MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Domestic Violence is not proved, Maintenance claim 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 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

Crl.Misc.No.228/2013

PETITIONER: Smt. Shwetha K.S.,
W/o. Srinivasa H.V.,
Age: 30 years,
R/at No.154/1,Hoddetty Nilaya,
Siddareddy Road,Doddanekundi Post,Marathahalli,Bangalore – 560 037

VS.

RESPONDENT: 1) Sri Srinivasa H.V.,
S/o. Venkappa H.G.,
Age: 34 years,
R/at No.154/1,Hoddetty Nilaya,
Siddareddy Road,Doddanekundi Post,Marathahalli,Bangalore – 560 037

Now Working at:

Srinviasa H.V.,
Over Seas Business Manager,
Jinwoo SMC Co., Ltd.,
# 266-7, OSAN-RI,Chunpo-myun, Iksan City,Jellabuk Province,Jeonju – 570952 (Republic of Korea)
2 Crl.Misc.No.228/2013

Chollabuk, Korea South,
Phone No.0082-63-8382529
Fax No.0082-63-8382527

2) Sri Venkappa H.G.,
S/o. Late Ganapathi,
Age: 62 years,
R/at No.154/1,Hoddetty Nilaya,
Siddareddy Road,Doddanekundi Post,Marathahalli,Bangalore – 560 037

3) Smt. Sharada,
W/o. Venkappa H.G.,
Age: 59 years,
R/at No.154/1,Hoddetty Nilaya,
Siddareddy Road,Doddanekundi Post,Marathahalli,Bangalore – 560 037

***

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.18, 19, 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 1st respondent on 28-03-2012 in Amarashree Kalyana Mantap at Sullia Town, Dakshina Kannada District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. During the time of the marriage as per the demand of the respondents, the parents of the applicant gave sufficient gold ornaments and silver articles and other house hold articles to the respondents worth of Rs.10 Lakhs and spent about Rs.5 Lakhs towards the marriage expenditure. The said marriage was registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar at Sullia on 02-04-2012. After the marriage ceremony, on the same night of 28-03-2012 the applicant was taken to her matrimonial house at Bangalore, as the respondents are permanent resident of Bangalore city in the address shown above. The 1st respondent is the only son and he has one younger sister who also is in Germany. The 1st respondent is an Engineer, working as Overseas Business Manager in a private company at South Korea. On the same night of the marriage, the mother-in-law gave an old saree to the applicant and asked her to keep all the footwear’s inside which belonged to them except her footwear. On the next day on wards her mother-in-law used to listen the conversations which she was having over mobile whenever the applicant speaks with her parents. Whenever they gone to temples, she used to offer pooja in the names of her family members except in the name of applicant. Since the 1st respondent is working in South Korea, the applicant needed VISA to go to South Korea along with him, hence both were planned to go to Mumbai after staying few days in matrimonial home. On that day when they were ready to go to Mumbai, her father-in-law / the 2nd respondent started to abuse the applicant saying that for their bad luck they got such a bride and nobody was there to marry her, she is not a suitable girl for his son in any manner and there were several good and rich proposals came to his son etc. He is an Ex-serviceman and a dominated person. He had abused the applicant and insulted her parents in front of her and asked her to go out of his house and thrown all her belongs, hence she came to her friend’s room. On the same evening her husband came and took her to Mumbai. After few days she got VISA and she requested her husband to go to her parents house near Mangalore and thereafter a day go back to Bangalore. But the 1st respondent got angry and asked her to sign on a blank paper and go to her parent’s house. Finally on her request he came up to Mangalore city and left her in the bus stand and he went to Bangalore. The applicant alone gone to her parents house at Sullia which is about 100 k.m. from Mangalore City. After 4 days the applicant went to her matrimonial house at Bangalore along with her parents. The respondents all together started to abuse the applicant and her parents even before entering to their house. They had insulted her and her parents and degraded them. The parents of the applicant tried to pacify them and begged their pardon and went back to their home. The applicant and her parents have controlled them slaves with the hope that the 1st respondent will take the applicant to Korea along with him and may lead happy married life. But after few days during the month of May 2012 the 1st respondent alone left for Korea saying that he has to report his duty immediately and also he has to search for a house for the family accommodation and there after he will call the applicant etc. As per his assurance the applicant stayed in her matrimonial house along with her in-laws. Only for few days, the 1st respondent used to speak in e-mail, thereafter he discontinued the contacts and his whereabouts was not know to her. He did not give his phone number or his address to her. When she asked with her in-laws they were refused to give and started to abuse the applicant saying that who is she to ask all those things as she has not brought anything from her parents, as such the 2nd and 3rd respondents were harassed the applicant and gave her mental torture. The 2nd respondent used to ask the applicant to keep her jewels in the bank locker. IN the earlier occasion when the 2nd and 3rd respondents were talking with the mother of the applicant that they construct a house if they are supported with financially by the applicants side. The respondent are not satisfied with the jewels and other items given by the parents of the applicant. The applicant told about these harassments given by her in-laws with the 1st respondent when he came to Bangalore for this sister’s marriage during the month of November 2012. He replied that she can take a separate house by borrowing money from her parents or to stay in his house without rasising any voice. He left for Kroea within 7 days saying that he will arrange the house and VISA and call the applicant but remained silent. Thereafter the in-laws are objecting the applicant to reside in their house and are trying to send her to her parents house by giving her maximum torture. Hence she had given a complaint to Halasur gate women police station on 18-09-2013. The police sent the complaint for family counseling at Prihar in the office of the Commissioner. The 1st respondent had appeared one or two times and sought for time to take her but thereafter remained absent and left Korea without intimating anybody. The 1st respondent got married with the applicant with an assurance that he will take her to South Korea few days of the marriage, there after the postponed to take her and failed to give her marital life. Several panchayaths were held on that regard in the presence of well wishers and elders of the family and finally by the family counseling but one or the other reasons he avoided her to take along with him even after lapse of 1 year 8 months. On the other hand the respondents are harassed her and given mental torture and declined to keep her in the matrimonial house. Hence the applicant has been cheated by the respondents. The 1st respondent is only the son, working as a Over Seas Business Manager at South Korea, since 8 years drawing salary more than Rs.2 Lakhs of Indian rupees per month and owns a flat at Mumbai. The respondents are residing in their own house situated in the above address which is the matrimonial home. The applicant is not working and she does not have independent sources of income to maintain herself. The 2nd respondent after his retirement from Air Force joined DRDO hence he is getting sufficient retirement amount. The 1st respondent does not have other commitments than to look after the applicant. His sister an Engineer got married and working at Germany. Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to order of following reliefs:

READ  Sister-in-law 498A quash

a) Pass residence order as provided U/s.17, 19(a)(d)(e) and

(f)(2)(3)(7) of the Act and to direct the respondents No.1, 2, 3 to allow her to reside in the matrimonial house / shared house hold No.154/1, “Hoddetty Nilaya”, Siddareddy Road, Doddanekundi Post, Marathalli, Bangalore – 560 037 OR To direct the 1st respondent to secure the same level of alternative accommodation to the applicant by paying the rent around Rs.15,000/- p.m. with security deposit of Rs.2 Lakhs.

b) Protection orders to prohibit the respondents committing any act of domestic violence as provided U/s.18(a)(b)(f)(q) of the Act. Providing with police protection.

c) Direct the 1st respondent to pay monetary reliefs for the maintenance of the applicant / complainant a total sum of Rs.40,000/- p.m. or to pay lump sum amount of Rs.90 Lakh as provided U/s.20(2)(3) of the Act.

d) To pay a total compensation of Rs.90 Lakh as provided U/s.22 of the Act.

e) Direct the respondent to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the applicant.

Any other order, direction, reliefs which deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and cost of the case. In the interest of justice and equity.

3. After registration of the case, summons was issued to the respondents and they appeared through their counsel and filed detailed statement of objection denying each and every allegations made against them and pray for the dismissal of petition.

4. In order to substantiate their respective contentions, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. The respondent No.1 got examined himself as R.W.1 and examined 3 other witnesses on his behalf as R.W.2 to R.W.4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8.

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 21 documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. The respondent No.1 has not disputed the marital status since the respondent No.1 has admitted the marriage and paternity the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 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 ºÁQgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è EgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ©E.,JAJ¸ï N¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¦f ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ 2008£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è ¦f N¢ ªÀÄÄV¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ arrange marriage DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «zÁå¨sÁå¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ DUÀ CªÀgÀÄ 9 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ°èzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ 2006£Éà E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ ¸Ëvï PÉÆjAiÀiÁzÀ°èzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸Ëvï PÉÆjAiÀiÁPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ 1 wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÉ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA§¬ÄUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV «Ã¸Á ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è JµÀÄÖ ¢£À EzÉÝ JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁæ JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß £ÉAlgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÉÝ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß £ÉAlgÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£ÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°èzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ Hj£À°ègÀivÉÛÃ£É PÉ®ªÀÅ ¸À® F PÉùUÉÆøÀÌgÀ E°èUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß £ÉAlgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃgÁ DzÀgÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ C°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà SÁAiÀÄA «¼Á¸À EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è CzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉʪÁ»PÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ MAzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸À® MAzÉÆAzÀÄ £ÉAlgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CªÀgÀ «¼Á¸À £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä Cfð CxÀªÁ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À E®èzÉ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ D «¼Á¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀļÁîV PÉÆnÖgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄnæªÉÆäAiÀÄ¯ï ºÉÆêÀiï JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ MAzÀĪÁgÀQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¢£À ¤ªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CfðAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.10®PÀë ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ a£ÁߨÀsgÀtzÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CfðAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÀAvÀ gÀÆ.10®PÀë ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ a£Àß ¨É½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ©®ÄèUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉýzÁUÉ gÀÆ.10®PÀë ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ a£Àß ¨É½î ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖ®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CzÀgÀ°è K£ÀÆ §gÉ¢zÉ JA§ÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ F PÉù£À°è protection officer ¬ÄAzÀ AiÀƪÀÅzÉà ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀ¹®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ vÀj¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ F CfðAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀĪÀ ¤ªÀÄä «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁV®è DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV protection officer ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀgÀ¹®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀj¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤.¦.12gÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÉÆqÀĪÀ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAZÀÉ ¤ªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ D zÀÆj£À°è ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤.¦.12gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉý®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤.¦.12gÀ°ègÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ JA§ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉüÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß CzÀgÀ°è ºÉý £À£Àß fêÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß complicate ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆnÖ®è DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ D zÀÆj£À°è ºÉý®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÀAiÀÄ°è §gÉà MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ E¢ÝgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀQÌAvÀ eÁ¹Û ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ EzÀÉÝ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉýzÁUÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆnÖ®è CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À馅 ªÀÆr ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁrzÀ post graduation UÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖºÁUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÀA§¼ÀzÀ PÉ®¸À ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÆ.16,000.0 ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ GzÉÝñÀ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV PÀrªÉÄ ¹PÀÄÌvÀzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ fresher UÉ CµÀÉÖà PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. 2008£ÀÉà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀzÀ«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß N¢ ªÀÄÄV¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¥ÀzÀ« ªÀÄÄV¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ J¸ïJ¦ ¯Áå¨ï£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ EzÉÝ. DUÀ £À£UÀ É ¸ÀĪÀÆgÀÄ gÀÆ.50,000.00 ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÁÛ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ D PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ D PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉVAvÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ©mÉÖ. £Á£ÀÄ MlÄÖ 3.5ªÀµÀð PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥ÁægÀA¨ÀszÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ gÀÆ.18,000.00 ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÁÛ EvÀÄÛ. PÉêÀ® 3.5 ªÀµÀðzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§¼À gÀÆ.50,000.00 D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀÄ technology ªÉÄÃ¯É depend DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁrzÀ post graduation ¬ÄAzÀ efficiency ªÀÄvÀÄÛ skill EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ E®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ PÀÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ D technology FUÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ FUÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ EzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ E®è JAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ E¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ®Æ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ FUÀ Hj¤AzÀ PÉùUÉÆøÀÌgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §gÀÄvÁÛ EzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ gÀÆ.2®PÀë ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯Áw ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÁUÉ ¤ªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ gÀÆ.2®PÀë ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÁÛ E®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CªÀjUÉ CµÀÄÖ ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄvÁÛ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ.

¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ gÀÆ.40,000.00 fêÀ£ÁA±À CxÀªÁ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.90®PÀë ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃgÁ CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉý¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£Àß AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¸Ëvï PÉÆjAiÀiÁPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ fêÀ£ÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ »vÁ¸ÀQÛ vÉÆÃj¸ÀÄvÁÛ E®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ¨ÉÃPÁ CxÀªÁ E®èªÁ JA§ÄzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£É ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£À¤vÀåzÀ RaðUÉ PÉýgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀÄPÀ̽®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ consummate DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤ªÀÄUÉ wAUÀ½UÉ gÀÆ.40,000.00 fêÀ£ÁA±À ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ MvÁÛAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQ®è ¤ÃªÉà ¸ÀévÀB ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄi ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è EgÀĪÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃV ¤ªÀÄUÉ EgÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ M§â¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀÉÆÃzÀj EzÀÄÝ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀÄ £À£Àß matrimonial house JAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ D «¼Á¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀévÀB ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÁQëUÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀsåAvÀgÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ ¤ÃªÀÅ CzÀgÀ°è gɹqÉ£ïì DqÀðgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ µÉÃgï ºË¸ï ºÉÆïïØ£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉý CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁQgÀÄwÛÃgÁ CzÀgÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ¤d CxÀªÁ ¸ÀļÁî JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹ ¸ÁQëUÉ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £Á£ÀÄ F PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁPÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß matrimonial house £À°è EgÀ°®è JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀgÀÄ.

READ  Whether factors are to be taken in consideration while deciding bail application?

¸ÀzÀj PÉÃ¸ï £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀ®A 17 ¦qÀ§Æèår« DPïÖ CrAiÀÄ°è 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ 01 CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj Cfð ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¨ÁA¨ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ EgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹zÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀ°®è. 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ¨ÁA§É ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉݪÀÅ. K¦æ¯ï 2012 gÀ°è 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉݪÀÅ. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁV EzÀÄzÀÝPÁÌV £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁRP¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯É E®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ 8£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è 02 ¨ÉqïgÀÆA, 01 CrUɪÀÄ£É, 01 ºÁ¯ï ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV® ¢PÀÄÌ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢QÌUÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £ÀÄr¢gÀĪÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëUÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÁA¨ÉAiÀÄ°è GzÉÆåÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ D¸ÀQÛ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¨ÁA¨ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ EzÁÝgÉ DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ J°è EgÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÁA¨ÉAiÀÄ°è fêÀ£À £ÀqɸÀ®Ä CUÀvÀåªÁzÀ PÁgÀt ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÁgÀt £À£Àß §½ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀQÌAvÀ ¨ÁA¨É ¥sÁèmï£À°è DVgÀĪÀÅzÉà ºÉZÀÄÑ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¨ÁA¨ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ M§â¼Éà ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÀ®è JAzÀgÉ ºËzÀÄ. 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÀ®A 17 D¥sï ¦qÀ§Æèår DPïÖ £À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî. £Á£ÀÄ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛ ºÁPÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À®Ä £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀzÀj zsÁªÉAiÀÄ°è CA±ÀªÀÅ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀQîgÀÄ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DAUÀè ¨sÁµÉ £À£UÀ É w½¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj CA±ÀªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ N¢ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸À» ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj »A¸É¬ÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀݪÀÅ. ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀiÁUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀzÀj aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀzÀPÁÌV £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß §½ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ®UÀvÀÄÛ DVgÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁV EgÀzÉà EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ºÉýgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ «¼ÀÁ¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉýgÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀægÀPÀtzÀ°è JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉãÁzÀgÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ M¼§â¼ÉúÉÆÃV CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉà JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. AiÀiÁªÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉà JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ EµÀÖ«®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.

JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀz¢zÀÝgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝÃ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj «¼Á¸À¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ ºÁPÀĪÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå. «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ »A¸É PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë zÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÁÝgÉAiÉÄà JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ºËzÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¥ÀævÀåPÀë zÀ²ðUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgï, ¸ÀÆgÁå£ÀAzï, DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀĤ¯ïPÀĪÀiÁgï £À£Àß CtÚ£ÁVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀÆgÁå£ÀAzï ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ 21 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® EzÉÝãÀÄ. 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ DzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ JAzÀÄ zÀÆj£À w½¹gÀĪÀ jÃw D ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «¼Á¸À £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ «¼Á¸ÀÀªÀ£ÀÄß £É£À¦£À°èlÄÖPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁzÀsåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. zÀÆj£À°è ºÉýgÀĪÀ J¯Áè «ZÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀåPÉÌ zÀÆgÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ £ÀqɸÀ®Ä MmÁÖV §¼Á®Ä EµÀÖ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. 01£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ «zÉñÀPÉÌAzÀÄ vÉgÀ¼ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß £À£ÀUÉ «¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ DzÀgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £Á£ÀÄ «zÉɱÀÃPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CºÀðvÉAiÀÄÆ EgÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀÄwÛÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ.

11. On perusal of these depositions it is clear that relationship between the petitioners and 1st respondent is not in dispute. The petitioner has failed to prove the 1st respondent has harassed them. 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.

12. The petitioner in her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the respondent she has admitted that she do not remember for how many days she has stayed with her husband in the matrimonial home from the day of marriage. Further she has denied that she has stayed in the said matrimonial home for the period of one week. She has admitted that in the year 2008 she has completed her graduation. Immediate after her graduation she joined company by name SAP Lab and was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m. Presently she is not working anywhere. She has deposed that if she had continued in the said job she would have earned more than the salary which she was earning earlier.

13. Further in her cross-examination she has admitted herself and respondent No.1 do not have any children born out of their wedlock. Her marriage with respondent No.1 is not consummated. Further she do not remember when and on what day the respondents had harassed and tortured her. Further she has deposed that for the period of 21 days in total she has stayed in the matrimonial home.

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 No.1, the petitioner has not proved her case of domestic violence against him.

15. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed two citations on the behalf of respondent. They reads as follows:

16. I (2013) DMC 774 Allahabad High Court, Vikas Pandey Vs. Vandita Gautam, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Maintenance – Disentitlement of wife – Wife is highly educated particularly more than the husband and clearly in a position to earn more – Section 18 of Act deals with the situation where wife is unable to maintain herself – Plaintiff – respondent not entitled to any maintenance – Decree of maintenance awarded by Trial Court set aside.

17. Their lordship in para 18 and 19 of said citation opined that “So far as the merit of the appeal is concerned the appellant has proved by documentary evidence that the plaintiff – respondent being a highly educated lady and engaged as lecturer in different colleges at different time, was receiving salary much more than the appellant. The Bombay High Court has also held that the wife is not entitled to maintenance when it was clearly established that the income of the wife was better than the husband. It is also important to mention here that section 18 of the Act or Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the situation where the wife is unable to maintain herself. The word ‘unable’ means that a person is not able to do what he is supposed to do. In the present matter, it is not a case that the wife is an illiterate lady or is not in a position to do any job, on the contrary the wife is highly educated particularly more than the husband and is clearly in a position to earn more. This also disentitles her to get any maintenance.”

READ  Principles while considering petition for Condonation of delay reiterated, lack of bona fides is ground for dismissal

18. II (2000) DMC 170 Madhya Pradesh High Court, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs. Rajesh Jaiswal. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section – 24 – Pendente Lite Alimony : Purpose of Enactment : Not Meant for Supporting Idle (Qualified) Spouses Waiting for ‘Dole’ to be Awarded by Her Husband – Section 24 has been enacted for purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself / herself in spite of sincere efforts – Spouse well qualified to get service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out his / her purse by cut in nature of pendent elite alimony – Wife well qualified woman possessing qualification like M.Sc., M.C. M.Ed. – How can such a lady remain without service – Lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce, cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on husband for demanding pendente lite alimony from him during pendency of matrimonial petition – Amount of Rs.800/- p.m. awarded to wife as pendent elite alimony not challenged by husband – No variation or modification is necessary – Directions issued to Matrimonial court and husband.

19. Their lordship in para 6, 8 and 9 of said citation opined that “In Fact, well qualified spouses desirous of remaining idle, not making efforts for the purpose of finding out a source of livelihood, have to be discouraged, if the society wants to progress. The spouses who are quarrelling and coming to the Court in respect of matrimonial disputes, have to be guided for the purpose of amicable settlement as early as possible and, therefore, grant of luxurious, excessive facilities by way of pendente lite alimony and extra expenditure has to be discouraged. Even then, if the spouses do not think of amicable settlement, the Matrimonial courts should dispose of the matrimonial petitions as early as possible. The matrimonial courts have to keep it in mind that the quarrels between the spouses create dangerous impact on minds of their off springs of such wedlocks. The off springs do not understand as to where they should see ? towards father or towards mother ? By seeing them both fighting, making allegations against each other, they get bewildered. Such bewilderedness and loss of affection of parents is likely to create a trauma on their minds and brains. This frustration amongst children of tender ages is likely to create complications which would ruin their future. They cannot be exposed to such danger on account of such fighting parents.

20. In the present case the husband has not challenged the order. Therefore, no variation or modification in it is necessary though this revision petition stands dismissed. The Matrimonial Court is hereby directed to decide the matrimonial petition which is pending amongst these two spouses as early as possible. The Matrimonial Court is directed to submit month wise report about the progress of the said matrimonial petition to his court so as to secure continuous, unobstructed progress of matrimonial petition. No order as to costs. The amount of pendente lite alimony payable to Mamta Jaiswal by husband Rajesh Jaiswal should be deposited by him within a month by counting the date from the date of order. The failure on this aspect would result in dismissal of this matrimonial petition. He should continue payment of Rs.400/- p.m. to his daughter Ku. Diksha Jaiswal right from the date of presentation of application of her maintenance i.e., 14-05-1998. That has to be also deposited within a month. He may take out sufficient money for that from his savings or take a loan from some good concern or loan granting agencies. Failure in this aspect also would result in dismissal of his petition C.C.”

21. On perusal of above citations and applying for the same formula to the present case this court is of the opinion that the present petitioner is highly educated and clearly is in a position to earn more than the respondent No.1 husband. In the present case the petitioner is able to do what she is supposed to do being highly educated and is in a position to earn more than her husband i.e., respondent No.1 this disentitles petitioner to get any maintenance from her husband respondent No.1. Further before marriage petitioner was earning more than the salary which the husband respondent No.1 is earning now. Only for seeking maintenance against the husband respondent No.1 the petitioner has quitted the job and has come before this court seeking for maintenance and other monetary reliefs. On perusal of pleadings, depositions, and available materials on record this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands.

22. The petitioner has prayed for a protection order U/s.18 of Act. As discussed above the petitioner has failed to prove the fact of Domestic Violence by the respondent on her. Such being the case, this court cannot grant relief under the Sec 18 of the Act. A part from the self serving statements in the petition and her chief examination affidavit, the petitioner has failed to substantiate by producing cogent documents or iota evidence to prove her case. Thus she is not entitled for the relief U/s.18 of PWDV Act.

23. The petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondent to provide an alternative residence as per Sec 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. As discussed above the petitioner has failed to prove the fact of Domestic Violence by the respondent on her. Such being the case, this court cannot grant relief under the Sec 19 of the Act. A part from the self serving statements in the petition and her chief examination affidavit, the petitioner has failed to substantiate by producing cogent documents or iota evidence to prove her case. Thus she is not entitled for the relief U/s.19 of PWDV Act.

24. The petitioner has sought for monetary relief of an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.40,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses. 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 on careful perusal of the pleadings and documents before this Court and for the above discussions, I answer Point No.1 IN THE NEGATIVE.

25. POINT No.2: In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition 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 18th day of December 2017).

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

ANNEXURE

1) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER: P.W.1: Smt. Shwetha K.S.

2) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:

Ex.P.1: Marriage photo
Ex.P.2: C.D.
Ex.P.3: Marriage invitation’
Ex.P.4: Marriage certificate
Ex.P.5: to 10: Receipts
Ex.P.11: Notice
Ex.P.12: Complaint dt.18-09-2013
Ex.P.13 and 14: Statements
Ex.P.15: Statement dt.28-10-2013
Ex.P.16: Draft condition
Ex.P.17: Counseling notice
Ex.P.18: 3 Page document in Marati Language
Ex.P.18(a): Translation copy
Ex.P.19: City Industrial Development Corporation Maharashtra 12 page document
Ex.P.19(a): Translation copy
Ex.P.20: 5 page Internet profile document
Ex.P.21: Agreement of sale

3) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT: R.W.1: Srinvias H.V.

R.W.2: Dayanada R.W.3: Venkappa R.W.4: Lingaraju

4) LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Ex.R.1: Foreign exchange receipt
Ex.R.2: Jinwoo SMC Co., Ltd., Letter dt.07-12-2015
Ex.R.3: Letter of notice dt.07-12-2015 Jinwoo SMC Co., Ltd.,
Ex.R.4: Dt.05-07-2017 EMS postal cover
Ex.R.5: Dt.22-06-2017 certificate of employment
Ex.R.6: Amount deposit on online HDFC Bank document
Ex.R.7: Dt.13/2017 HDFC document
Ex.R.8: Two marriage photo dt.14-01-2014 letter, Syndicate Bank statement , Marriage C.D,
Receipt dt.25-01-2012 and 27-01-2012

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

14 thoughts on “Domestic Violence is not proved, Maintenance claim dismissed

  1. The rarest case that can exist in concluding sentences!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Educated lady not entitled for maintenance .Under which section of indian law.Kindly elaborate.

    go through the concluding statements sensitively anybody.

  2. the rarest sentences in the conclusion
    “EDUCATED LADY NOT ENTITLED FOR MAINTENANCE”

    Which section of indian law???

  3. We reported abusive messages to cyber police Bangalore and also High court weeks back and waiting for their action.
    Best of luck

  4. Please refer to the set of comments in this case appearing ” 3 comments” along with the link in the same case as well.

    Everybody should go through this entire file very sensitively in this case in particular not only petition as pasted in this case. there exists lot of other documents in this file. Please go through every statement of this judgement. dont even ignore every silly thing w.r.t documentary existence in this file .

    “EDUCATED LADY NOT ENTITLED FOR MAINTENANCE.”which section of law???

    @Mynation:Let this website be not to promote terrorism of cheating others.Let such things not throw negative message to the society to spoil and live by threatening the lives of others.Let us live as human beings first.

    “EDUCATED LADY NO MAINTENANCE”.which section of indian law???

  5. header of this Judgment is “Domestic Violence is not proved, Maintenance claim dismissed” not EDUCATED LADY NO MAINTENANCE

  6. Above comment is not specifically w.r.t the header of the judgement.Above comment is to go through thoroughly and sensitively on the statements of this judgement w.r.t the grounds being considered to avoid maintenance is genuinely sound or not w.r.t the documents of this file is a crucial one.

    educated lady should go for job only???which section of indian law??

    Husband need not maintain wife as the lady is educated.HUSBAND CAN LIVE AWAY FROM HIS WIFE FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT MAINTAINING HIS WIFE.NO DUTY FOR HUSBAND in this case in particular.Husband can lead his life happily in south korea whereas the petitioner’s condition is being totally neglected.what are the genuine efforts put forth by the husband to take her to his working place?Is that existing in the file along with the directions being given to the petitioner by him to apply for visa process,etc???Dv not proved. ?? Husband not maintaining wife is not dv .Leaving off wife and living according to his wish is not DV.??”DV not proved”??
    This is one of the specifically rarest cases.

    As the lady is educated, no maintenance to her.This is what “EDUCATED LADY NO MAINTENANCE” of this case.

  7. Educated wife should not approach court in this case.Educated wife should go for job only in this case .Which section of indian law?

    Husband can live abroad several years without maintaining wife.wife should go for job in india as understood from the judgement .then why did they marry?Marriage for this case respondent is limited only for 21 days ?Then Why DV not proved?it wouldnot take one and half years to take her to south korea at all if his efforts were genuine . Husband is abroad since several years, wife in india.What is the status of suffering of the petitioner?D v not proved?
    Misconduct.

  8. Gone through the file entirely.documents are changed, documents missing in the court file .No enquiry held w.r.t alteration of documents.
    No where husband proved he is dutiful.
    Status of suffering of the petitioner is totally neglected on priority.
    It is a proven dv. husband didnot maintain wife.

  9. Ultimate agenda of the magistrate is to throw divorce to the petitioner.married people should go for divorce only according to this magistrate. If so y marriage for them?

    It is that magistrate knowing paternity of respondents. Point to be considered is the impact of magistrate’s known paternity.respondent no 1 having young ones rolling around his legs known to magistrate and in this case magistrate abused petitioner by praising respondent no1’s paternity.

    I request everyone to go through the file respondent no 1 disputed the relationship throughout the file.
    There are unauthorized documents created in the file throwing away the modesty of the petitioner.
    Magistrate’s paternity praising of respondents is totally a fake sentence which acted as a tool by the magistrate to uphold pennis of respondents

  10. There is a saying ” dead body when seen money opens up its mouth “.Means it is the money which bends everybody.We read lots of news in the newspaper that corruption is reduced.But we have also read in the newspaper,online portals, etc that corruption exists in this sector as well.we have heard the news of corrupted judicial officers as well, we have also seen their images in the internet as well.!!!.We have also read about the fraud in indian society.
    There are still few fraud government officers who make money under the table.so what these fraud officers do.not each and every government officer is fraud.But few fraud officers are still existing.
    what these fraud officers do is they will try to favour the paper on the influencing party when there exists other party.When opposition party is there then its a jack pot for these lower officers.they will try to hide the negative things in favour of influencing party and execute their power.they will try the maximum to escape from his higher authority.if there are any chances of being caught, this lower level officer will go with his money bag to higher level officer to hide his wrong and this chain repeats and this exists in each and every small, mid and high levels in the indian society.
    what these fraud people will be confident of is the political people.using political power, official power,the government officers play fraud and make money is what existing in indian society.Money and muscle power plays an important role in every small, mid and high level sectors of indian society.This is not a zero corruption country.Corruption is still existing.Only thing because of digitalization it is reduced.to conclude, wherever there are human beings,thare are chances of fraud. when there is fight it is jackpot only.It is a normal human tendancy who look out for money.So all are human beings involved.The money minded person cannot leave any money at all that too when they get the jackpot, its celebration to enjoy seeing the suffering end.This salivating person for money will run behind every other human being for money also and vice versa definitely exists in nature.
    Such fraud workers based on money and influential links,buy justice and praisings.
    Magistrate praised the respondent everywhere in the file and the lady is being abused.
    Respondent quite specifically clear had a specific intension in this case.The status of suffering of the petitioner is neglected on priority basis.

    YES.concluding meant “educated lady should go for job” and case dismissed.Lots of lots things totally ignored and non existing things created in the file to just dismiss the case to quote “no relationship”.The clear detail naturally available in the court file.Certain things that cannot happen to this scenario being created to dismiss the case.

    I heard that and it is genuine that this case respondent has relative of ruling political party.Through this they are connected to other people.This lady is innocent I have observed in the court.People(advocates )of either sides, mislead her.I observed that the agreement between either side of lawyers to harass the petitioner is executed.

    Everyday hearing specially for respondent when husband appeared the court.I heard that this respondent has got political influence.That influencing political person is the respondent’s relative.Also, the respondent has got connections with hackers.The most important thing is there is a most beautiful waiting in queue to legalise the relationship with this respondent.So, the respondent is being praised and petitioner is being sexually abused in the concluding statements.The magistrate executed her power to praise the respondent using internet portals.I have also obtained the document of the challenging court.That is not being published.Magistrate using media to promote legalising relationship with the most beautifully waiting lady in queue by praising him and degrading the petitioner.Court has violently given special respect to this respondent after appearing the court.nobody can question these.Magistrate didnot even given any chance to the petitioner to question the ongoinings as she arranged for everyday hearings.As far as the petitioners hearing considered, every hearing had taken time. But for a man it was everyday hearing.Quite intentional available in court file.

    Huge injustice caused to the petitioner.Bear in mind if the petitioner takes up any step to find this cheating happeninigs, the probability is that the respective officer will abuse, or speak very softly, behave diplomatically and at the end the result will favour the respondents.If this case favours the respondent means it is crystal clear it as fraud.

    I also request other people to still update about the matter existing in the court file.

    Anybody knowing this case please update in this website under this case if petitioner gets justice or not.This conclusion is injustice whatsoever the quoted “no relationship” meant.Check if any naturality, responsibility exhibited to merely vaguely quote “no relationship”.It is quite specific infleuence existed.
    When anybody questions, as specified above, those involved people just know to defend by telling lies.dificult to derive truth.But Irrelavantly deliberately concluded.

    That is the lady went to court for the subsequent four years to watch this drama???
    Connsider her life .man = woman!!!which law???Human beings are biological . Not objects.Clear such an influencing respondent was courageous and confident specifically.There were no influencing people to this petitioner.Objects and human beings are different.
    Though respondent admitted that he left his wife, magistrate didnot even make any attempt to mention in the conclusion because of her power.Power has some limitations.

    Every citizen in India has got equal rights.Because of influence and power, justice cannot be derived.Every law is applicable to each and every citizen.Petitioner being cheated.
    Cheated conclusion.Not true.It is the Lady being cheated in mmtc 4 because of influences in PWDVAct.Why these sections are just written in books for decent and innocent people.People who has influence can buy justice??? Lady should go to court and spoil her life is what these sections made in indian society?Very bad.

    The ground of quoted “no relationship” created by the advocates of the respondents and conclusive statements are abusive.Very bad. This is justice.It is linked to write bravely like this and publish in internet sites.Guess it is one of the fixed divorce case.

    Please take up the steps, let us see how the way it comes out.If it comes out in their favour, it is one of the fixed case.No improvements when the real life of this married couple is considered.This point is hidden in the conclusive statements rather co-operated in creating a natural ground to quote “no relationship”.Quote to obtain divorce from the petitioner by undertaking cheating steps.

    Petitioner, please take up steps and update the result in this website under this case itself.It was a story of 21 days, for lady by dragging the case to naturally creating ground to quote “no relationship”.Don’t worry, this is biased judgement.This is not called as justice.This is the power that executed based on influence and looks like the concluder knowing respondent’s family story and there are chances that the magistrate is respondent’s family friend. so, she showed mercy on the respondent.
    By cheating legally they have created the ground to quote “no relationship”.Naturally as being observed in the petition, he clearly avoided her.
    99.99999999% you can never get justice out of it.Such huge mistakes in the conclusions courageously published in the websites.
    What so happens, like court grants divorce quoting “no relationship” to the respondent clearly is something different as explained in the above scenarios.

  11. sorry .Last statement it is mentitoned as “something different”.It is something similar.
    Specifically under law, it is a cheating case .Cheated by the respondents,concluderand either side of the advocates and there can be chances of information hacking people. Clearly cheated by totally hiding the naturality of undertaking steps irrespective mere submissions. Very bad.

    If so,Why under indian law, any law is not applicable to this innocent lady?.?.
    This is called as injustice.

  12. This lady is not Able to get job as she doesn’t have any ability.she is suffering from mental torture since eight years.

    No job,a lady cannot lead marital life.she has to go for divorce only is the requirement of marital life for this case respobdents.man is working though inability to work caused bcoz of his wrong and she is suffering is also zero considered rather he has been honored and petitioner though suffering being abused.
    God should punish all the interferred people to the core and they shouldn’t rest in Peace for ever and for their multiple births.very bad.petitioner will definitely get justice from god.

Comments are closed.

Copyright © 2020 MyNation KnowledgeBase
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

READ  Principles while considering petition for Condonation of delay reiterated, lack of bona fides is ground for dismissal
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation