MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Domestic Violence Case Against Wife


Present : Sri P.Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao,
I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.


Between:Gogu Ram Kumar,
S/o.Subrahmanyam, Hindu,
Aged about 24 years,R/o.D.No.29,
Cheruvu centre Opposite of BRR water plant street,Nunna, Vijayawada. … Petitioner


1. Gogu Sai Chaitanya,
W/o.Gogu Ram Kumar,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o.D.No.5110,Netaji road, Nunna.
Vijayawada Rural.

2. Y.Bala Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 32 years, Hindu,
R/o.D.No.558,Netaji Road,Nunna, Vijayawada Rural.

3. Beemireddy Subbareddy,
Hindu, aged about 55 years,
R/o.D.No.5110,Netaji road,Vijayawada Rural, Nunna.…Respondents

This petition is comingup before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

This is a complaint petition filed by the petitioner against the Respondents Under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The facts of the petition in precise are as follows:

2) The Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent No.1 and their marriage took place on 11082017 at Sai Baba temple, Tadepalli according to Hindu Rites, customs and ceremonies in the presence of both side friends and later marriage was registered at Vijayawada SubRegistrar office on 31082017. the petitioner and R1 interested each other in Varun motors because both are doing job in varun motors. At the time of marriage the petitioner did not take single pie from the R1 because the petitioner believes that the R1 got first marriage to the petitioner and incurred Rs.60,000/for marriage expenses. The day before to the marriage, R1 told him that she was already married with one Yeruva Jamala Reddy on 27022004 at Mylavaram but there is no conjugal relation between them because R1 was not interested at him because of his higher age than R1 and her age is 14 and her first husband age is 27. And further she said to the petitioner that later they took sister’s daughter namely Bindu Saraswathi. On compelling circumstances petitioner believing these words and on attraction state, the petitioner marry the r1 against his parents will. Later the marriage in between the petitioner and the Respondent was consummated. Subsequently R1 joined the petitioner at his home and they resided at petitioner’s home for one week at Vijayawada to lead marital and conjugal life. But this marriage is not interested to the petitioner parents because R1 is Divorcee. Meanwhile R1 showed her attitude and recklessness towards the petitioner and she did not perform her part of liability and obligation to maintain the petitioner, she is dominating the petitioner and several times she abused the petitioner before his parents indiscriminately without reasonable cause. Meanwhile she demanded to live separately from the petitioners parents. The petitioner further submitted that before one day to the marriage the R1 reveal the secret to the petitioner that she already married with one Yeruva Jamala Reddy on 2722004 at Mylavaram there is no cohabitation, conjugal life between them but in fact issue is born between them i.e., Bindu Saraswathi. But the real fact was suppressed that she has an issue and both the respondent and her previous husband were living in a one roof for 11 years. But the R1 kept these entire secrets and dishonestly induced the petitioner by way of cheating. Even the petitioner waited patiently with fond hope that the R1 would change her attitude. But her main aim is to squeeze the money from the petitioner in the name of marriage. These things are happened in a span of one week. Then the petitioner reported the matter to her father. Even the respondent father showing his inability to pacify the matter because of the adamant nature of the R1. The elders of the petitioner try to settle the matter but in vain. She asked Rs.2,50,000/for discharge her debts and the petitioner gave the amount of Rs.2,50,000/to the R1 for discharge of her debts. The petitioner further submitted that R1 used mobile chart with her boy friends. Whenever he asked she gave evasive replies to him. She lodged 498A case against the petitioner and his parents and demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. Then there is no cohabitation and conjugal life between the petitioner and the R1. Both are lived separately in one roof. R1 used to harass the petitioner to bring amount from his parents. The petitioner vexed with the attitude of the Respondent and finally send mediators for reunion of the marital life with the R1. But she demanded Rs.10 lakhs to continue as her husband and demanded the petitioner to doe the marriage of her child. The petitioner further submitted that she harassed and black mail the petitioner to bring money for settlement otherwise they would file the cases like DVC, MC and Sec.498A case. Police send them for counseling and in that counseling the R1 asked Rs.10 lakh before the members of the counseling centre. Instead of rectifying herself R1 began to abuse the petitioner mercilessly and try to bet him. The marriage life of the petitioner is unhappy and the relationship become embittered and strained between the petitioner and R1 within a span of two months. Hence the complaintpetition.

See also  Petitioner must prove she is unable to maintain herself

3) On 07012018 the complaint is taken cognizance against the Respondents and numbered as DVC.No.03/2018. On 24012018 Petitioner is present. Respondent is present. They were examined as P.W.1 and R.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed himself and the R1 were residing at Nunna Village at the house of R1. After the amicable settlement in between the R1 and the petitioner, The R1 petition before the Protection Officer was withdrawn. The present petition is filed by the petitioner through his counsel against his interest at the instance of the counsel. In fact the present petition is against his will in the light of all the other matters are settled before the elders and no proceedings are pending between the petitioner and R1 and therefore the petition may be dismissed. R.W.1 in her evidence stated that they were living jointly and leading conjugal life happily at Nunna village in the rented house and the rent is providing by her paternal grand mother. Presently she is working as Customer Relation Executive in Nissan car show room at Vijayawada. The disputes in between the R1 and the petitioner are no longer existing and they are living happily by leading their conjugal life at Nunna and therefore the petitioner and the Respondent prayed the court to dismiss the petition and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of January, 2018.

See also  Divorce upheld, illicit relationship, false allegations of Section 498A



PETITIONER:P.W.1: Gogu Ram Kumar

RESPONDENT:R.W.1: Gogu Sai Chaitanya

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

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…

See also  DV dismissed - Sonia versus Vinod
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation