SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mrs Neelam Manmohan vs Sri Manmohan Attavar Din 00053270 on 31 July, 2018

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

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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at 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 Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation