IN THE COURT OF MS. SALONI SINGH, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02, MAHILA COURT, SAKET COURTS, SOUTH
DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No: 74/1/2016 (471463/2016)
CNR No: DLST020043572016
Police Station:
Aarti,
W/o, Late Sh. Dharmender Singh,
D/o, Sh. Rampal,
R/o H.No. G18/108, Sangam Vihar
New Delhi110062. …Aggrieved
Vs.
1. Radhey Shyam (fatherinlaw),
2. Bindiya (motherinlaw),
3. Mohar Singh (brotherinlaw/ Jeth)
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
4. Rahul (brotherinlaw/ dewar)
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
5. Lokesh (brotherinlaw/ dewar)
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
All r/o Mohalla Hanuman Nagar,
Village Fatehabad, District Agra,
Uttar Pradesh. …Respondents
Application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 1/7
Date of Institution : 23.03.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment :
Date of Judgment : 10.03.2017
Ex Parte Judgment:
By way of this application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “D.V. Act”),
the aggrieved has prayed for reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of
the said Act against the respondents, who allegedly subjected her to
domestic violence while she resided with them in the shared
household. The respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the fatherinlaw,
motherinlaw, and brothersinlaw respectively of the
applicant/aggrieved.
1. The facts of the case, as detailed in the present application, are briefly
stated here as follows: The aggrieved married Mr. Dharmendra Singh
on 10.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and customs and the aggrieved came
to reside in the matrimonial home at Mohalla Hanuman Nagar, Village
Fatehabad, District Agra, Uttar Pradesh with her husband and all the
respondents. The husband of the aggrieved expired on on 14.10.2015,
while the aggrieved was seven months pregnant and a baby daughter
was born on 29.12.2015. After the death of her husband, all the
respondents started harassing, abusing and beating the aggrieved and
blamed her for the death of their son. On 24.10.2015, the respondents
beat the aggrieved and verbally abused her that since their son had
expired, she did not mean anything to them and threw her out of the
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 2/7
matrimonial home and it is since then that the aggrieved has been
residing with her parents. A complaint was made by the aggrieved
against the respondents in this regard to the Deputy Commissioner of
Police (SouthEast), Station House officer, Police Station Sangam
Vihar and to the Delhi Commissioner for Women on 08.02.2016 and
no action has been taken against the respondents till date.
2. The present application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act was filed by
the aggrieved on 23.03.2016 and notice of the application was issued
to all the respondents on 29.03.2016, which was returned served on the
respondents. Despite service of the notice, neither the respondents
appeared before the Court nor filed their reply. At the directions of the
Court, the domestic incident report (DIR) was filed by the protection
officer, Ms. Preeti Mudgal Kaushik on 19.05.2016 and the matter was
proceeded ex parte on 01.10.2016. The aggrieved was then granted
opportunity to lead her evidence.
3. In order to substantiate her case, the aggrieved only examined herself
and stepped into the witness box as CW1. She tendered her
examinationinchief by way of an affidavit, Exhibit CW1/1, relying
upon the following documents:
Copy of complaint dated 08.02.2016 made by the aggrieved,
Mark A;
Copy of aadhar card of the aggrieved, Mark B;
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 3/7
Copy of the passbook of the aggrieved, Mark C;
Photograph of the aggrieved with her husband of the ring
ceremony, Mark D;
Marriage card of the aggrieved, Exhibit CW1/A; and
List of dowry articles, Exhibit CW1/B.
4. In her affidavit, CW1 has deposed on the same lines as stated in the
present application. No other witness was examined by the aggrieved.
The evidence of the aggrieved was closed by way of a separate
statement. Final arguments were advanced by the Learned Counsel for
the aggrieved.
5. The submissions made have been considered and the record of the case
including the DIR have been thoroughly perused. The findings of this
Court are as follows:
6. The respondents were served the notice of the present application of
Section 12 of the D.V. Act and despite which they have chosen not to
lead their evidence and crossexamine CW1/aggrieved to rebut the
case of the aggrieved. In such a case, the evidence led on behalf of the
aggrieved would remain unrebutted on record. However, this does not
discharge the aggrieved of the burden on her to prove her case. In
order to be entitled to the reliefs claimed, it is for the applicant to
prove that she ‘is’ or ‘has been’ in a ‘domestic relationship’ with the
‘respondent(s)’ and that the respondent(s) had subjected her to
‘domestic violence’.
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 4/7
7. A ‘domestic relationship’ has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the D.V.
Act to mean, “a relationship between two persons who live or have, at
any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are
related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as
a joint family.”
8. To prove the marriage of the aggrieved with Mr. Dharmendra Singh,
the aggrieved has placed on record the marriage card and photograph
of their ring ceremony as Exhibit CW1/A and Mark D respectively.
This photograph is not a photograph of marriage of the aggrieved.
Further, the photograph being an electronic record has not been proved
in accordance with the requirements of Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “Evidence Act”) and would, therefore,
be inadmissible in evidence. The case of the aggrieved is that she
married Mr. Dharmendra Singh and started to reside at the matrimonial
home with her husband and all the respondents, who after the death of
her husband subjected her to domestic violence. In proof thereof, the
aggrieved has only filed and relied upon copy of the complaint dated
08.02.2016 made to DCP (South East), SHO P.S. Sangam Vihar and
DCW as Mark A. The allegations made against the respondents in the
said complaint are already detailed above in paragraph no. 1. The
allegations made against the respondents, with whom the aggrieved
resided for over a period of 10 days after the death of her husband, are
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 5/7
vague and no specific allegation have been made against any of the
respondents. The said complaint, Mark A, would by itself not be
sufficient to prove the case of the aggrieved. No document has been
filed showing a followup to the said complaint and as to whether any
action was initiated by the CAW Cell on the said complaint or whether
FIR was registered or any other action taken or pursued. Filing of a
copy of the complaint made to an authority/department/police would
not per se be proof of the allegations made by the aggrieved with
respect to domestic violence. Attention here is drawn to the DIR in
which several additional allegations of domestic violence have been
made against the respondents. However, neither of the said allegations
find mention either in the present application under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act and in the evidence of the aggrieved filed by way of
affidavit, Exhibit CW1/1. Even otherwise, the aggrieved has been
unable to show any provision of law under which she would be
entitled to the monetary reliefs and residence order under Section 19
and 20 of the D.V. Act as a matter of right against the respondents.
The parties are Hindus and the liability of the fatherinlaw/respondent
no. 1 to maintain his daughterinlaw would arise after the death of her
husband under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1956. In the present case, it is the case of the aggrieved that her
husband expired on 14.10.2015, however, in proof thereof the
aggrieved has not even filed his death certificate. Further the liability
of the fatherinlaw to maintain his widowed daughterinlaw would
arise only to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself from her
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 6/7
own earnings or where she has no property. Further any liability of the
fatherinlaw to maintain the daughterinlaw may be enforced against
the share of the husband in any ancestral property or any other
property. No averments in this regard have been made by the
aggrieved in her application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act,
therefore, no grounds have been made out to grant any relief to the
aggrieved.
9. The complainant has been unable to prove that the respondents had
subjected her to domestic violence and, therefore, is not entitled to the
reliefs sought. Accordingly, the application of the aggrieved under
Section 12 of the D.V. Act is dismissed. File be consigned to record
room after due compliance.
Pronounced in Open Court
today March 10, 2017 (SALONI SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate02,
Mahila Court, Saket, South,
New Delhi, 10.03.2017.
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 7/7
CC No. 74/1/2016 (471463/2016)
Aarti Vs. Radhey Shyam Ors.
PS Sangam Vihar
10.03.2017
Present: Mr. Swarn Singh, Advocate for complainant.
None for respondents.
Vide judgment of an even date, application under Section 12 of the
Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “D.V
Act“) is dismissed. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to the complainant.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Saloni Singh)
MM02 (Mahila court), South
Saket Courts/N.D./ 10.03.2017
CC No. 471463/2016 Aarti v. Radhey Shyam Ors. Page No. 8/7
