R
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 282 OF 2018
BETWEEN
MRS. NEELAM MANMOHAN,
W/O MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (AVOUCHED)
AGE 60 YEARS
R/AT PARK, OPPOSITE 38/1
30TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN
7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 082.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NEELAM MANMOHAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON))
AND
SRI. MANMOHAN ATTAVAR DIN 00053270
S/O MUTTHAPPA ATTAVAR
AGE 83 YEARS
R/AT 38/1, 30TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 082.
DECEASED.
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(a) ARTHUR SANTHOSH ATTAVAR DIN 00564983
MANAGING DIRECTOR
INDO-AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD
SURVEY NO. 13/4 14
7TH KM, BANASHANKAR-KENGERI LINK ROAD
CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE
:2:
RAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 098
1(b) JANE RUHAMARASHMI ATTAVAR DIN 00066557
JOING MANAGING DIRECTOR
INDO-AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS (INDIA) PVT. LTD
SURVEY NO. 13/4 14
7TH KM, BANASHANKAR-KENGERI LINK ROAD
CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE
RAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 098
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1A R1B)
CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO EXP 51 DATED 07.02.2001
EMPHASIZES ON RECORD BEFORE DCP SOUTH WHO IS
NOW COMMISSIONER POLICE, BOTH PERSONAL AND
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND DR.
TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 30.07.2015:
FALTERS ON MISREADING OF AND INCORRECT
WEIGHTAGE TO EVIDENCE ON RECORD. RANDOM
CHECK WILL REINFORCE THIS CONTENTION.
ALL THROUGH, THE ORDER FLAGS PETITIONER’S
CALIBER AND COMPETENCE. DR HIMSELF IN SMS
EXCHANGE ON 13.08.2010 (EXP 80) STATES: YOU ARE
SO UNREASONABLE IN SPITE OF ALL YOUR
BRILLIANCE.
A STRONG MOTIVE FOR SELF GAIN IS EVIDENT IN
DOC 10 APPENDED WITH CLOSING COUNTER
ARGUMENTS WHICH IS ALSO PART OF CRL.P.6126/2013
U/S 482 CRPC. THE SAME IS ALSO ON FILE OF TRIAL
COURT AS ACCOMPANYING DOC IN EXP 86 WHEREIN
THE YEARS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY REMOVED TO
SUPPRESS GAINS MADE IN ASSOCIATION WITH
PETITIONER. A MATTER OF SEWAT EQUITY THAT
CORROBORATES… RESPONDENT GAINED IN STATUS,
:3:
STATURE AND FINANCE AS STATED IN SWORN
AFFIDAVIT.
PARA 87 OF ORDER DOES NOT ACCORD STATUS
OF RELATIONSHIP IN NATURE OF MARRIAGE BECAUSE
DR WAS A MARRIED MAN AND RELIES ON
INTERPRETATION IN PARA 86 WITH RESPECT TO CITED
CASE.
PARA 33-55 OF THIS CITATION ARE BARE ACT FOR
RELATIONSHIP IN NATURE OF MARRIAGE THAT
NEEDED TO BE REFERRED TO; PARA 37B WHICH
HINGES ON FACTS IN INDIVIDUAL CASE OF UNMARRIED
WOMAN AND MARRIED MAN. HOW SHOULD LAW BE
APPLIED IN SUCH CASES WAS ELABORATED IN PARA
34,50,54,55 OF THE SAID CITATION. EXP 2/46/45/50 IS
STAND ALONE ON CONCLUSIVE FACTS. GROSS ERROR
IN INTERPRETATION AND IN DISMISSAL OF PETITION
UNDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT IS, THEREFORE.
1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 17.02.2018 IS
BASICALLY CONTEMPT OF COURT BY PRESIDING
OFFICER FOR NOT TREATING CASE AS DE NOVO
HEARING AS DIRECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION
COURTS.
AND, FURTHER FALTERING IN LAW AND INTENT
TO DO JUSTICE IS ELABORATED IN MEMORANDUM TO
HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE KARNATAKA.
WHEREFORE, IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED
BOTH ORDERS BE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
17.02.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-25) IN
CRL.A.NO. 1070/2015 AND THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.07.2015 PASSED BY THE III-M.M.T.C., BANGALORE IN
CRL.MISC.NO. 139/2015 AND RELIEF AND ACTION
PRAYED FOR BE TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH
PROVISIONS OF LAW IN FORCE.
THIS CRL.R.P. U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C. BY THE
PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE TRIAL COURT
:4:
ORDER PASSED BY M.M.T.C.-2 IN CRL.MISC.NO.
139/2015 DATED 30.07.2015 AND 1ST APPELLATE
ORDER PASSED IN CCH-25 IN CRL.A.NO. 1070/2015
DATED 17.02.2018 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE. THE
FOLLOWING ORDERS BE PASSED UNDER PROTECTION
OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005.
SEC.17: RIGHT TO RESIDE IN A SHARED
HOUSEHOLD.
SEC.19: RESIDENCE ORDERS FOR: 38/1, 30TH
CROSS MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE –
560 082.
302, BRIGADE PETUNIA, 17TH CROSS, 2A MAIN,
K.R.ROAD, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE – 560
070.
MM FARMS, 7TH KM BANASHANKARI-KENGERI
LINK ROAD, SUBRAMANYAPURA PO, BANGALORE – 560
061.
THEY ARE PERSONAL PROPERTIES OF
RESPONDENT AS DISCLOSED IN RW1 CROSS
EXAMINATION, LRS HAVE INDEPENDENT PERSONAL
ASSETS AND HOLDINGS.
SEC.20: MONETARY RELIEF: LOSS OF EARNINGS;
MEDICAL EXPENSES; LIABILITIES (BORROWINGS PAST
17 YEARS FOR SURVIVAL ARE 75 LAKHS), SWEAT
EQUITY FROM RESPONDENTS STAKES IN INDO
AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED OF
WHICH HE WAS FOUNDER CHAIRMAN DIN 00053270.
SEC.22: COMPENSATION ORDERS: FOR 21 YEARS
OF PRIME LIFE LOST…. HARD TO WORD.
RESPONDENT HAS LEFT PERSONAL ASSETS AND
BANK BALANCE AND DEPOSITS AND FINANCIAL ASSETS
FROM WHICH MONETARY RELIEF AND COMPENSATION
:5:
ORDERS CAN BE COMPLIED WITH IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SETTLED LAW MANDATORY GUIDELINES IN
J.R.MIDHA J JUDGMENT, THESE ARE NOT MERE LEGAL
RIGHTS, BUT HUMAN RIGHTS.
A PERSONAL AUDIENCE IS REQUESTED (PG.LAST).
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.07.2018
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the
petitioner/appellant against the judgment passed by the III
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.
1070/2015 dated 17.02.2018 dismissing the appeal.
2. The factual matrix of the petition is as under:
The petitioner is said to be a Post Graduate in Botany
with research in stress physiology and trained in media
studies at the Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan and the Indian
Institute of Mass Communication. It is further stated that
she is a recipient of National Award for ICAR, NOW and
AHEAD, published in 1996. Apart from that she was on
the International Editorial Advisory Boards till 1996. In
:6:
the year 2008 she had authored a book titled as “Sikkim,
India, Sanctuary to Horticulture Estate” for the
Government of Sikkim.
3. The respondent, namely Late Sri. Manmohan
Attavar is said to be the Founder Chairman of Indo-
American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., (in short referred to
as IAHS) and also a Padmashree awardee. It is stated that
the petitioner got acquainted with him during her official
period in the year 1986, while she was working in the ICAR
(Indian Council of Agriculture Research) at New Delhi, as
the respondent used to visit the said office regularly in his
official capacity, as a Founder Chairman of IAHS. As such
he came in touch with the petitioner and the said
acquaintance is said to have gradually developed into a
strong personal bond between the duo and it is stated that
they spent time together publicly. The respondent used to
give weekly visits to the working place as well as the
residence of the petitioner and he used to make frequent
calls and it is stated that they even exchanged letters.
Among his friends circles and parties this petitioner was
:7:
introduced by him as his partner. At the same time the
petitioner is said to have been going through a bad marital
relationship coupled with divorce proceedings with her
husband in 1997, when this respondent is said to have
taken good care of her and supported her during her
hardships. That both petitioner and respondent were
eagerly waiting for culmination of divorce proceedings as
the respondent is said to have promised that he would
declare publicly the petitioner as his wife and would marry
her after getting over the legal hurdles. Their relationship
is said to have lasted for almost ten years and it had gone
to such an extent that in the year 1998 after some rituals
like applying Kumkum, the respondent started visiting the
petitioner regularly and they started living together as
husband and wife at No. 242, Pitampura Apartments,
Pritampura, New Delhi and at No. 6A/46, 3rd Main Road,
Jayanagar, 7th Block, Bangalore. They are said to have
enjoyed their life to the maximum with consummation of
their marriage. Moreover they are said to have moved
among the community as husband and wife and the
respondent had taken the petitioner to his friends houses
:8:
and is also said to have introduced her as his wife. Thus
he is said to have gained her trust and confidence.
4. It is stated that despite the said bondage between
the two, always he had a voice over her. As a result, he
had also compelled her to resign her job at ICAR, so as to
live with him at Bangalore. Though she was not willing to
take such a drastic step in her progressing career, at the
same time she was also not interested to put an end to
their relationship. As a result and because of the
convincing approach of the respondent and his magical
words she is said to have tendered resignation to her
prosperous job and started living with him at Bangalore.
But to her utter shock, she realized that the respondent
was already married to one Mrs. Mamtha and he had two
children from the said marriage and when she questioned
the same, he is said to have promised to marry her by
convincing her that his marital life was not happy and he
would take divorce soon. Thus she had to suffer in silence
because of her love with him. However once the
respondent realized that the petitioner has come to know
:9:
about his marital life, he started behaving indifferently and
having forced her to resign the job, he made her to suffer
lonely life. He started avoiding her on one or the other
pretext and gave lot of mental torture to her. He used to
behave in different temperaments and at the same time he
used to assure that he loves her so much so that he will
marry her sooner or later and some times he used to say
that his family is important for him and not this petitioner.
Due to the said inconsistent attitude of the respondent,
she was very much depressed and in order to end her life
she is said to have consumed sleeping pills on 16.1.2007
and was hospitalized at Mallige Hospital, Bangalore, but
due to timely intervention of the doctors she was saved.
Subsequently the petitioner came to know that Mrs.
Mamtha, wife of respondent breathed her last, on
22.2.2010 and the respondent also informed that he would
marry her soon and his children will not interfere in their
matter. The respondent called her from his mobile No.
9845955000 and this petitioner was also very sure that he
will marry her, however yet again the respondent broke his
promise without any reason and literally this petitioner
: 10 :
was forced to live on the streets. All the efforts made by
the petitioner to get her rights went in vain. Because of his
deceitful nature the respondent made her life like a hell,
firstly by concealing the fact of his marriage, secondly by
compelling her to resign her job and thirdly by his
activities he made her to suffer, which it is stated that
amounts to domestic violence. The petitioner suffered
untold mental agony and depression when the respondent
showed the symptoms of withdrawal. Further, it is stated
that all the while the petitioner was interested to lead a
happy marital life with the respondent and to join the
matrimonial house, but as a rude shock she came to know
that the respondent was interested only in his family. The
petitioner states that she was in relationship with the
respondent for nearly 15 years as husband and wife and
they shared common household and their relationship was
in the nature of married couple.
5. The petitioner / party-in-person has relied on the
following citations relating to ‘live-in’ relationship, in order
to substantiate her case.
: 11 :
1. Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation (AIR 1978 SC 1557)
This was the first case in which the Supreme
Court of India recognized live in relationship and
interpreted it as a valid marriage. In this case, the
Court gave legal validity to a 50 year live in
relationship of a couple. It was held by Justice
Krishna Iyer that a strong presumption arises in
favour of wedlock where the partners have lived
together for a long term as husband and wife.
Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy
burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the
relationship of its legal origin. Law leans in favour
of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.
2. Tulsa Ors vs. Durghatiya Ors. (Appeal
Civil No.648/2002 Dt. 15.01.2008)
The Supreme Court provided legal status to
the children born from live in relationship. It was
held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a
child born from live-in relationship to not be treated
as illegitimate are that the parents must have lived
under one roof and co-habited for a considerably
long time for society to recognize them as husband
and wife and it must not be a “walk in and walk
out” relationship. Therefore, the court also granted
the right to property to a child born out of a live in
relationship.
: 12 :
3. Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal (Crl.A.2028-
2029/2010 dated 21.10.2010)
The Judgment determined certain pre-
requisites for a live in relationship to be considered
valid. It provides that the couple must hold
themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to
enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried. It was stated that the couple must
have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out
to the world as being akin to spouses for a
significant period of time. The court held that not
all relationships will amount to a relationship in the
nature of marriage and get the benefit of the
Domestic Violence Act. It further clarified that, if a
man keeps women as a servant and maintains her
financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes,
such relationship would not be considered as
marriage in the court of law. Therefore to get such
benefit the conditions mentioned by the Court must
be satisfied, and has to be proved by evidence.
Here, the court relied on the concept of
‘palimony’ which was used in the USA for grant of
maintenance in live in relationships. The concept
of palimony was derived in the case of Marvin vs.
Marvin, a landmark judgment of the California
Supreme Court.
: 13 :
4. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal Anr, 2010
(Crl.A.913/2010 dt. 28.04.2010)
The Supreme Court in this case dropped all
the charges against the petitioner who was a south
Indian actress. The petitioner was charged under
Section 499 of the IPC and it was also claimed that
the petitioner endorsed pre-marital sex and live in
relationships. The court held that living together is
not illegal in the eyes of law even if it is considered
immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian
Society. The court stated that living together is a
right to life and therefore not ‘illegal’.
It is stated that the respondent being the founder
and Chairman of IAHS was earning crores of rupees by
way of sale of seeds, plants and also was engaged in
dealing of lands and properties. On the other hand, it is
stated that the petitioner had no source of income to
maintain herself. The respondent having forced her to
resign her job, was duty bound to maintain her and to
provide shelter, food and clothing to her. Since he has
failed to maintain her, the petitioner states that she is
managing her life by taking shelter and help from her
friends and well-wishers. Thus it is stated that respondent
has subjected her to domestic violence in the form of
: 14 :
mental and economical abuse. Hence, by way of this
petition she seeks protection order under Section 18,
residence under Section 19, to pay monetary relief under
Section 20 and to grant compensation or damages under
Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
6. Per contra, disputing the very maintainability of
the petition, the respondents who are the legal
representatives of Late Sri. Manmohan Attavar contend
that their father and the petitioner were never in
matrimony and they never co-habited and as such, the
question of desertion of their marital life or commission of
domestic violence against her would not at all arise. The
petition is a clear abuse of judicial process and is solely
intended to threaten him with a frivolous litigation, and if
possible to defame him and thereby make wrongful gain.
The respondent who is a Padmashree Awardee and a
highly reputed and respected individual is now no more.
The qualification of the petitioner was of no consequence
and he never gained acquaintance nor came in touch with
: 15 :
her regularly nor did he spend time with her publicly.
Moreover he never called her over phone, never exchanged
letters with her nor declared or proclaimed that she was
his partner amongst his friends and social circle. Further,
there was no occasion for him to support her in her divorce
proceedings and moreover when he himself was married
and his wife was very much alive and when there was no
divorce proceedings between him and his wife, there was
no question of applying Kumkum to her in proof of the fact
that he led any marital relationship with her for 15 years
as claimed. The allegations of alleged marriage and
consummation of it are all vague and are specifically
denied. He contends that there existed no trust or
confidence between them, and hence all other contrary
claims made by her are denied in toto. Further it is
contended that he was not instrumental nor was the cause
for her alleged quitting of her job at ICAR and he was
unaware of her residence and he never insisted her to
reside in any specific location. Further that he had not
promised to co-habit with her as he was already married to
Mrs. Mamtha Attavar and they were blessed with two
: 16 :
children, the fact which was known to one and all. Having
collected the details of his family, it is stated that somehow
she has created a story of imagination and this respondent
had no occasion to discuss with her about his marital
issues nor he represented that he would divorce his wife
and marry this petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner
that she attempted to commit suicide and she was saved
by the doctors etc., are unknown to him and it is denied
that he promised to her marry on the death of his wife.
Moreover, it is contended that the deceased Attavar did not
hold the alleged phone number in his individual capacity
and as such making calls to the petitioner through that
number is denied. It is stoutly denied that he committed
any domestic violence, fraud and deceived her. It is also
denied that he was earning crores of rupees as income
every month and the petitioner has no source of income.
7. It is contended that due to the fact that the
deceased respondent was the Chairman of IAHS and has
been instrumental in achieving various research and
developments in the field of agriculture, as a result the
: 17 :
petitioner had evinced interest to join IAHS and
accordingly she had sent her profile along with covering
letter dated 14.12.1998 and after considering the said
application, it was informed that there was no scope in
their organization for her line of activity and the company
was unable to accommodate her. Then realizing the
standing of this petitioner in the society and with an
intention to intimidate and exploit him, she has engineered
all these things by falsely claiming that she was his wife
and made frivolous complaint to the Women and Child
Development Department, Government of Karnataka, but
could not withstand her case. Once again in the year 2011
the petitioner made attempts to exploit the respondent and
approached the police department claiming that she was
his wife, but after verification her claim was rejected.
Having failed in her attempt, she filed a C.Misc.139/2015
before the Court of the MMTC, Bangalore which came to be
dismissed and again Crl.A.1070/2015 before the III Addl.
City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which again was
dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this court in
revision challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court
: 18 :
as well as the Appellate Court. The description of her
profile in her job application dated 14.12.1998 is a clear
indication of her status. Her application claims show the
clear contradiction in them and certainly, she cannot be
said to be an aggrieved person under the provisions of DV
Act. The very monetary claims made by her manifestly
show her intention to exploit the legal heirs of the deceased
respondent and expose her true motive behind the petition.
The learned counsel for the legal representatives of the
respondent has relied on the following citations, to support
his case:
1. Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007 (7)
SCC 394)
2. Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2011
(12) SCC 588)
3. Crl. Appeal 1545/2015
4. Kishor Vs. Shalini (Crl.WP No. 37/2008)
5. S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 SC)
6. Johnson Fernandes Vs. Maria Fernandes (Crl.R.P. No.
14/2010 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa)
7. D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal (AIR 2011 SC 479)
8. Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. Vs. Kusum Narottajmdas
Harsora and Ors. (2016(10) SCC 165)
9. Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma (AIR 2014 SC)
: 19 :
10. K. Narasimhan Vs. Rohini Devanathan (Crl.P. 807/2009)
11. V.K.V. Sarma Vs. Indra Sarma (ILR 2012 KAR 218)
12. Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari and Anr. (2012(1) SCC
680)
13. Rabindra Nath Singh vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Anr. (2010(6)
SCC 417)
14. In Re Dr. D.C. Saxena and Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor
Vs. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (AIR 1996 SC 2481)
15. Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (Dead) through LRs. And Ors.
(2016 (11) SCC 296)
16. Ratna Bai Vs. N. Narayan (AIR 1973 Mysore 174)
17. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing
Society Limited and Ors. ((2014) 2 SCC 269)
18. Ganpat Ladha Vs. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde (AIR 1978
SC 955)
19. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors.
((2009) 2 SCC 570)
The learned counsel has emphasized on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Velusamy vs.
Patchaiammal (2010 AIR SCW 6731) wherein it is held
as follows:
“33. In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of
marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common
law marriages require that although not being formally
married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as
being akin to spouses.
: 20 :
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal
marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held
themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for
a significant period of time.
In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of
marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above
requirements, and in addition the parties must have
lived together in a `shared household’ as defined in
Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends
together or a one night stand would not make it a
`domestic relationship’.
Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that it is very candid that the deceased
respondent had not lived with the petitioner in a ‘shared
household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act and
hence the court below as well as the appellate court were
right in rejecting the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner.
Thus on these grounds urged, the counsel for the
respondents prays dismissal of this revision petition
outrightly.
: 21 :
8. On hearing the petitioner party-in-person as well
as the learned counsel Shri Shaker Shetty for the
respondent, I find that the following facts require to be
noticed in order to decide this petition.
9. During trial the petitioner examined herself as
PW1 and got exhibited as many as 94 documents and one
document as Ex.C1. Whereas the deceased respondent /
Manmohan Attavar examined himself as RW1 and got
marked 9 documents. After hearing both the parties, the
court below namely the MMTC II, court by its order dated
30.7.2015 dismissed the application on merits. Being
aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had filed an
appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.1070/2015.
The trial court had framed four points for its consideration
namely,
i) Whether the petitioner proves that she has married
the respondent / Manmohan Attavar on 10.1.1998 and
thereafter she was under domestic relationship with him?
: 22 :
ii) Whether the petitioner in the alternative proves
that her relationship with the respondent falls under the
purview of relationship in the nature of marriage?
iii) Whether the petitioner proves that she has
suffered any acts domestic violence in the hands of
respondent?
iv) Whether this petitioner proves that she is entitled
for the reliefs as prayed for by her?
Having framed the said points and appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties
and referring to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act,
Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act as well as
various decisions relied by the parties, the court below
answered all the four points in the negative and ultimately
dismissed the application. The above order was carried in
appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.1070/2015,
which again came to be dismissed by judgment dated
17.02.2018, discussing in detail all the points and
referring to the documents meticulously. The petitioner
: 23 :
has come up in revision by way of the present petition
being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court.
10. The petitioner has taken me through her evidence
wherein she was examined as PW-1 and it is seen that
Exhibits P1 to P94 were got marked. The said documents
have been produced by her in order to establish that she
had a domestic relationship with the deceased respondent
Manmohan Attavar. She had stated that he had forced her
to write her name as ‘Neelam Manmohan Attavar’. But at
this juncture, going by the evidence of PW-1 if really the
deceased respondent had insisted her to write her name as
‘Neelam Manmohan Attavar’, question arises as to why she
had not changed her name officially either when she was
working with ICAR or after she resigned her job. There is
no material forthcoming to evidence the fact that she had
changed her name officially. Nor she has not explained the
same by placing acceptable evidence in order to prove that
the deceased respondent insisted her to write her name as
‘Mrs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar’.
: 24 :
Exhibit P-2 is the certified copy of the decree of
divorce obtained by her from her ex-husband Shri
Harishchandra Chabbra on 10.10.1996.
Exhibits P3 to P5 are photocopies evidencing the
petitioner having attended various functions in ICAR and
Exhibit P6 is the CD containing the photocopies of Exhibits
P3 to P5. There is no dispute about these Exhibits
submitted by the petitioner. Exhibit P7 is the copy of the
e-mail sent by Mr. P. Saktivel to PW-1 dated 17.02.2015.
On a careful reading of Ex.P7, it appears that PW-1 had
sought information regarding one Smt. Shakun, who
worked in ICAR, through her e-mail dated 13.02.2015.
The said Saktivel had not provided the address of Smt.
Shakun due to the reason that PW-1 had not furnished the
actual purpose for which the address was sought.
The petitioner had produced various documents
marked as exhibits, but to no avail. On marshalling the
pleadings and the evidence of PW-1, it is seen that she
herself was not firm in her say regarding her actual
residence. There is no documentary proof to evidence the
: 25 :
fact that she ever lived with the respondent. Moreover, she
has not at all mentioned in her evidence the period or
length that she stayed with the respondent. It is well
settled law that the length of staying together by a man
and woman has to be proved before this court prima facie,
by producing vital and clinching evidence, which has not
been done.
Moreover, she had referred in her evidence with
regard to their relationship that after 10 years of their
relationship, that in the year 1998, the respondent had
after performing some rituals like applying ‘kumkum’ to
the petitioner, started visiting her regularly and lived
together as husband and wife at No.242, Pitampura
Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi and No.6A/46, 3rd Main
Road, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru. However, the
deceased Manmohan Attavar had not at all lived with her
consistently at the said addresses over a long period of
time, since there is no proof to evidence the same. Hence,
the contention that she lived in the ‘shared household’,
cannot be accepted by this court. Moreover, her pleading
: 26 :
does not mention the exact date when ‘kumkum’ was
applied by the deceased respondent on her forehead.
However during the course of her evidence she has
improved her version and has mentioned the date of
applying ‘kumkum’ as 10.01.1998. It is to be seen that
PW-1 had neither pleaded nor deposed the place where
exactly the respondent had applied ‘kumkum’ to her
forehead nor has she mentioned the names of witnesses
who were present there to evidence the said fact.
Moreover, the deceased respondent being a ‘Christian’ by
religion, the question of he marrying her by applying
‘kumkum’ as per the Hindu rituals, would not at all arise.
A Christian would certainly not have married a woman by
applying ‘kumkum’, which submission itself is absurd.
Therefore, clearly, an adverse inference requires to be
drawn against the petitioner to the effect that no such
marriage ceremony had taken place as on 10.01.1998 as
alleged by the petitioner.
Further, after the so-called ‘kumkum’ applying
ceremony, PW-1 had written a letter to one Dr. Barghouti
: 27 :
which is produced at Ex.P10. In the said letter, she had
mentioned her name as ‘Miss. Neelam’ and her address
has been shown as ‘C/o.#16/532, Faridabad, Haryana’.
According to her evidence when she was said to be married
to Manmohan Attavar on 10.01.1998, there is no
explanation forthcoming as to what prevented her from
writing her name as ‘Neelam Manmohan Attavar’ in the
said letter. Further, as alleged if at all she was residing at
No.242, Pitampura Apartments, Pitampura, New Delhi and
No.6A/46, 3rd Main Road, Jayanagar 7th Block, Bengaluru,
she would have mentioned the said addresses in the said
letter. However, since she has not mentioned the said
address as well, it can be presumed by this court that her
allegation that the deceased respondent had applied
‘kumkum’ as well as that she resided with him at
Pitampura and Jayanagar 7th Block, have no legs to stand.
Even Exhibit P-9 the photographs produced by her
along with the deceased respondent cannot be believed in
totality, since both of them were meeting each other
officially either in official functions or gathering and
: 28 :
clicking of photos were a usual happening. A person being
in a photo along with a celebrity or a person of fame,
cannot be considered that the said person is in some way
related to the celebrity. Moreover, when negatives
pertaining to the photos have not been produced, the same
cannot be taken to be material piece of evidence and the
court below has rightly rejected the same, which does not
call for any interference.
11. It is to be seen that the court below as well as the
First Appellate Court have not passed any orders in favour
of the petitioner. In view of the fact that Manmohan
Attavar is no more, this revision petition filed by her
against the Legal Representatives of the deceased
respondent Manmohan Attavar challenging the order of
dismissal passed by the Appellate Court under Section 29
of the DV Act, would stand abated. On that ground also
the petition requires to be dismissed.
12. In this petition, the petitioner has sought relief
under Sections 17, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. In order
to appreciate the controversy arising in this revision
: 29 :
petition, it is relevant to reproduce the provisions under
Section 17 and Section 19, which reads as under:
“17. Right to reside in a shared
household.–
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, every
woman in a domestic relationship shall have the
right to reside in the shared household, whether
or not she has any right, title or beneficial
interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be
evicted or excluded from the shared household
or any part of it by the respondent save in
accordance with the procedure established by
law.”
“19. Residence orders.–
(1) While disposing of an application under
sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate
may, on being satisfied that domestic violence
has taken place, pass a residence order–
(a) restraining the respondent from
dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing
the possession of the aggrieved person from the
shared household, whether or not the
respondent has a legal or equitable interest in
the shared household;
(b) directing the respondent to remove
himself from the shared household;
: 30 :
(c) restraining the respondent or any of his
relatives from entering any portion of the shared
household in which the aggrieved person
resides;
(d) restraining the respondent from
alienating or disposing of the shared household
or encumbering the same;
(e) restraining the respondent from
renouncing his rights in the shared household
except with the leave of the Magistrate; or
(f) directing the respondent to secure same
level of alternate accommodation for the
aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared
household or to pay rent for the same, if the
circumstances so require: Provided that no order
under clause (b) shall be passed against any
person who is a woman.
(2) The Magistrate may impose any
additional conditions or pass any other direction
which he may deem reasonably necessary to
protect or to provide for the safety of the
aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved
person.
(3) The Magistrate may require from the
respondent to execute a bond, with or without
sureties, for preventing the commission of
domestic violence.
(4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be
deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the
: 31 :
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
and shall be dealt with accordingly.
(5) While passing an order under sub-
section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the
court may also pass an order directing the
officer-in-charge of the nearest police station to
give protection to the aggrieved person or to
assist her or the person making an application
on her behalf in the implementation of the order.
(6) While making an order under sub-
section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the
respondent obligations relating to the discharge
of rent and other payments, having regard to the
financial needs and resources of the parties.
(7) The Magistrate may direct the officer-
in-charge of the police station in whose
jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached
to assist in the implementation of the protection
order.
(8) The Magistrate may direct the
respondent to return to the possession of the
aggrieved person her stridhan or any other
property or valuable security to which she is
entitled to.”
A reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that it
creates an entitlement in favour of the women to right of
residence under a shared household only to establish her
: 32 :
case against the respondent for seeking the relief under
the relevant provision. The above sections namely
Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act would apply only if it is
proved that the petitioner had resided in a ‘shared
household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Since
she has not at all proved that she had lived along with the
deceased respondent for a considerable period of time at a
particular address, which was in the knowledge of the
neighbourers and other people who resided in that locality,
it cannot be said that she had lived along with the
deceased respondent in a ‘shared household’. Hence, the
question of providing the petitioner a residence by way of
shared household, does not arise.
13. When the main concept of a ‘shared household’
under Section 2(s) of the DV Act itself has not been proved,
the question of paying monetary relief under Section 20
and compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act, also
does not arise.
The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in
Crl.A.1070/2015 have assessed the entire evidence as a
: 33 :
whole and not in isolation wherein PW-1 the petitioner
herein has been examined and also cross-examined. The
evidence produced by her even though taken as a whole, it
falls short of the legal requirements under the provisions of
the DV Act. If there had been an earlier order passed by
the Trial Court or the Appellate Court under Sections 18 or
31 of the DV Act against the respondent, then the same
requires to be enforced. But however, no such order has
been passed against the deceased respondent Manmohan
Attavar under the provisions of the DV Act.
14. The petitioner in person has taken various
contentions in this revision petition, against the order
passed by the Appellate Court relating to the petition filed
by her seeking relief under the Domestic Violence Act,
2005. She had filed an application under Section 12 of the
DV Act, seeking for an order of grant of maintenance from
the first respondent late Manmohan Attavar and also
seeking residence by way of ‘shared household’ and such
other reliefs as damages, which came to be rejected by the
court below. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in
: 34 :
Crl.A.1070/2015 also came to be dismissed on
17.02.2018.
In the instant petition, there is strong dispute
relating to the marriage which is alleged to have taken
place between this petitioner and the first respondent late
Manmohan Attavar. It is an admitted fact that the said
Manmohan Attavar was already married to Mrs. Mamatha
and had two children, who have come on record in this
petition as his legal representatives. But, in the evidence
of the petitioner herein and even in the documents at
Exhibits P-1 to P-94 produced by the petitioner, it has not
been specifically stated and also it is not found in her
evidence any proof relating to the marriage of this
petitioner and the first respondent late Manmohan Attavar
and also there is no evidence to prove the allegation that
the present petitioner as well as late Manmohan Attavar
ever lived together and their relationship was in the
concept of ‘live-in’ relationship also. Domestic relationship
means, the relationship between two persons who live or
have at any point of time, lived together in a shared
: 35 :
household. This concept has not been established by the
petitioner even though she has been examined as PW-1
and also produced several documents at Exhibits P1 to
P94. Her evidence as well as the documents which were
placed by her have been appreciated by the court below in
C.Misc.No.139/2015 which was filed by her before the
Court of the MMTC, Bangalore, wherein that petition came
to be dismissed. Against that order, Crl.A.1070/2015 was
preferred by her, which also came to be dismissed. It is
against the said order that this revision petition has been
preferred by her urging various grounds and also by
producing various citations which have been referred to
supra.
The interpretation given to the ‘domestic relationship’
relating to the petitioner as well as the first respondent late
Manmohan Attavar in the instant case, has not been
established by the petitioner for seeking the relief under
the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
: 36 :
Whereas the petitioner herein has taken a contention
regarding availability of civil remedies and that contention
has been taken by her even for having adduced evidence as
PW-1 in her petition and also produced the documents at
Exhibits P1 to P94 as a plethora of the contentions taken
by her. But, as regards the civil remedies concept is
concerned, the same would not arise in relation to the
issues involved in between the petitioner and late
Manmohan Attavar, as civil remedies is required to be
agitated, only if the law permits.
Section 29 of the Protection of Women From
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 relates to preferring an appeal
against the order passed by the Magistrate as the appeal
would lie within 30 days from the date of the order.
Whereas in the instant petition, no order has been passed
against the first respondent late Manmohan Attavar even
to the extent of ‘live-in’ relationship concept and the same
has not been established by her to seek the remedies
under the provisions of the DV Act, as she has sought for.
: 37 :
Section 31 of the DV Act relates to breach of
protection order or of an interim protection order by the
respondent. In the instant petition, an order under
Section 31 does not arise, for the reason that no order has
been passed against the first respondent late Manmohan
Attavar, despite which the petitioner has stoutly addressed
arguments in this petition without having any basis to
seek the remedies under the provisions of the DV Act.
15. Whereas the learned counsel for the legal
representations of the respondents while addressing
arguments relating to the scope and object of Section 31 of
the DV Act, submitted that the appeal itself would stand
abated for the reason that the first respondent late
Manmohan Attavar died during the course of the
proceedings and moreover, no order has been passed
against him by the court below in Crl.Misc.No.139/2015
under the provisions of the DV Act. Moreover, passing an
order even under the scope and object of Section 18 of the
Protection Order also, does not arise, as this aspect was
also observed even by the Appellate Court in
: 38 :
Crl.A.1070/2015 and so also the court below in
Crl.Misc.139/2015. The same is reflected in their order
itself which has been challenged by the petitioner by
urging various grounds.
Therefore, this revision petition does not hold any
legal force to proceed against the impugned order passed
by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.1070/2015 to call for
any interference. Consequently, the revision petition
stands dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
KS