U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, dismissed

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TRAFFIC COURT – IV, BANGALORE

PRESENT: GAYATHRI.S.KATE, B.com, LLB.,MMTC – IV, BANGALORE

DATED : THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

Crl.Misc.No.41/2014

PETITIONER: Smt. N. Krishnaveni,
W/o. M. Nagaraj,
Age: 45 years,
R/at No.9/5, 6th Main,
Srikanteswara Nagar,Mahalakshmipuram Post,Bangalore – 86

VS.

RESPONDENT: Sri M. Nataraj,
S/o. Manik Reddy,
Age: 48 years,
Srikanteswara Nagar,Mahalakshmipuram Post,Bangalore – 86

JUDGEMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking relief’s U/s.20 and 22 of the said Act.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:

It is the case of the petitioner that she was married to respondent on 01-09-1985 at Vasantha Kalyana Mantapa, Solingar, Kondapalya, Vellore dist. Tamil Nadu. At the time of marriage the respondent taken gold ornaments of 10 sovereigns. At the time of marriage the petitioner parents have also given silver articles. After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent started living in Bangalore. The petitioner further submits that form the date of marriage the respondent is ill-treating the petitioner mentally and physically and by beating her. The respondent has looked after the petitioner like a slave or a bonded labourer and have manhandled the petitioner by beating her. There are two children, one male and another female. The above named petitioner further submits that the respondent is ill-treating her. On 14-02- 2014 at about 9.00 p.m., the respondent came to the house and started quarrelling, scolded the petitioner and threatened her. He also forced the petitioner to get register her properties registered in the respondent’s name otherwise he will kill the petitioner. The respondent assaulted the petitioner on the back, stomach by hands and kicked the petitioner and caused bleeding injuries. While the petitioner was taking rest the respondent has also stolen money, gold weighing about 350 gms, silver ornaments, which were given by the petitioner’s parents to the petitioner. The respondent has also stolen important property documents. It is very difficult to live with the respondent. The above named petitioner further submits that on 15-02-2014 in the morning the petitioner noticed that the above articles and documents along with cash was stolen by the respondent. Immediately the petitioner went to the police and has informed the same to the Mahalakshmi layout around and informed the same to the Sub-Inspector of police, but the police did not give any protection to the petitioner on the other hand the police supported the respondent and they have registered an NCR and given acknowledgement. As there was bodily pain the petitioner has taken treatment in the KCG hospital. As the jurisdictional police colluded with the respondent, the petitioner has given a complaint to the Commissioner of police, Bangalore on 22-02-2014. The above named petitioner further submits that from the date of marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner like a stranger and the respondent is not showing any love and affection towards the petitioner. The respondent is in the habit of going to other women. Recently he was in the company of one Smt. Sharadamma. The petitioner has suffered all cruelties at the hands of the respondent. The petitioner has been treated like a salve and maid servant. The respondent has physically and mentally assaulted the petitioner. The respondent has thrown the moral respects of women to wounds and have thus committed serious domestic violence against the petitioner. The above named petitioner further submits that the respondent is leading a very luxurious life having properties, he his own business and also a commission agent in the RMC yard. The respondent is earning heavily in his business. But this petitioner is struggling to lead the life paying loan to banks and private financiers. The above named petitioner submits that, the respondent is duty bound to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to live in the same standards as the respondent is living, she needs a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. The respondent is capable of paying the maintenance sought for as he is having huge income in the business and the property, thus the maintenance sought for by the petitioner is very meager. The respondent who is a dutiful husband and it is his bounded duty to look after the petitioner. Wherefore the above named petitioner prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to (a) pass an order directing the respondent to pay the petitioner maintenance of Rs.50,000/- p.m. (b) Direct the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (c) Direct the respondent for a separate residence and (d) Award the costs of this petition and the grant of such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

READ  Quash and call for the records under Section 482 CrpC in DV

3. After registration of the case, summons was issued to the respondent and he appeared through his counsel and filed detailed statement of objection denying each and every allegations made against him.

4. In order to substantiate their respective contentions, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The respondent got examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3.

5. Heard arguments on both the sides, perused the petition, objection and available materials on record.

6. The following points would arise for my consideration.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief’s as sought in the petition?

2. What order?

7. On perusal of materials before this court, My findings on the above said points are as under:

1. POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE

2. POINT No.2: AS PER FINAL ORDER For the following REASONS

8. POINT No.1: To file a petition U/s.12 of the Act, it is necessary that the petitioner has to establish two things firstly, she must establish that, the petitioner and respondent or respondents lived or are living together, in a domestic relationship. Secondly, that the respondent or respondents have subjected her to acts of domestic violence. To prove the domestic relationship the petitioner is required to prove that she and the respondents have lived together in a relationship of marriage or in a relationship in the nature of marriage or related by consanguinity or adoption or as family members living together as a joint family. To prove the act of domestic violence the petitioner is required o prove any one or more of the acts committed by the respondent or respondents as contemplated U/s.3 of the Act.

9. In the present case the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 14 documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The respondent has not disputed the marital status since the respondent has admitted the marriage and paternity the relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute and hence the said point is not seriously contested.

10. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 she has deposed to the following

“£Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV 25 ªÀµÀð MnÖUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÉݪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV C£ÀÆå£Àå fêÀ£À £ÀqɹzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ d£ÀäªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ PÀÆ° PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÀÆ° PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è D®ÆUÀqÉ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è JgÀqÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹ 14 ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è PÀnÖ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ 2 ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁV CªÀÅUÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉüÀ¯ÁV ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÀÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ 2 ¨sÁªÀavÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤.Dgï.1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤.Dgï.2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÉjUÉ WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ½AzÀ gÀÆ.60,000.00 – gÀÆ.70,000.00 ¨ÁrUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀÅ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ zÀÄrªÉĬÄAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ ¸ÁQëUÉ 1 ¨sÁªÀavÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¸À¯ÁV CªÀÅUÀ¼À°è EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ¯ÁV ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß M¦àPÀÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ 1 ¨sÁªÀavÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤.Dgï.3 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÁªÀavÀæzÀ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ JµÀÄÖ ¨ÁrUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤.Dgï.3£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ MnÖUÉ EzÁÝUÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÀÝgÀÄ. ¤.¦.3UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖºÁUÉ vÉjUÉ WÉÆõÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉà RÄzÁÝV ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤AvÀÄ J¯Áè RZÀð£ÀÄß ¤¨sÁ¬Ä¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß C¢üãÀzÀ°èzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ NzÀ®Æ §gÉAiÀÄ®Ä §gÀzÀ PÁgÀt £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»w §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÆ £À£Àß ªÀQîgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ»wUÉ £À£Àß ªÀQîgÀÄ ¸À» ºÁPÀÄ JAzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÁUÀ ¸ÀgÀ¼À jÃwAiÀÄ°è «ªÁºÀ DVvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EzÀÝAvÀºÀ J¯Áè D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.

£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ «ªÁºÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ EªÀwÛ£ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛ®è. ªÀÄUÀ¼À qÉ°ªÀj RZÀð£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ E§âgÀÄ MmÁÖV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ MmÁÖV EzÁÝUÀ 01 D¹ÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÉýPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV £À£ÀUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÀÆ dUÀ¼ÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀ ºÁQzÉãÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛ®è ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä §gÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ E§âgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ EzÀÄÝ ZÉ£ÁßVzÀÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ Drlgï DV GzÉÆåÃUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ®PÀë ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ MmÁÖV EzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ 03 ªÀģɬÄAzÀ gÀÆ 70 jAzÀ 80¸Á«gÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀÅ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F ªÀAiÀĹì£À°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÀÆ° PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ gÉÆÃqï ¸ÉÊqï£À°è ªÀÄ®VgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è Rjâ¹ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ 03 ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è 01 ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÜAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀßzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. J¯Áè D¹ÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ Rjâ¹zÀAvÀºÀ D¹ÜAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ EgÀ®Ä EaѸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ EzÀݵÀÄÖ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£ÀߣÀÄß vÀÄA¨Á ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjVAvÀ £Á£Éà DyðPÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀÈqÀ¼ÁVzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¨ÁrUÉ §gÀĪÀ 70 jAzÀ 80¸Á«gÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß vÉjUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀlÄÖwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÁV ¥ÀÅ£ÀB ¸ÀÆa¹zÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ vÉjUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.

11. During the course of cross-examination of R.W.1 he has deposed to the following “£Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁV ®UÉÎÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁV DgïJA¹ AiÀiÁqïð£À°è gÉÊlgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀ 10 ªÀµÀ±À¢AzÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ CAzÁdÄ gÀÆ 08¸Á«gÀ ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÁV zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉ. 2014 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À «ªÁºÀ 2011 gÀ°è DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À «ªÁºÀzÀ RZÀð£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¨Àsj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj RZÀÄð CAzÁdÄ 20 jAzÀ 25®PÀë DVgÀÄvÀÛÀzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj «ªÁºÀPÉÌ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. «ªÁºÀªÁzÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É §UÉÎ , D¹Ü §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CfðzÁgÀgÉà £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À «ªÁºÀªÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ Rað¤AzÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£Àß «ªÁºÀªÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs«zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ±ÁgÀzÀªÀÄä JA§ÄªÀ ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À«zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. £Á£ÀÄ ®UÉÎÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀzÀ PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¼Á¸À £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £À£ÀUÉ M§â ªÀÄUÀzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£Àß §½ ºÀt«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ DgïJA¹ AiÀiÁqïð£À°è D®ÆUÀqÉØ ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁVAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁå¥ÁgÀzÀ°è M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À §gÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ°¤AzÀ®Æ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ £À£Àß ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀzÀ PÁgÀt CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀªÁV £À£Àß ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ UÉÆwÛ®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

¤.¦.03 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.03 gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¨ÀsgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ DVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤.¦.13 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ r¸ÉA§gï 2014 gÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ MAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj ¤.¦.13 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ D¹ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆrAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrzÉÝ JAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¤.¦.12 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ MAzÀÄ D¹Ü EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥sÁågÀ 05 gÀ 03£Éà ¸Á°£À°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¹zÀݤgÀÄvÉÛÀãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ F ¢£ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¹zÀÞjzÁÝgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F ¢£ÀzÀgÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¨Á¼À®Ä ¹zÀÝjzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¹zÀݤ®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. CfðzÁgÀjUÉ fêÀ£Á±ÀAªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ±ÀPÀÛ¤zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.

12. On perusal of these depositions it is clear that relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. The petitioners have failed to prove the respondent has harassed her. However no specific allegations are being made against the respondents so as to prove the act of Domestic Violence. Mere allegations which are not specific and which are vague in nature cannot be accepted as proof of Domestic Violence.

READ  Stay in Shared Household without Domestic Relation is not Valid

13. The petitioner in her cross-examination she has admitted that properties mentioned in Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 were purchased by respondent and the same were transferred to the name of petitioner. Out of the said rented houses about Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- p.m. rents are received by the said petitioner. The petitioner and her son are living together in the house purchased by the respondent and the same is transferred in the name of petitioner. The entire expenses of marriage of daughter born to petitioner and respondent is borne by the respondent. The petitioner further admits that her son is working as an auditor and herself and her son are living together in the house purchased by the respondent and transferred in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner refuses to give one house out of three houses purchased by the respondent in her and her son’s name. On analyzing this version of the petitioner, it shows that petitioner is in well settled position and has approached this court against the respondent to harass the said respondent for no reasons.

14. When such being the case, the infliction of domestic violence made against the respondents gets diluted and same cannot be accepted. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is beneficiary legislation and is intended to protect the interest of wife. In order to claim any relief under the said Act, must satisfy and prove before this Court that she is an aggrieved woman U/s.2(a) of the said Act and she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined U/s.3 of Domestic violence Act. Hence on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 it establishes that except the vague allegations made against the respondent the petitioner has not proved her case of domestic violence against him.

READ  In-Laws Property is not shared household

15. The petitioner has sought for monetary relief of an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance. Since, the act of Domestic violence is not specifically proved before the Court, granting of monetary relief would be inappropriate. Hence, the said relief is liable to be declined. Hence, I answer Point No.1 IN THE NEGATIVE.

16. POINT No.2: In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, depositions and documentary evidence, this court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Office is directed to furnish copy of this order to both the parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court this the 17th day of October 2017).

(GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC – IV, BANGALORE.

ANNEXURE

1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER: P.W.1: Smt. Krishnaveni

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:

Ex.P.1: Wedding card Ex.P.2: Complaint copy Ex.P.3: FIR copy of Crl.Misc.No.132/14 Ex.P.4 to 11: Income-tax returns Ex.P.12: Site Form No.111 Ex.P.13: FIR copy of Crl.Misc.No.406/14 Ex.P.14: Complaint copy of PCR No.5092/14

3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT: R.W.1: Nataraj

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ex.R.1 to 3: Photos (GAYATHRI.S.KATE) MMTC – IV, BANGALORE.

One thought on “U/s.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, dismissed

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *