the same in her affidavit. It is further submitted by the aggrieved that respondent did not give any maintenance for the child. It is submitted by the respondent in his reply that birth of a female child for him, was like coming of Goddess Laxmi. He has further submitted in his evidence that he used to give Rs.1500/­ to Rs. 2000/­ for maintenance of his wife and daughter, which has been admitted by the aggrieved in her cross examination. Further the aggrieved had not stated as to when after the delivery of her child was she beaten by respondent no. 1 and if she was beaten mercilessly why did she not get herself medically examined. Also she had stated that she was beaten by respondent no. 1 for not bearing a male child, but it is not stated that respondent told her so that he did not want a made child. However, since she has not been cross examined on this point, it appears that the respondent admitted the same. However, respondent has stated in his affidavit that he considered the birth of a daughter as coming of Goddess Laxmi and he also used to give maintenance for maintaining his wife and daughter. He has not been cross examined on this point and thus, this fact stands admitted. Considering that there are two contradictory facts which stand admitted, other evidence has to be seen to examine whether the respondent no. 1 actually harassed the aggrieved for not bearing a male child. The aggrieved and respondent both have admitted that respondent no. 1 gave maintenance for the girl child, hence, it cannot be said that he was against the birth of the girl child. On preponderance of probabilities, this fact weighs in favour of respondent no. 1.

    (iv) Sexual abuse: It includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of a woman. In the present case, there are no such allegations. In her complaint, aggrieved has not made any allegations with regard to sexual abuse. No complaint has been made in her affidavit with regard to sexual abuse. Only in para 28 of her affidavit, she has written that respondent no. 1 may be directed not to repeat violence (physical, mental and sexual). Aggrieved has stated in her cross examination that by sexual violence, she meant that her husband used to force sexual activities upon her. Considering that there are no allegations whatsoever of sexual abuse, one statement of the aggrieved in her cross examination that her husband used to force sexual activities upon her is not relevant.

    (v) Economic abuse: Economic abuse means deprivation of economic or financial resources to which aggrieved is entitled. It is admitted fact that respondent no. 1 used to pay maintenance to her and their daughter and he did not deprive her of any financial resources. Further it is admitted fact that she left her matrimonial home on her own, thus it cannot be said she was deprived by the respondents of the financial resources. Further from the order of this court dated 21.05.2012, it is clear that u/s 24 HMA, aggrieved is already getting maintenance @ Rs. 7000/­ per month from the respondent no. 1 and she does not have any right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. However, in her affidavit, she has stated that respondent no. 1 did not care about her and neglected to pay any amount towards her and her child’s maintenance. This statement is false considering that u/s 24 HMA, aggrieved has already been granted maintenance. Also while the parties were in domestic relationship, admittedly respondent no.1 was giving Rs. 1500/­ to Rs. 2000/­ to her as pocket money and other respondents were maintaining the household expenses. Thus, there appears to be no economic abuse.

    (vi) Threatening the aggrieved with regard to above stated abuses: There are no allegations with regard to any threats.

    (vii) Physical or mental harm: It means any injury or harm, whether mental or physical, caused to the aggrieved person. No medical has been filed by the aggrieved to show any physical harm suffered by her. As far as mental harm/injury is concerned, it appears that she was mentally disturbed by the fact that respondents allegedly were demanding dowry and that she got the impression that respondent no. 1 wanted to remarry. Respondent no. 1 has categorically stated that he never wanted to remarry and he had filed for divorce only because he was tired of the misbehaviour of the aggrieved. Considering that there was no dowry demand, no harassment and no physical abuse suffered by the aggrieved, it cannot be said that she suffered any mental harm or injury. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; https://twitter.com/ATMwithDick

    1. From the entire evidence on record, allegations of the aggrieved have not been proved. They are vague in nature and sufficient proof has not been brought on record. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 has filed his affidavit completely denying the allegations of the aggrieved and he has not been cross examined on those points. It is clear from the evidence that the aggrieved left her matrimonial home with her father at her own will and she was not thrown out. She has herself stated that she came from Lucknow and after 2­3 days let her matrimonial home. No explanation is given by her. It appears that when she came from Lucknow, she had made up her mind that she would leave her matrimonial home. Further respondent in his cross examination stated that she left the matrimonial house and gave in writing to the police authorities that she was leaving her matrimonial home with her father. Respondent has not been cross examined on this point. Aggrieved has stated at one place that she was living on rent, but at other place, she has stated that she is living with her parents. Contradictory statements make her testimony unreliable. Respondent no. 1 has further stated that there was only one complaint in CAW Cell which was withdrawn by the aggrieved, but aggrieved has stated in her affidavit that he had agreed to take her back, but later flatly refused to do so. Respondent in reply stated that it was the aggrieved, who started misbehaving with him, which was proved before the CAW Cell and the concerned police officer advised him to file for divorce. He further stated in his cross examination that one complaint was also filed at PS Lodhi Colony, but he same was not lodged and aggrieved was sent back after conciliation. Aggrieved has also stated that her sister­in­law stole her articles from her Almirah, but she has stated that keys of the Almirah were with her husband. It appears that she has made unncessary/baseless allegations against her sister­in­law just to drag her in the present matter. No FIR/complaint was filed for loss of articles. No reason is given as to why she suspencted her sister in law. It is evident that aggrieved has made false allegations against her sister in law.
  • In view of the above analysis of submissions, on preponderance of probabilities, it cannot be said that respondents committed domestic violence upon the aggrieved. Hence, her complaint u/s 12 PWDV Act is dismissed. No relief as contemplated under the Act is allowed to the aggrieved.

  • In view of the above observations the present application u/s 12 PWDV Act is disposed of.

  • Pronounced in open court
    (BHAVNA KALIA) on 19.11.2016
    M.M./(Mahila Court)­01/South District New Delhi

    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


    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

     

    NO maint, NO money 2 working wife in DV. Child exp 2000 pm be borne in ratio of salaries!! MM Delhi

    Wife serving in CISF marries a guy working in CISF after a love marriage. Even the parents of the boy are NOT present at the wedding !! After some time she happily files DV case on husband. Regular tales of beating, drinking etc.

    As per records wife is earning more than the husband.

    Husband does NOT attend the case, is decreed exparte but still has a VERY favourable judgement !! wife does NOT get maintenance, does NOT get an order to stop alienation of assets, does NOT get medical costs, does NOT get the compensation of 10 lakhs that she seeks

    All that is allowed is Rs 2000 p.m. total for the child and out of that Rs1000 p.m. to be borne by the husband !! Wife also gets Rs 5000 as compensation for injuries (this must be one time only !!)

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

    IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI

    CC No.774/1

    PS Kapashera

    ID no. 02405R0350472013

    Smt. Nutan
    D/o Sh. Sudhir Mandal
    R/o Viil. Fatehpur, Post Ganganian, PS Sultanganj,
    Dist. Bhagalpur, Bihar , PIN 811211
    ( Permanently Serving in CISF (L/ASI/ EXE)
    CISF No 072760385
    R/o C/o Sh Sher Singh Rana
    H No 425, Poll No 226
    Near Punjab National Bank
    Bijwasan, ND – 110061) …..Applicant

    Versus

    Ct Bhagban Singh Sahu
    S/o Sh Bishwanath Sahu
    Vill & Post Sunapalli
    Distt Ganjam (orissa)
    Presently serving in CISF
    C/o CISF ID No 0723025-34
    CISF Camp, Bijwasan
    COY -53, ND – 110061 …..Respondents

    Date of Institution : 16.12.2013
    Date of Order : 18.11.2015
    Date of Order : 09.12.2015.

    EX PARTE JUDGMENT

    1. Vide this order, I shall decide application u/s 12 DV Act filed by complainant Smt. Nutan against her husband Ct Bhagban Singh Sahu.

    2. The complainant states that she got married to respondent on 27.02.2009. It was a love marriage and only few friends of complainant and some relatives of the respondent were present. The parents of respondent were not present. Complainant conceived twice but each time respondent neglected her. As a result the health of the complainant deteriorated and the pregnancy was terminated. Complainant alleges that respondent used to physically abuse her and steal money from her purse. Later she came to know that respondent had taken loan from a number of person and these people started coming to their house and insulting the complainant infront of everybody. Finally, two avoid further embarrassment complainant repaid the loan. Complainant also came to know that respondent has a bad official record and many cases of theft and cheating have been registered against him. Respondent also turned out to be addicted to alcohol and drugs. Complainant came to know that respondent has extra marital relationship. When the complainant confronted him with this fact, he gave merciless beatings to her and left the matrimonial house on 16.07.2013. Since then complainant is living at rented accommodation at Bijwasan and has been deserted by the respondent. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 06.11.2013 to the respondent requesting him to take her back but to no avail.

    It is stated that respondent is working with CISF and has a monthly salary of Rs 25000/-. On the other hand, complainant is finding very difficult to maintain herself. At the time of filing of petition she was 8 months pregnant and suffering from a problem of appendix.

    Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondent from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant. Further, she has prayed that respondent be restrained from alienating his assets. She has further prayed that respondent be restrained from coming in contact with dependents/ relatives of the complainant.

    Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act i.e restraining the respondent from disturbing or harassing in the peaceful residence of complainant and directing him to provide suitable accommodation to the complainant as per his status. She has also prayed that respondent be restrained from renouncing her rights in the assets/ estate of respondent and properties falling in her share by way of inheritance.

    Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 5000/-pm, maintenance of Rs 10000/-pm for food, clothes, medication and other basic amenities. She has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act Rs 10 lakhs on account of mental torture, emotional distress and injuries caused by acts of respondent.

    3. The respondent was duly served and he entered appearance, however, he did not file reply despite repeated opportunities and accordingly he was proceeded ex parte on 17.10.2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    Evidence In her support complainant examined herself as CW1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex.CW1/1. She additionally stated in her affidavit that she had given birth to a female child named Kumari Tejal on 01.02.2014 at Metro Hospital, Gurgaon and all her medical expenses were borne by her. She relied on her salary slip Ex CW 1 /2 and photocopy of rent agreement with her landlord as Mark A1. Complainant filed her affidavit of assets.

    Brief Reasons for Decision and Decision :

    Complainant has deposed that she was physically and verbally abused by respondent and since 16.07.2013 respondent has completely deserted her. Respondent has not filed his reply to dispute either the factum of marriage, the birth of child Kumari Tejal or the allegations of domestic abuse. Since the respondent is ex parte, all the averments of complainant remained unrebutted. Accordingly, following orders are passed :

    Protection Order Complainant has prayed for protection order u/s 18 DV Act i.e. prohibiting respondent from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant or from coming in contact with dependents/ relatives of the complainant. Since it has remained undisputed that respondent verbally and physically abuse complainant during the subsistence of their marriage, complainant is entitled to protection order. Respondent is restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the complainant or coming in contact with her dependent/ relative.

    Further, she has prayed that respondent be restrained from alienating his assets. However, complainant has not mentioned what assets are referred to . Therefore, this relief is denied.

    Monetary Relief Complainant has also prayed for monetary relief u/s 20 DV Act i.e medical expenses of Rs 5000/-pm. Complainant has claimed that she is suffering from problem of appendix. However, she has not filed even single document and show that she is under treatment for any illness/ disease. Moreover, complainant is a Govt. employee and is expected to be covered under medical policy of the employer. Accordingly, this relief is accordingly denied.

    Complainant has also claimed maintenance of Rs 10000/- pm for food, clothes, medication and other basic amenities. Complainant has filed her affidavit of assets claiming that she is getting net salary of Rs 21054/- pm. Her form 16 reveals that she got annual gross salary of Rs 433958/- i.e Rs 36163/- pm. It is to be considered that complainant was eight months pregnant when she filed present petition and today she has 22 months old child with her. DV act is the beneficial legislation and it must be interpreted in a manner so as to fulfill the social purpose that it seeks to serve. Therefore, I consider the fact of birth of the child an important fact for deciding the present case.

    As per complainant, respondent is earning Rs 25000/- pm while she is earning Rs 36163/- pm. As such complainant is capable of maintaining herself and is not entitled for maintenance. However, child is the responsibility of both the parents. Both mother and father should contribute towards the maintenance of the child in the same proportions as that of their salaries. Taking into account the status of the parties and the prevalent inflation, complainant should be spending around Rs 2000/- on the child per month. Since the complainant is also constrained to live in a rented accommodation, she should bear half of the child’s monthly expenditure. Accordingly, respondent is directed to pay a maintenance of Rs 1000/- pm towards the child Kumari Tejal till the marriage of the child.

    Complainant has further prayed for compensation of Rs 50000/- on account of mental injury. However, complainant has not stated how she has arrived at this figure. Still keeping in view the nature of the allegations of desertion and physical abuse, complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs 5000/- pm on account of mental injury, harassment etc.

    Residence Order Complainant has prayed for residence orders U/s 19 DV Act i.e restraining the respondent from disturbing or harassing in the peaceful residence of complainant. Since it is not disputed that complainant and respondent are living separately and in view of the protection order granted in favour of complainant, respondent has restrained from disturbing or harassing the peacefully residence of complainant.

    Complainant has also prayed for suitable accommodation. Complainant is earning more than respondent and this prayer has already been taken into account while fixing the maintenance of the child. As such this relief is denied.

    Complainant has also prayed that respondent be restrained from renouncing her rights in the assets/ estate of respondent and properties falling in her share by way of inheritance. This relief is denied since it is unclear whose and what assets are being referred to.

    Compensation Complainant has also prayed for compensation u/s 22 DV Act Rs 10 lakhs on account of mental torture, emotional distress and injuries caused by acts of respondent. Complainant has already been granted Rs 5000/- on account of monthly injury. Her claim to compensation of Rs 10 lakhs appears to be inflated and is without any reason. This relief is accordingly denied.

    Application U/s 12 PW DV Act is disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

    ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
    TODAY ON 09.12.2015

    ( RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI )
    MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
    Dwarka/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
    *******************************************************************************

     

    Child’s maintenance under DV to be equally borne by husband & wife !! Delhi sessions court

    * wife has filed DV case on hubby
    * Kid’s needs assessed at Rs 16000 per month based on the status of parties
    * husband and wife to pay the maintenance in equal amounts
    * however wife manages other restraint orders on husband’s property. She somehow proves her contribution to the apartments in question. In spite of restraint the court permits renting of properties

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

    IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM SPECIAL JUDGE­03, (PC ACT) (CBI)
    PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI

    ID No. 02403R0074822015
    Criminal Appeal No. 16/2015

    Ajit Pal Singh
    S/o Sh. Narender Singh
    A­2479, Ground Floor,
    Netaji Nagar, Opposite Palikia Bhawan,
    New Delhi – 110023.  …..Appellant

    Versus

    Cherry Singh
    W/o Sh. Ajit Pal Singh
    D/o Col. Manmohan Singh Jassal,
    R/o 4173, Second Floor, D­4, Vasant Kunj,
    New Delhi – 110070.  …..Respondent

    Date of institution     : 28.04.2015
    Date of arguments     : 04.12.2015
    Date of order         : 08.12.2015

    JUDGEMENT

    1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and is directed against the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 passed by Ms Snigdha Sarvaria, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in CC No. 44/4/2014 vide which Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to award maintenance in the sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month till pendency of the complaint to the minor son of the parties payable by appellant, who is the husband of respondent. Apart from it, the trial court also restrained the appellant from alienating or disposing of or parting with the possession or creating any encumbrance on two properties.

    2. Respondent is the wife of the appellant. She had filed a complaint CC No.44/4/2014 against her husband i.e. the appellant under Section 12 of this Act. Along with this complaint she also moved an application under Section 23 of the Act praying for interim maintenance to the minor son of the parties till pendency of the complaint.

    3. In this complaint, the complainant/respondent had also made a prayer that appellant may be restrained from alienating four properties.

    4. After hearing the parties, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate awarded an interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.15,000/­ per month for the minor son of the parties till pendency of the proceedings. In respect of the four properties, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate carefully considered all facts and circumstances and passed a restraint order in respect of following properties :

    A. Flat No. 106, Tower A, Springdales, Zirakpur, near Chandigarh.
    B. Flat No. D­504, Estella, Sector­102, Gurgaon.

    5. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

    6. First I take up the issue of the restraint order. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate has carefully gone through the records of the properties furnished by the parties and I agree that the contribution of both the parties in the aforesaid properties is quite evident from the material produced before the trial court. Hence, I find no infirmity in the restraint order. The grievance of appellant is that by this restraint order, he cannot even let out the properties. It is submitted that if he is allowed to rent out the properties, he will be in a better position to pay the maintenance. Moreover, if left vacant, the properties will deteriorate. I agree with his submission to this extent. But the question will arise as to which of the parties will have the right to rent out the properties. The appropriate course would be that both the parties should agree to rent out the said properties through a common property dealer and the rent should be deposited in a joint bank account of the parties with a rider that such rent would be distributed equally between husband and wife. There may be many other proposals to make these properties profitable to all concerned. However, this job cannot be done at appellate stage. Of course, the parties are free to resolve this issue by taking recourse to mediation or through guidance of their lawyers or by taking appropriate order of the trial court. However, question of renting out the properties cannot be considered at the appellate stage. At the same time, I have already stated that I do not find any infirmity in the restraint order, which is not of a final nature and the trial court is fully empowered to vacate it or to modify at the stage of final disposal or earlier if it so desires.

    7. Now I take up the question of grant of maintenance to the son of the parties. It is an admitted fact that both the parties are gainfully employed and are earning respectable salaries. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of the trial court that both the parties should proportionately share expenses of maintenance incurred on the minor child. Ld. Counsel for appellant has prayed for setting aside the maintenance order and in alternative reducing the same. I have already stated that when both husband and wife are earning, both of them are required to shoulder the expenses on their child. Therefore, setting aside the maintenance order is out of question.

    8. The next question is as to whether the interim maintenance should be reduced.

    9. Since the court have to pass the interim maintenance order at a very initial stage, the courts have to form an opinion on the basis of the material and affidavit filed by the parties. The correctness of such material and affidavits has to be dealt with at final stage. The respondent herein had filed an affidavit dated 17.10.2014 in respect of her details, assets and expenditure. Under the head of expenditure in column (V), she has mentioned the education tuition expenses of her child as under :

    (v) Education of child

    1. School Fees (Quarterly) ­ including tuition fee. Rs.10,500/­ on an average

    2. Tutor Fees – Rs.3000/­ pm.

    3. School Van Fees for afternoon – Rs.2000/­ pm.

    4. Dance Class Van – Rs.500/­ pm

    5. Dance Classes – Rs. 12,000/­ pa.

    10. The aforesaid affidavit of respondent shows that respondent is spending around Rs.8000/­ per month only on education and education related activities upon her child. In view of the status of the parties, this much of expenditure is normal these days. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for appellant that appellant gets reimbursement of the school fee from her employer, however, no evidence could be shown of such reimbursement except school certificate, which shows that same was issued for the purpose of reimbursement of the fee. This school certificate is not enough to form a primafacie view unless actual document of reimbursement of school fee by her employer is produced by the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said at this stage that appellant is getting reimbursement of the school fee of her child.

    11. Considering the primafacie expenditure on education of the child and status of parties, it is reasonable to accept that an approximate sum of Rs.8000/­ per month must have been spent by the respondent on food and clothing etc. for the child. Hence, the total expenditure upon the child appears to be Rs.16,000/­ per month, which should be shared equally by the parties.

    12. The impugned order would show that no reason has been given as to how the monthly expenditure of the minor son has been calculated by the trial court. In the preceding paragraph, I have calculated the monthly expenditure on the child at Rs. 16,000/­ per month, which should be shared equally by father as well as mother. Thus, the appellant being the father of minor child is directed to pay a maintenance in the sum of Rs.8000/­ per month to respondent (who is the wife of appellant and mother of the minor son Master Angad) from the date of filing of the complaint till final disposal. In case, respondent is getting maintenance for her child from any other court, the same would be adjusted by the trial court in the present maintenance. The impugned order is modified to the extent as above only in respect of the maintenance. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

    13. Parties/their counsels are directed to appear before the trial court on 19.12.2015.

    14. Copy of judgement along with trial court record be returned to the trial court. Appeal file be consigned to record room.

    Announced in the open court on 8.12.2015.

    (Vinod Kumar)
    Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge­03,
    (PC Act) (CBI), Patiala House Courts New 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
    *******************************************************************************