Tag Archives: Delhi MM court

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

    Advertisements

    FIL molested her & husband raped her! wife claims 40 lakhs but gets 4 thousands !! Delhi MM court

    This woman has a long list of complaints and serious allegations. She claims her husband was a pickpocket but suddenly became a business man (so that she can claim 40 lakhs from him). She claims her step father (before marriage) had a ill eye on her. She claims her father in law molested her and he husband had sex with her before her kids… She is still staying in the same house as the husband (same shared household) but wants 30 ..40 lakhs from him !! She gets just 4000 and nothing else !!

    A sad saga of how Indian families are breaking right in front of eyes

    A sad saga of how women could write complaints where the sole aim is NOT justice, but extracting max money !!

    Excerpts :

    The wife claims “….The aggrieved has sought Rs 35000/­ per month towards food, clothes, medications and other basic necessities; Rs 10 Lakhs towards return of stridhan and damages and Rs 50,000/­ towards loss due to removal of belongings from her control….”

    “…The aggrieved has sought Rs.30,00,000/­  : Rs. 30,00,000/­ compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent…”

    The Hon court decides “…I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2000/­ each per month to the minor children by the respondent as their maintenance as well as Rs. 2000/­ to the aggrieved as her maintenance….”


    IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA AGGARWAL: METROPOLITAN
    MAGISTRATE­02 (MAHILA COURT) : SOUTH DISTRICT
    SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI

    CC No: 453/1 (30.08.2014)
    Unique Case ID: 02406R0216182014
    Jurisdiction of Police Station: Hauz Khas

    Smt. Anuradha,
    W/o Sh. Rajeev Meena,
    R/o 69, Gautam Nagar Road,
    Yusuf Sarai, P S Hauz Khas,
    New Delhi­110016                                                                    ………….Aggrieved
    Versus
    Sh. Rajeev Meena,
    S/o Sh. Ram Ji Lal,
    R/o 69, Gautam Nagar Road,
    Yusuf Sarai, P S Hauz Khas
    New Delhi­110016                                                                …………..Respondent

    Date of Institution:                 30.08.2014
    Date of Arguments :                  14.03.2016
    Date of Judgment :                   04.04.2016

    EX­ PARTE JUDGMENT

    1. 1. By way of the present application filed by Smt. Anuradha (hereinafter referred as ”the aggrieved”) under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband Sh. Rajeev Meena (hereinafter referred as “the respondent”), she has sought Protection Order under Section 18; Residence Order under Section 19; Monetary Relief under Section 20; and Compensation/ damages under Section 22 of the Act.
    2. Briefly stated, it is the grievance of the aggrieved that she was married to respondent on 29.04.1998 as per Hindu rites and customs at an early age of 17 years as her step father always kept an ill­eye towards her and her two younger sisters. She has stated that after marriage she came to know that respondent was involved in pick­pocketing and her in­laws were also involved in criminal activities. She has further alleged that on the first night of marriage without showing any love or affection, the respondent attacked her like a rapist, tore her clothes causing her injuries and also threatened to send her back if she disclosed it to anyone.
    3. She has further alleged that after 1­2 months of the marriage i.e. in June­ July, 1998, the father of the respondent also started molesting her physically and used filthy and abusive language and she was beaten up by the respondent as well as her father in law when she objected to the same. She has also stated that the respondent rebuked and slapped her on several occasions and threatened her not to disclose the behavior of his father to anybody and as she was victim of such behavior even before her marriage she got frightened and compromised with the situation.
    4. She has further alleged that respondent along with his family members caused her mental and physical torture and that when she asked for household expenses, she would be abused and sexually tortured by respondent. She has further alleged that respondent would beat her and threaten her to bring money from her family or else she would be treated as call girl which demand she could not fulfill.
    5. She has further alleged that respondent always forced her to have unnatural sex and upon her refusal she had to face consequences and respondent had caused unexplainable serious sexual injuries to her and that the respondent treated her as a call­-girl and not his wife.
    6. She has further alleged that whenever she refused to have sex with him or asked him to give household expenses, he told her that if she cannot have sex with me he would not give her money and would give the money to another woman whom he can enjoy. She has further alleged that she suffered miscarriage due to inhuman behavior and beating of respondent. She has further stated that as the physical, mental and emotional torture was a routine, she was unable to give any particular date.
    7. She has also stated that in December, 1999 when she was 8 months pregnant she refused to have sex with the respondent, the respondent again tortured her and never took care of her health during pregnancy and even kicked her due to which she fell down and it resulted in abdominal pain. She further stated that she gave birth to a baby girl Tripti on 02.01.2000 whose entire expenses were borne by her mother and brother but even then the respondent did not mend his ways.
    8. She has stated that on 06.01.2000 just after 2 days of birth of the baby, the respondent forced her to have sex and upon her refusal, he kicked, slapped her and even abused her as to her character. She has further stated that she had compromised with her life and started to live for her child and started working at home so that she could take care of her child as the respondent used to give money for household expenses only if she allowed the respondent to have sex with her.
    9. She has further alleged that the she used to remain in depression and also became patient of Low Blood Pressure and Thyroid. She has further stated that on 16.01.2001, she gave birth to a baby boy namely Rohan Meena and even with two small children, the respondent did not have any love and affection towards them.
    10. She has further stated that the respondent has left pick­pocketing after 3­4 years of the marriage and is doing private job as property dealer earning handsome amount but still avoided taking care of her and the children. She has also stated that she came to know that the respondent used to take loans from different persons just to show that he was working regularly.
    11. She has further stated that when the children were growing, he never avoided to beat her and the children or to have sex with her in front of the children and that upon objecting to the same he behaved like a rapist in front of their children and she had no one to help and support her. She has stated that during her matrimonial life, she suffered innumerable miscarriages and abortions, which caused her to be physical ill and mentally depressed.
    12. She further alleged that in the first week of August, 2007, during the 6 th month pregnancy, she was beaten badly by her mother­in­law (Mausi Saas namely; Leela­Devi) and brother­in­law namely; Ketan and that on 12.10.2007, she gave birth to a baby Sona.
    13. She has further stated that she made a complaint to the concerned SHO PS Hauz Khas on 16.11.2013 vide DD entry No. 58B but police did not take any action against the respondent saying that it is a matrimonial dispute. She has further stated that due to the conduct of the respondent, she had to leave her matrimonial house with her children and lived with her mother for 5­6 months from November, 2013 to 12.05.2014 during which time the respondent made several threatening calls to her and also reached there and forced her to send the children with him and assured her that he will not do any wrong with her and children in future upon which assurance, she sent the children with the respondent just to save the studies of the children as they are school going children.
    14. She further alleged that on 12.05.2014, the respondent again came to the her parental house and requested her to come back and also assured her that to mend his ways and bear all the household expenses upon which she agreed and joined the company of the respondent and before going to matrimonial home, she informed the Women Cell vide its letter 12.05.2014 for taking action against the respondent if he would again torture her.
    15. She further alleged that when the respondent came to know with respect to the complaints to the concerned PS and Women Cell, he gave threats to kill her and children and asked her to withdraw the complaints but never tried to mend his ways. Aggrieved has further alleged that on 22.5.2014, the respondent assaulted the children on a petty matter and that when she objected, he started abusing her as well as the children, and slapped and pushed her. She has further stated that immediately, thereafter, he picked up an axe/”Kulhari” and attacked her but she escaped and she asked her daughter to make call on 100 number but in the meantime, he caused injury upon himself by the axe saying that ” I will implicate you” and started to slap himself.
    16. Aggrieved has further alleged that on 23.05.2014, police intervened but the respondent gave written apology before the concerned PS Hauz Khas. She has further alleged that on 05.07.2014, the respondent entered into the house after taking liquor and started to use filthy language against her and children and upon her objection, he beat his daughter Tripti and the aggrieved as well as the other small children after which Tripti called the police and she gave a written complaint to the Police also.
    17. She further alleged that the respondent molested his daughter Tripti at the night of 20.07.2014 as revenge in respect of which a case was registered CC No. 453/1/14 Anuradha vs. Rajeev Meena Page No. 6 of 18 u/s 354 IPC & u/s 7/8 POCSO Act, 2012 but which adversely affected her daughter. Aggrieved has stated that she is still living at the house of the respondent with her three children but their life is in danger as her sisters­ in­law have been giving constant threats to kill her and her three children with the help of local goons and further that her sister’s­ in­-laws and one ‘cousin devar’ namely Manish in collusion with each other are trying to sell out the property and they are trying to throw out the aggrieved and her children from the shared household.
    18. She has further alleged that she has no source of income as she is less educated lady and also a mother of three school going children whereas the respondent has his own house and is getting income from property dealing business.
    19. Domestic Incident Report was called for and was filed by the Protection Officer. Despite entering appearance, the respondent neither filed his reply nor income affidavit and even stopped appearing and hence he was proceeded ex­parte vide order dated 17.07.2015.
    20. To prove her case, the aggrieved led ex­parte complainant evidence and examined only herself to prove her case. As CW1, the aggrieved Smt. Anuradha tendered her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. CW1/A) and additional affidavit (Ex CW1/A1) on similar lines as her application and also relied upon the following documents i.e Copy of her residence proof Mark CW1/1 (i); Copy of electricity bill in name of respondent Mark CC No. 453/1/14 Anuradha vs. Rajeev Meena Page No. 7 of 18 CW1/1; Copy of school identity card of son Rohan Meena Mark CW1/2; Copy of birth certificate of daughter Parisha Mark CW1/2A; Copy of school identity card of daughter Tripti Mark CW1/2B and Ex. CW­1/2B1; Copy of school identity card of daughter Parisha Ex. CW1/2C; Copy of complaint dt. 16.11.2013 to the SHO Ex. CW1/3; Copy of complaint/letter dt. 12.05.2014 with receipt Ex. CW1/4; Copy of complaint to the SHO dt. 22.05.2014 Ex. CW1/5; copy of written apology dt. 23.05.2014 Ex. CW1/6; Copy of complaint to the SHO dt. 05.07.2014 Ex. CW1/7; Copy of FIR no. 804/14 dt. 20.07.2014 Ex. CW1/8. Colly; Copies of school fee receipts of Parisha Ex. CW1/9; Copy of loan document including receipt Ex. CW1/10; Copies of electricity bills with receipts Ex. CW1/11 and copy of passbook Ex. CW1/12.
    21. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the aggrieved during the course of final arguments and have carefully perused the entire evidence on record.
    22. By virtue of Section 2(a), the reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be availed by a woman only if she is in a domestic relationship with the respondents and was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents.
    23. From the unrebutted testimony of CW1 in respect of her marrying respondent on 29.04.1998 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and that thereafter she was residing at house no. 69, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusuf Sarai, P S Hauz Khas, New Delhi with the respondent, the aggrieved has proved that she was living with the respondent as his wife and was living together with him in shared household / matrimonial home. As the respondent was proceeded ex­parte, he failed to defend his case and to lead any evidence in support of his defence. No rebuttal has come against the claims of the aggrieved. The oral testimony of CW1 and has not been traversed and the testimony of CW1 goes un­rebutted and unchallenged. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the unrebutted and un­ controverted evidence led by the aggrieved. Hence the factum of domestic relationship between the aggrieved and the respondent has been proved.
    24. In respect of the infliction of the domestic violence, the oral testimony of the aggrieved as CW1 has gone unrebutted as despite opportunities the respondent for reasons best known to him chose not to join the present proceedings nor to controvert any evidence led by the aggrieved. Thus the averments of the aggrieved as also her testimony in her evidence by way of affidavit in respect of infliction of physical, verbal and economic violence the respondent are deemed to be admitted by the respondent as they have remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the uncontroverted evidence led by the aggrieved. Accordingly, by unrebutted testimony, the aggrieved has been able to prove that the respondent has committed certain acts of physical, verbal and economic violence and as the aggrieved person has CC No. 453/1/14 Anuradha vs. Rajeev Meena Page No. 9 of 18 been able to prove the domestic violence committed upon her by the respondent, she is entitled to claim reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against him.
    25. Reliefs : Protection Order Under Section 18 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: Aggrieved has sought protection order seeking prohibition of acts of domestic violence by an injunction against the respondent from repeating any of the acts mentioned in the application; to prohibit the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved; to prohibit him from aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence; to prohibit alienation of jewellery, ornaments and articles of the aggrieved by the respondent and her sisters­in­law including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate and prohibiting the respondent from committing any other act as specified in the protection order.
    26. From the unrebutted testimony of the aggrieved as CW1, she has able to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence. In view of the same, the respondent is restrained from repeating any of the acts of domestic violence as deposed to by the aggrieved. He is further restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved and is also prohibited from aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved. Concerned SHO is directed to ensure compliance of the same. Any default in compliance of this order shall entail a liability under Section 31 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act.
    27. It is pertinent to note that despite seeking a protection order to prohibit the alienation of jewellery, ornaments and articles of the aggrieved by the respondent and her sisters­ in­law including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate, the aggrieved has not specified complete particulars of such jewellery, ornaments and articles as well as other property and in the absence of disclosure of any details, no protection order as sought by the aggrieved can be passed. Hence, this relief for protection order as sought is declined being vague.
    28. Further it is duly noted that in view of the protection orders already passed further protection orders to prohibit the respondent from committing any other act are not warranted and hence the said relief is declined.
    29. Residence Order Under Section 19 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved has prayed for residence orders to the effect that the respondent and his family members be restrained from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing her possession in the shared household whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared house hold or encumbering the same; directions against the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for her as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require; imposition of any additional conditions or pass any other direction which may be deemed reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved and her children; directions against the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence; and also directions to the the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved and her children; seeking imposition on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties with further directions to the respondent to return the stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which the aggrieved is entitled to.
    30. It is duly noted that the aggrieved is still residing in the shared household. However, she has not led any evidence to indicate the portion in which she is residing nor is any site plan on record to show her possession in respect of the particular portion of the shared household and hence no order can be passed to restrain the respondents from entering any unspecified portion of the shared household. Hence the said relief is declined as being unproved.
    31. However, as the aggrieved has led unrebutted evidence to prove that she is still residing in the shared household, the relief restraining the respondent from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of the aggrieved in shared household without any legal or equitable interest of the respondent having been proved therein can only be granted to a limited extent and the respondent is restrained from dispossessing her or her children from the shared household except in accordance with due process of law. He is further restrained from alienating or disposing off the shared house hold or encumbering the same except in accordance with due process of law.
    32. The aggrieved has also sought alternate accommodation or rent for the same. She has further sought directions seeking imposition on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. This relief shall however be decided alongwith the monetary relief.
    33. In view of the protection order already passed, the orders imposing any additional conditions or further direction to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved and her children; directions against the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence and also directions to the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved and her children are not warranted and hence are declined.
    34. The aggrieved has sought further directions against the respondent to return the stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which the aggrieved is entitled to. However, she has not led any evidence to prove the stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which the aggrieved is entitled to and in the absence of disclosure of any details or evidence being led to prove her entitlement or stridhan, no protection order as sought by the aggrieved can be passed. Hence, this relief as sought is declined being vague.
    35. Monetary Relief Under Section 20 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved has sought Rs 35000/­ per month towards food, clothes, medications and other basic necessities; Rs 10 Lakhs towards return of stridhan and damages and Rs 50,000/­ towards loss due to removal of belongings from her control.
    36. As per the income affidavit of the aggrieved Smt Anuradha she is aged about 33 years being 8th class pass without any professional qualification without any occupation and monthly income but with monthly expenditure of Rs 10,000/­ with her three minor children dependent on her. Since legal aid has been provided to the aggrieved she has not disclosed any litigation charges. She has disclosed education expenses of about Rs.4,000/­ quarterly of her children with Rs 1000/­ being transportation expenses for Parisha and Rohan. She has disclosed Rs 500/­ pm as expenses towards books/stationary. She has disclosed not disclosed any income but has disclosed expense of Rs.200/­ per month towards maintenance, Rs.6000/­ per month towards household groceries/food etc. including water, electricity and gas; Rs.300/­ per month towards telephone/ cable each; Rs 500 pm towards maintenance of household articles; Rs.500/­ per month towards medical expenditure and pocket money of Rs.200/­ being given to her children with a friendly loan of Rs 90,000/­, Gold Loan of Rs 18000/­ from Muthoot Finance for total monthly expenditure of Rs.10,000/­ except the loan amount. She has disclosed one mobile phone without any further assets or liabilities and has stated the status of the parties to be middle class.
    37. She has asserted that the respondent is 8th class pass and working as a taxi driver earning Rs 15000/­ per month and has stated the house at Yusuf Sarai to be his own house.
    38. As per the settled law, the aggrieved is entitled to get monetary relief which is adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. It is duly noted that the aggrieved has not supported her purported expenditure by placing on record documentary evidence for the same except in the form of electricity bills.
    39. It is also duly noted that the aggrieved has not mentioned the fact of the respondent working as a taxi driver in her application or her evidence as tendered in the court. Rather in a clarification affidavit filed by her, she has stated that the respondent is working as a taxi driver and is also doing a business of property dealing as well as to arrange loan facility to the shop owners in the area in the name and style of “Rohan Property and Finance” earning more that Rs 50,000/­ per month.
    40. However, no documentary evidence has been led by her even in the form of a visiting card to prove her assertions as to the job of the respondent, income therefrom, any income tax records of the respondent no.1 etc. Thus, her oral testimony regarding the business of the respondent remain unsubstantiated and hence not proved.
    41. In these circumstances, as the respondent is not alleged to be differently abled he is assumed to be able bodied man and as the aggrieved is the wife of the respondent, keeping in view that it is the legal duty of the respondent being the husband to maintain her as well as the minor children born out of the wedlock, assuming the income of the respondent as per the Minimum Wages Act, to be Rs.10,000/­ ­ Rs 11,000/­ per month, on the scale of balance of convenience, and in the absence of the respondent having brought on record that number of family members dependent upon him, it is presumed that only the aggrieved and the three minor children are dependent upon the respondent and thus I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2000/­ each per month to the minor children by the respondent as their maintenance as well as Rs. 2000/­ to the aggrieved as her maintenance. The amount shall be payable to the minor children from the date of filing till they attain majority while the amount shall be payable to the aggrieved from 05.11.2014 on which date the respondent is stated to have been released from judicial custody till the aggrieved becomes disentitled for the same as per law.
    42. It is duly noted that the aggrieved has not led any evidence to prove the value of her stridhan articles or loss thereof of Rs.10 lakhs nor has she led any evidence to prove loss of Rs.50000/­ due to removal of belongings from her control and hence the relief as sought by aggrieved is declined as being unproved. Further, as the aggrieved is already residing in the shared household, no occasion arises at this stage to award her any amount towards alternate accommodation or giving further directions to the respondent regarding discharge of rent and other payments. Hence, the said reliefs are also declined.
    43. Respondent shall pay the awarded amount directly into the account of the aggrieved upon supplying the details of the bank account within three weeks from today to the respondents and filing a copy on record. The amount shall be payable by 10th day of every English calendar month starting from the next month. The arrears be cleared within the period of six months.
    44. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Divya Sondhi-120 DLT(2005)426. Any maintenance that may have already been paid or has been awarded by any other forum, shall be accordingly adjusted.
    45. Compensation Under Section 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved has sought Rs.30,00,000/­ Rs. 30,00,000/­ compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent. However, she has not produced any material on record to prove her entitlement to the amount as claimed. Be that as it may, as it has gone unrebutted that she has been subjected to domestic violence she is awarded compensation for mental trauma a sum of Rs. 10,000/­ to be paid by the respondent to the aggrieved.
    46. No grounds exist for granting any other relief in favour of the aggrieved.
    47. Application of the aggrieved under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is accordingly disposed off in the said terms.
    48. Copy of this order be given dasti to the aggrieved and be also sent to the local service provider if any. As the respondent are ex­parte, a copy of this order be served upon them through the Protection Officer.
    49. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.

     

    Pronounced in the open Court on 04.04.2016
    (POOJA AGGARWAL)
    Metropolitan Magistrate­02(Mahila Court)

    Saket/New Delhi

    Woman seeking 10 lakhs in DV gets just 5000 !! Advantage of men working in unorganised sector !!

    In this classic case a woman makes all sorts of allegations ON HER husband and seeks ONLY Rs. 10 Lakhs as compensation !! In the end she gets 5 thousands … yes F I V E Thousands !!

    Typical case in which women claims that husband is consuming liquor and is having illicit relations with his own boss / owner of shop and beating her mercilessly

    In addition to monthly maintenance she claims relief of 10 lakh … Yes 10 lakhs !!

    But this guy is working In the UN-organised sector and so wife is not able to prove what he is earning !!!

    she finally gets just Rs.5000 yes repeat Rs. 5000 As compensation !!

    This husband is enjoying the complete bliss of being poor and working in the unorganised sector where there is no income tax returns or ANY proof of the salary and the woman can’t make the one thing they want …. Money !!!

    The husband lets the case go exparte and doesn’t even bother to attend it once !!


    IN THE COURT OF MS.POOJA AGGARWAL:
    METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­02:
    MAHILA COURT:SOUTH DISTRICT:
    SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI

    CC No: 21/1 (12.01.2015)

    Unique Case ID: 02406R0009892015

    Jurisdiction of Police Station: Malviya Nagar

    Smt. Seema,
    W/o Sh. Ram Kumar
    D/o Late Sh. Ram Dhani,
    R/o H.No. 8/107, Balmiki Camp,
    Begampur, New Delhi­110017
    Also at: H.No. 8/82, Balmiki, Begampur,
    New Delhi­110017
    Also at: H.No. 726, Sadik Nagar, Type two,
    New Delhi­110017
    Also at: H.No. C­120, Khanpur Colony, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
    New Delhi­110082……Aggrieved

    Versus

    Sh. Ram Kumar,
    S/o Late Sh. Rajai Ram
    R/o H.No. 124 KH, Village Bada Gaon, Tehsil Sadipur,
    Distt. Ghazipur, U.P.
    Also at: C/o Ms. Bhawna Kyra showroom
    R/o 5 E, Jungi House, Shahpur Jat,
    New Delhi …….Respondent

    Date of Institution : 07.01.2015

    Date of Arguments : 19.02.2016

    Date of Judgment : 01.03.2016

    EX­ PARTE JUDGMENT

     

    1. By way of the present application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Smt. Seema (hereinafter referred to as “the aggrieved”) has sought various reliefs against her husband (hereinafter referred as “the respondent”) including Protection order under Section 18, Residence Order under Section 19, Monetary relief under Section 20, Custody order under Section 21 and Compensation order under section 22 of the Act.
    2. Briefly stated it is the case of the aggrieved that she got married to the respondent on 23.11.2007 and out of the wedlock two children, namely baby Roshini aged about 6 years and Master Rohan aged about 3 years were born. She has stated that the respondent was working as a courier boy in Kyra Showroom and they were living on the terrace of the showroom till August 2014. She has made allegations of extra marital affair of the respondent with the owner of the said showroom Ms Bhawna alleging that he used to go with her and not return even after 4­5 days. She has further stated that when she used to inquire about the reason when he came late, he would beat her mercilessly and say “yeh tera kaam nahi hai chup chaap yahin padi reh nahi tu jaan se maar doonga”.
    3. She has further alleged that the respondent used to frequently consume liquor with his friends in the presence of the aggrieved as well as the minor children and when she objected to the same, he used to beat, abuse and torture her in front of his friends. She has further stated that on 05.07.2014 she had called the women helpline and the matter was got compromised by the two officials who had visited her house.
    4. The aggrieved has further stated that when on 07.07.2014 her husband did not return from his job she inquired from Ms Bhawna who shouted on her and dispossessed her with her children from the house on the very next day in respect of which FIR no. 882/14 PS Hauz Khas was lodged. She has also alleged that the respondent is repeatedly threatening to divorce her and marry someone else for handsome dowry.
    5. The aggrieved has further stated that she is suffering from depression due to the conduct of the respondent but is unable to consult a doctor due to financial constraints. She has further stated that her daughter is patient of seizure disorder while her son is handicapped due to which she is unable to look after them and relies on her parents for financial support as the respondent is not paying any maintenance to them. She has asserted herself to be totally dependent on her relatives for her expenses.
    6. She has asserted that the respondent earns about Rs.18,000/­ working a courier boy in the Kyra Showroom with Rs 5000/­ as overtime but over the past few years he has not given a single penny to the aggrieved who has had to work for livelihood to meet household expenses and expenses of the children. She has asserted that the respondent has income from salary and also has a house in Banaras and also gets handsome income from the agricultural land at home and used to threaten the aggrieved that he would sell off the properties. She has asserted that the respondent has no other responsibility except her and the minor children.
    7. Domestic Incident Report was duly called for and was filed by the Protection Officer on 03.07.2015. After service of the notice of the application under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, respondent entered appearance on 03.07.2015 and parties were referred for mediation on 02.09.2015 but matter could not be settled there. Despite repeated opportunities the respondent did not file any reply nor income affidavit and hence the respondent was proceeded ex­parte vide order dated 20.01.2016.
    8. To prove her case, the aggrieved led ex­parte complainant evidence and examined only herself to prove her case. As CW1, the aggrieved Smt. Sangeeta tendered her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. CW1/1) on similar lines as her application and also relied upon the following documents i.e. Election I­Card (Ex.CW1/A), photocopy of birth certificate of baby Roshni (Mark CW1/C), copy of birth certificate of master Rohan (Ex. CW1/D), photocopy of complaint made before PS Hauz Khas bearing FIR No.882/14 dated 08.08.2014 (Mark CW1/E Colly 2 pages), copies of medical documents of both minor children (Mark CW1/F Colly page no. 33 to 39), marriage photograph mentioned as Ex.CW 1/B was de­exhibited as the same was not filed in the court.
    9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the aggrieved during the course of final arguments and have carefully perused the entire evidence on record.
    10. By virtue of Section 2(a), the reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be availed by a woman only if she is in a domestic relationship with the respondent and was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.
    11. From the unrebutted testimony of CW1 in respect of her marrying respondent on 23.11.2007 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and that thereafter she was residing at Delhi with the respondent, the aggrieved has proved that she was living with the respondent as his wife and was living together with him in shared household / matrimonial home. Further, even in her Election I Card Ex.CW1/A the name of the husband is reflected as Ram Kumar i.e the respondent herein. As the respondent was proceeded ex­parte, he failed to defend his case and to lead any evidence in support of his defence. No rebuttal has come against the claims of the aggrieved. The oral testimony of CW1 and has not been traversed and the testimony of CW1 goes un­rebutted and unchallenged. No reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the unrebutted and un­controverted evidence led by the aggrieved. Hence the factum of domestic relationship between the aggrieved and the respondent has been proved. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
    12. In respect of the infliction of the domestic violence, the oral testimony of the aggrieved as CW1 has gone unrebutted as despite opportunities the respondent for reasons best known to him chose not to join the present proceedings nor to controvert any evidence led by the aggrieved. Thus the averments of the aggrieved as also her testimony in her evidence by way of affidavit in respect of infliction of physical and economic abuse are deemed to be admitted by the respondent as they have remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the uncontroverted evidence led by the aggrieved. Accordingly, by unrebutted testimony, the aggrieved has been able to prove that the respondent has committed certain acts of physical as well as economic violence and as the aggrieved person has been able to prove the domestic violence committed upon her by the respondent, she is entitled to claim reliefs under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent.
    13. Reliefs
      ***************
      Protection Order Under Section 18 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: Aggrieved has sought protection order seeking prohibition of acts of domestic violence by an injunction against the respondent from repeating any of the acts mentioned in the application; to prohibit any form of communication by the respondent with the aggrieved, seeking prohibition of alienation of assets by the respondent and directions against the respondent to stay away from the dependents/relatives/any other person of the aggrieved person to prohibit violence against them.
    14. From the unrebutted testimony of the aggrieved as CW1 it stands duly proved that she is residing separately from the respondent since 7.07.2014. In view of the same, the respondent is restrained from repeating any of the acts of domestic violence as deposed to by the aggrieved and he is also restrained from communicating with the aggrieved in any form of communication. SHO PS Malviya Nagar is directed to ensure compliance of the same.
    15. Any default in compliance of this order shall entail a liability under Section 31 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act.
    16. It is pertinent to note that despite seeking a protection order to prohibit the alienation of assets, the aggrieved has not specified any particular assets and in the absence of disclosure of any details, no protection order as sought by the aggrieved can be passed. Hence, this relief for protection order as sought is declined being vague. Further it is duly noted that the entire testimony of the aggrieved is silent as to any violence having been caused to her dependents/relatives/any other person of the aggrieved and hence the said relief for protection order is also declined.
    17. Residence Order Under Section 19 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act : The aggrieved has prayed for residence orders to the effect that the respondent be restrained from dispossessing or throwing her out from the shared household; from alienating/disposing/ encumbering the shared household; from entering that portion of the household in which she is/was residing and to secure same level of alternate accommodation or pay rent for the same.
    18. It is duly noted that the aggrieved has not been residing in the shared household since 08.07.2014 and hence there does not arise any question of the respondent dispossessing or throwing her out from the shared household and the need to restrain them from entering that portion of the household in which she was residing does not arise.
    19. The aggrieved has also sought orders seeking to restrain the respondents from alienating / disposing / encumbering the shared household. However, her entire testimony is silent as to the interest of her husband i.e. the respondent in the shared household. Even in her testimony as CW1 she has not categorically deposed as to which property she is referring to be her shared household. Hence the relief as prayed is declined as being not proved.
    20. The aggrieved has also sought alternate accommodation or rent for the same. This relief shall however be decided alongwith the monetary relief.
    21. Monetary Relief Under Section 20 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved has sought Rs 5,000/­ towards Food, Clothes, Medication and other basis necessities, Rs.2000/­ towards other expenses including educational expenses of children and Rs 8000/­ per month towards other household expenses for the total of Rs.15,000/­ per month.
    22. As per the income affidavit of the aggrieved she is aged about 26 years, is 8th class pass without any professional qualification with monthly expenditure of Rs 13000/­ with both her minor children dependent on her. Since legal aid has been provided to the aggrieved she has not disclosed any litigation charges. For the first time in her income affidavit she has disclosed the agricultural property of respondent to be about 21 bigha, H.No. 124 KH, Village Bada Gaon, Tehsil Shadipur, District Ghazipur, UP. She has disclosed education expenses of about Rs.2000/­ on her children. She has not disclosed any income but has claimed Rs.10000/­ per month towards household groceries/food etc., Rs.1000/­ per month towards public transport, of Rs 2,000/­ per month towards medical expenditure without any liabilities. She has disclosed cash in hand to be Rs.200/­ with one local mobile phone. She has disclosed that she is presently residing in the house of her parents and has not disclosed any other assets or liabilities. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
    23. As per the settled law, the aggrieved is entitled to get monetary relief which is adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. In her application as well as testimony Ex CW1/1, the aggrieved has alleged that the respondent earns about Rs.18,000/­ working a courier boy in the Kyra Showroom with Rs 5000/­ as overtime and also has a house in Benaras and also gets handsome income from the agricultural land at home. She has deposed that the respondent has no other responsibility except her and the minor children. However, no documentary evidence has been proved by her even in the form of a visiting card to prove her assertions as to the job of the respondent, income from overtime, ownership of the house in Banaras, existence of agricultural land in the name of the respondent or any agricultural income therefrom. For the reasons best known to her, she has only disclosed in her income affidavit regarding the property at Ghazipur. Her testimony regarding the immovable properties owned by the respondent are not supported by any documentary evidence.
    24. It has been duly noted that in para no.10 of her application Under Section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act she had mentioned that she ekes out her livelihood by working and on her earninings the household expenses are met and the upbringing of minor children is done whereas in the income affidavit, she had not disclosed any previous occupation due to which clarifications were sought from the aggrieved who submitted on an affidavit that she had worked as a maid from 29.12.2014 till 09.01.2015 for which she got paid Rs.300/­ but left the job as her children were not well. She further stated that presently she is working as a maid w.e.f. 14.02.2016 and has been promised to be paid Rs.1,500/­ per month.
    25. In these circumstances, as the respondent is not alleged to be differently abled he is assumed to be able bodied man, he is assumed to be unskilled labourer. As the aggrieved is the wife of the respondent without any means of sustaining herself from the date of the filing of present application till 14.02.2016 except for the period from 29.12.2014 till 09.01.2015 as also keeping in view that it is the legal duty of the respondent being the husband to maintain her as well as the minor children born out of the wedlock, assuming the income of the respondent as per the Minimum Wages Act, to be Rs.9,000/­ ­ Rs 10,000/­ per month. Therefore, on the scale of balance of convenience, and in the absence of the respondent having brought on record that number of family members dependent upon him, it is presumed that only the aggrieved and the two minor children are dependent upon the respondent and thus I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2000/­ each per month to the minor children by the respondent as their maintenance from the date of the application till the children attain majority. A sum of Rs.2000/­ per month is also awarded to the aggrieved from the date of the filing of the application till 14.02.2016 and Rs.500/­ from the date of this order till further directions of this court. Needless to mention that this includes rent towards alternative accommodation because aggrieved despite having a right to reside in the shared household is residing separately therefrom as also all other ancillary and miscellaneous expenses.
    26. Respondent shall pay the awarded amount directly into the account of the aggrieved upon supplying the details of the bank account within three weeks from today to the respondents and filing a copy on record. The amount shall be payable by 10th day of every English calendar month starting from the next month. The arrears be cleared within the period of six months.
    27. The default shall be viewed in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Gaurav Sondhi Vs. Divya Sondhi-120 DLT(2005)426. Any maintenance that may have already been paid or has been awarded by any other forum, shall be accordingly adjusted.
    28. Custody Order Under Section 21 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved had sought custody of both the minor children namely Baby Roshni and Master Rohan. However, admittedly both the children are already in the custody of the aggrieved and there is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent has tried to take the children from her custody either prior to filing the present application or during the pendency of these proceedings. In these circumstances, no ground is made out for grant of temporary custody of the children namely Baby Roshni and Master Rohan to the aggrieved. Hence the said prayer is declined.
    29. Compensation Under Section 22 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act: The aggrieved has sought Rs.10,00,000/­ as compensation but has not produced any material on record to prove her entitlement to the amount as claimed. However, as it has gone unrebutted that she has been subjected to domestic violence she is awarded compensation for mental trauma a sum of Rs. 5000/­ to be paid by the respondent to the aggrieved.
    30. No grounds exist for granting any other relief in favour of the aggrieved.
    31. Application of the aggrieved under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is accordingly disposed off in the said terms.
    32. Copy of this order be given dasti to the aggrieved and be also sent to the local service provider if any. As the respondent is ex­parte, a copy of this order be served upon him through the Protection Officer.
    33. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance

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

     

    Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM

    A wife who left her matri home even before the death of her husband, who lived away from the in laws both before and after husband’s death, did NOT even remember the death dates of her father in law and mother in law, comes back 9 years after her husband’s death to claim share in father in law’s intestate property, by filing a DV case on her six surviving in laws !! she does NOT even remember when the father in law died !! The Hon MM court rightly appreciates the facts and throws the case out !!

    • Marriage : 1998
    • Husband dies : 2004
    • DV filed in : 2013 !! Yup 07 Sep 2013 , i.e. 9 years AFTER husband’s death !
    • Problem ?? : property bearing No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn. is in the name of complainant’s father in law who has expired intestate !!!
    • Why DV : She & children have no shelter to pass their lives except their share in the property No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. !!!
      In laws clarify : THIS same wife who took away the (late) husband and made him severe all ties with in laws !!
      “…It is further stated that there is no question of committing cruelty by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since marriage of complainant. It is further stated that father of respondent Jai Kishan had made separate arrangement for their three sons and Siri Kishan shifted to H. No. 20/6 , respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shifted to H. No. 20/116 and complainant alongwith her husband shifted to Gautampuri, near Badarpur and after shifting to present house, it is the complainant who forced her husband to severe all his relationship with the mother, father, brothers and sisters. ..”
    • …and the truth comes out during cross / trial and Hon court decrees as follows : “…during cross-examination of complainant herself as she stated in cross-examination she did not know date of death of her mother in law and her father in law, though later on she stated that father in law expired in the month of May 2000 and mother in law expired 2 years back. She nowhere stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address at the time of death of her parents in law. Though, she has stated that she was residing in the said house but she has not stated as to what room/portion she was occupying in the said house and on which floor. …. She has further not proved list of articles which were kept in her room. Though she has filed photocopy of Election ID bearing address 20/116 Dakshinpuri but the same was issued to her in the year 2002 i.e. before the death of her husband. She has not filed any documents to show that she was residing in the aforesaid house after the death of her husband and till filing of this case. Further, the complainant has not proved any act of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. It is not proved that she was forcibly thrown out from the property, therefore, she has failed to prove that she is aggrieved person herein and is entitled to any relief under this Act. The application filed by the complainant is dismissed….”

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

    IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN: MM-03:
    MAHILA COURT: SED: SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

    CC-237/1/15

    Smt. Babita W/o Late Vinod
    D/o Sh. Mool Chand
    R/o 20/116, Dakshinpuri,
    Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi
    at present resident of
    S-70/10, Jhuggies,
    Vijay Camp, Jal Vihar,
    Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi …….Complainant

    Versus

    1. Rekha W/o Jai Kisan @ Babili (Sister in law)

    2. Jai Kishan @ Babli (Brother in law)
    Both Residents of:
    20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn.,
    Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062. …… Respondents

    Date of institution of case : 07.09.2013
    Date of Reserving order : 14.12.2015
    Date of Order : 19.12.2015
    FINAL ORDER : Dismissed

    JUDGMENT

    1. The brief facts of the present case are that complainant Babita was married with deceased Vinod on 25.05.1998 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies and three children were born from their wedlock who are presently residing with the complainant. Husband of complainant expired on 04.05.2000 (inadvertently mentioned whereas correct year is 2004). It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has filed the present case under D.V. Act against 6 respondents who are brother in law, sister in law of the complainant but notice of the present case was issued only to respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Respondent No. 1 was also deleted from the array of parties on 28.05.2014 and it is only respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against whom the present application was tried. For the sake of convenience, it is mentioned that respondent No. 2 is Rekha and respondent No. 3 is Jai Kishan (hereinafter referred to as respondent Nos. 1 and 2). http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    2. It is stated in the application that after the death of her husband, all the respondents started torturing her. It is further stated that the property bearing No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn. is in the name of complainant’s father in law who has expired intestate and it is the first place where she kept her first step after marriage and lived in the said premises.

    3. It is further stated that now for the last two years respondents are not allowing her to enter inside the aforesaid house and says that she has no right in the premises as her husband has expired. Respondents have broke open the lock of room where she was living and all the articles have been kept on terrace and lock had been put and dispossessed her from the said premises. It is further stated that the articles are in custody of respondents which are mentioned in Annexure D-1.

    It is further stated that she had been threatened several times not to enter the house failing which she will face dire consequences. It is further stated that she and her children have no shelter to pass their lives except their share in the property No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. In this regard, she had given complaint to SHO PS Ambedkar Nagar. She is residing with her parents alongwith her children at S-7/10, Jhuggies Vijay Camp, Jal Vihar, Lajpat Nagar for the last two years. By way of this application, the complainant has sought relief of reentering in the house No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn.

    4. Written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 Rekha and respondent No. 2 Jai Kishan wherein it is stated that complainant has concealed the material facts. It is stated that she has filed the present case after 10 years from the date of death of her husband in order to harass respondents. It is further stated that there is no question of committing cruelty by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since marriage of complainant. It is further stated that father of respondent Jai Kishan had made separate arrangement for their three sons and Siri Kishan shifted to H. No. 20/6 , respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shifted to H. No. 20/116 and complainant alongwith her husband shifted to Gautampuri, near Badarpur and after shifting to present house, it is the complainant who forced her husband to severe all his relationship with the mother, father, brothers and sisters. It is further stated that the property bearing No. 20/116 is in the name of father in law of the complainant. It is further stated that father in law of the complainant had three sons and four daughters and all were married at the time of marriage of complainant with their deceased brother Vinod and after marriage she came to house number J-46, J.J. Colony Dakshinpuri being the matrimonial house and at that time father in law of complainant has purchased three plots bearing No. 26/6, 20/116 JJ Colony Dakshinpuri and one plot in Gautampuri near Badarpur with a view to settle all his three sons there. The H. No. 20/116 was the residence of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who are still residing there. The present application was filed after the death of mother in law on 09.07.2013 as an after thought. It is further stated that complainant never visited the house of respondent when the mother in law was alive and never claimed any right over the property bearing No. 20/116 JJ Colony Dakshinpuri. It is further stated that after the death of her husband complainant sold the house of Gautampuri which was purchased by her father in law and same was given to her husband. It is further stated that none of the respondent had ever committed any act of violence upon her. It is further stated that she is residing separately for 8 years and therefore no question of interference arises. It is denied by the respondents that they had broke open the lock of room where the complainant was living and articles have been kept on the terrace and respondents put their lock and dispossessed her from the premises. It is stated that since she is living separately at Gautampuri, question of opening of room’s lock does not arise. It is also stated that she had not specified what was the size of room, on which floor she used to reside and what articles were kept in that room. It is stated that averments are bald in nature and application is liable to be dismissed.

    5. Thereafter, matter was listed for complainant’s evidence. Complainant examined herself as CW1 by filing her affidavit. She was cross-examined by respondent’s counsel and she closed her evidence.

    6. Thereafter, matter was listed for respondents’ evidence. Respondent Jai Kishan examined himself as RW1 and Rekha as RW2, Seema (sister of respondent Jai Kishan) as RW3, Shakuntala (sister of Jai Kishan) as RW4 and thereafter respondents’ evidence was closed. Matter was listed for final arguments.

    7. Final arguments were heard. Records perused carefully.

    8. Ld. counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant has come to H. No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri after her marriage and it was her matrimonial house. It is further argued by Ld. counsel for complainant that though she was residing at her parents’ home due to torture of respondents for some time after death of husband but she had locked one room wherein articles were kept by her and lock of that room was broken by respondents and her all articles have been taken away. He has prayed that complainant may be allowed to reenter in the property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn., Delhi. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

    9. Per contra, Ld. counsel for respondents had argued that the complainant never lived in the aforesaid property with her husband after marriage. It is further stated that since she has not lived with them, no question of domestic violence arises and the application is false and frivolous and therefore liable to be dismissed.

    10. Complainant during her examination in chief has exhibited her photographs with her children. She has filed photocopy of death certificate of her husband which is not disputed. She has also filed photocopy of death certificate of her father in law which is also not disputed. She has also filed her Election ID bearing address as 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. which was issued to her on 02.04.2002. She has also filed photocopy of list of articles. During cross-examination of complainant, she has admitted that she had neither made any complaint against her in laws nor sought any share in the property during the life time of her mother in law. She voluntarily stated that mother in law used to say that it is her matrimonial home and she has a right to stay during her life time. She was also convinced by her mother in law for not filing any complaint against her in laws and that is why she did not make any complaint and did not seek any share in the property. She denied the suggestion that she left her matrimonial home 3 days after the death of her husband. She further denied the suggestion that after leaving the matrimonial home in the year 2004 after the death of her husband she had come for the first time on 29.08.2013.

    11. The case of the complainant is that property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri was her matrimonial home whereas respondents had taken the stand that the complainant was living with her husband at some other property in Gautampuri near Badarpur and she had never lived in property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri. This fact is falsified by the suggestion put by the counsel for respondents to the complainant in her cross- examination wherein it was suggested to her that she had left her matrimonial home i.e. property in question after the death of her husband meaning thereby she was residing in the said property even as per respondent before the death of her husband. Apart from this, respondents have also argued that the complainant had never lived in the said property after the death of her husband. This fact is found to be true during the cross-examination of the complainant herself as she stated in cross-examination she did not know date of death of her mother in law and her father in law, though later on she stated that father in law expired in the month of May 2000 and mother in law expired 2 years back. She nowhere stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address at the time of death of her parents in law. Though, she has stated that she was residing in the said house but she has not stated as to what room/portion she was occupying in the said house and on which floor. Applicant has failed to file any site plan of the property bearing No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri showing portion wherein she was staying. She has further not proved list of articles which were kept in her room. Though she has filed photocopy of Election ID bearing address 20/116 Dakshinpuri but the same was issued to her in the year 2002 i.e. before the death of her husband. She has not filed any documents to show that she was residing in the aforesaid house after the death of her husband and till filing of this case. Further, the complainant has not proved any act of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. It is not proved that she was forcibly thrown out from the property, therefore, she has failed to prove that she is aggrieved person herein and is entitled to any relief under this Act. The application filed by the complainant is dismissed.

    12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

    (Announced in the open Court on 19th December, 2015)
    ( VANDANA JAIN) MM-03: MAHILA COURT,
    SOUTH EAST DISTRICT: SAKET 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
    *******************************************************************************

     

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