SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Sullar Rajesh Babu vs Unknown on 3 February, 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2020
PRESENT :-

SRI S.R.MANIKYA., B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXI Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge,
Bangalore, (CCH-62)

Criminal Appeal No.325/2016

Appellants/ : 1 Sri Sullar Rajesh Babu
Accused: S/o.Eswara Chari
Aged about 34 years

2. Smt.Sulluri Surya Kala
W/o.Eswra Chari
Aged about 59years

Both are R/a. No.81
Hanuma Hills
AGS layout, 3rd Main Road
1st Cross, BSK IV Stage
Bengaluru.

(By Sri.S.G., Adv.)

V/s.
Respondent / Smt.Karanam Reddi Padmaja
Complainant: W/o.Sulluru Rajesh Babu
Aged about 33 years
R/a.No.117,
C/o.Indira,
12th Main,
2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 076.
JUDGMENT

This is an appeal preferred against the order passed in
Crl. Misc. 113/2012 dated 14.01.2016, by the learned
Presiding Officer of VI MMTC, Bengaluru wherein the learned
trial judge has partly allowed the petition filed under Section
12 of the DV Act and directed the Respondent to pay
Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.2,000/-
towards litigation expenses. Against this judgment, he
Respondent has preferred this appeal.

2. The brief facts to the petitioners’ case before the VI
MMTC, Bengaluru is that;

The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 of
the Domestic Violence Act alleging that the Respondent No.1
to 5 have subjected the petitioner for domestic violence and
thereby to grant the relief of Rs.25,000/- per month as
Maintenance Act and to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
and to pass a residential order in the house of the
Respondent and also to give protection to the aggrieved
person from the concerned police.

3. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the
petitioner and Respondent No.1 are the husband and wife
and their marriage was solemnized on 30.08.2009 and later
on marriage was consummated according to Hindu rights and
Customs and their marriage was solemnized, a sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- was paid to the Respondent and gold
ornaments worth of Rs.6,00,000/- was also paid and after the
solemnization of marriage the petitioner and Respondent were
leaving in the house along with the Respondent No.2 to 5.
After some period the Respondent started to ill-treat the
petitioner demanding to bring new gold ornaments and also
to provide additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. The
Respondent No.2 to 5 are also harassing the petitioner and
they were instigating the Respondent No.1 to subject the
petitioner for domestic violence. The Respondent No.2 to 5
were having intention to marriage another women to the
Respondent. In the month of June 2010 the 1st Respondent
has got an opportunity to visit London and though there was
an opportunity for the Respondent to take the petitioner for
London, he has not taken the petitioner to London and after
the Respondent No.1 went to London, the petitioner was
thrown out of the house and she has been forced to stay in
the ladies hostel for a period of six months and thereafter she
is living in a rented house. Though in the month of March
2011, the Respondent No.1 returned to India, but he has not
made any attempt to join the petitioner. On the contrary, the
parents of the Respondents were also demanding for a
divorce. Though there was a Panchayath held in the village,
the situation has not improved and as the domestic violence
continued and there was harassment and all the attempts
made by the petitioner has become futile, she has lodged a
complaint the Respondent under Section 498A and Section 3
and 4 of Domestic Violence Act. On account of all these Act of
the Respondent, the petitioner was subject to mental and
physical cruelty and made her to suffer a lot and she has
been made to spend money though she is an earning member
she was put to lot of mental agony for which there is liable to
pay compensation and petitioner has been made force to file
this petition and on account of litigation the Respondent is
liable to pay litigation expenses. Hence, she prayed for
allowing the petition.

4. For this petition, the Respondent has filed objection
and contended that the question of harassment by the
Respondent No.1 to 5 as contended in the petition is
specifically denied. About the allegations made in the petition
that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid and Rs.6,00,000/- gold
ornaments were also paid is also specifically denied. About
the visiting to London is admitted. But it was not the
Respondent who has not agreed to take the petitioner. On the
other hand, the petitioner who has not left the job and come
with the Respondent to London, inspite of so many requests
of the Respondent, petitioner not adhered to the words of the
Respondent she made the Respondent to subject to mental
agony. The contention of the petitioner that she was driven
out by the Respondent No.2 to 5 is specifically denied.
Though there was admission by the Respondent to join the
petitioner, it is only the petitioner who was not having any
intention to join the Respondent. On the other hand, she was
making a character assassination of the Respondent and he
was subject to mental tension. Though there was no demand
of dowry, a false case has been filed. The Respondent was
having an obligation to maintain his brother who is deaf and
dumb and also old aged parents and on account of the
attitude of the petitioner there was no peace in the house of
the Respondent and all the family members were subjected to
mental torture by the act of the petitioner. AS the petitioner
herself is getting salary of Rs.35,000/-, the question of paying
maintenance under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act
will not arise at all. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the
petition.

5. Inorder to prove the case of the petitioner, PW-1 was
examined and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
On behalf of the Respondent, the Respondent No.1 was
examined and got marked document at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.

6. After hearing both the counsels for appellant and
Respondent, learned VI MMTC, B’luru has passed the order
and allowed the petition in part. Against this judgment, the
appeal is filed and urges on the grounds that – The judgment
passed by the learned VI MMTC, B’luru is highly erroneous.
The learned VI MMTC, B’luru has not appreciated the
material facts and evidence placed on record and she has
come to the wrong conclusion holding that the Respondent
has made out a case for granting of compensation without
having any material. Hence, the judgment is liable to be set
aside by allowing the appeal. The learned VI MMTC, B’luru
has wrongly award the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.
Though the learned judge has considered the case of the
appellant and coming to conclusion that due to illegal act of
the Respondent, the appellant has suffered huge sufferings,
but while passing the order she has committed serious error
and without considering all the points, the order is passed.
The learned VI MMTC, B’luru has failed to appreciate the fact
that on account of ill-treatment of the petitioner, Respondent
was forced to resign the job and that fact has been completely
ignored by the learned VI MMTC, B’luru. Though, the
Respondent is getting salary of Rs.40,000/- and leading a
lavish life, inspite of that the compensation has been awarded
which is not a correct approach. The learned VI MMTC, B’luru
has not at all appreciated the efforts made by the Respondent
by holding panchayath to join the petitioner and come to a
wrong conclusion that the petitioner was subject to domestic
violence. The judgment passed by the learned VI MMTC,
B’luru looking from any angle does not stand on its own
footing. It deserves to be set aside. Hence, he prayed for
allowing the appeal by interfering by this court.

7. I have heard the arguments of appellant and
Respondent counsel. Now, inview of the rival contention of
both the parties, now the points that arise for consideration
before this court is as under;

i. Whether the appellant proves that
there was no domestic violence against
the Respondent as contended in the
appeal memorandum?

ii. Whether the appellant proves that
there are no grounds to award
compensation and litigation expenses
to the Respondent as contended?

iii. Whether the appellant proves that
there are grounds to interfere with the
judgment of the learned VI MMTC,
B’luru passed in Crl. Misc.

No.113/2012?

iv. What order?

8. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.i to iii : In negative,
Point No.iv : As per the final order for the following:

REASONS

9. Point No.i to iii:- Since, all these points are
interlinked with each other and since all these points are to
be discussed on the same set of facts, circumstances and
reasoning’s, I have taken up these points together for
discussion.

10. Now, it is the specific case of the petitioner before
the lower court that the Respondent No.1 is the husband of
the petitioner whose marriage was solemnized according to
the Hindu Rights and Customs and while living in the house
of the Respondent she was subject to domestic violence and
thereby on account of domestic violence caused to the
petitioner she has filed this petition before the learned VI
MMTC, B’luru. Further, it is also alleged that after the
marriage, the Respondent were demanding additional dowry
for that act of the Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 to 5
were also giving support and they were also ill-treating the
petitioner while she was residing in the house of the
Respondent. She as been forced to live in the ladies hostel
and in a rented house. Hence, she was forced to file this
petition and also a case under Section Dowry Prohibition Act.

11. On the other hand, the Respondent who is an
appellant before this court has specifically denied all these
aspects and contended that the petitioner herself has
subjected the Respondent to mental cruelty, mental torture
and mental tension and made him to resign from the job and
on account of losing the job, he has been not only in the
financial crisis but also in the physical torture and also
physiological imbalance. Hence, he has suffered a lot. Such
being the case, the question of granting compensation to the
petitioner would not have been arise at all.

12. Now, inview of the rival contention of both the
parties, now this court has to analyze and re-appreciate the
evidence produced before the trial court and the facts and
circumstances and the documents produced by both the
parties. To prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner was
examined as PW-1 and she got marked document at Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.10. Out of that, Ex.P.1 in an invitation, Ex.P.2 is the
photograph, Ex.P.5 is the FIR of the criminal case, Ex.P.6 is
the complaint lodged before the police, Ex.P.6(a) is a
translated version of the complaint. Ex.P.7 to 9 are the bills
for purchasing the gold ornaments and Ex.P.10 is the
document to establish about the fact of residing in a rental
house. Now by perusing Ex.P.6, it can be noticed that in the
complaint it has been alleged that there was an ill-treatment
and the demand of additional dowry and also it is
specifically stated in the complaint that the Respondent was
threatening to publish the photos in the internet and
Ex.P.10 also establishes that the petitioner is residing in a
rental premises from 28.07.2014. This allegation of ill-
treatment and domestic violence though denied by the
Respondent in the course of cross-examination of PW-1,
nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of the
petitioner. Because the entire cross-examination of PW-1
reveals regarding residing of petitioner in her parents house
and in the course of cross-examination, he has specifically
suggested that without informing the mother-in-law and the
1st Respondent she has shifted to PG since the house of the
Respondent was situated at a very far away distance where
the petitioner was working.

13. In the cross-examination also specifically stated
that after she has been sent out of the Respondent house,
she is residing in PG which clearly establishes the fact of
sending the petitioner from the house of the Respondent. In
the course of cross-examination also she has specifically
stated that she is not claiming any maintenance. Now the
Respondent has suggested to PW-1 that he is intended to live
with the petitioner and inspite of his efforts made by him and
all the efforts made by the Respondent, since the petitioner is
not responding the efforts of the Respondent has become
futile. But inorder to establish the fact that he has made
attempt to reconcile the petitioner with regard to the
difference arose between the parties, no material is placed on
record. No witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
Respondent to prove the said fact. Further, it is also
contended by the Respondent in the objection that she was
making character assassination but that is also not
established by the convincing evidence. Now in the course of
cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the
petitioner was residing in a P.G. situated at BTM layout and
it is also admitted that he has got a own house in AGS
Layout. In the course of cross-examination, the Respondent
has specifically admitted that in the customary mode there
will be more presentation from the side of the wife to the
husband which establishes and proves the contention of the
petitioner that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- cash and gold
ornaments worth of Rs.6,00,000/- was given to he husband
of the petitioner.

14. Though the learned appellant counsel has
contended in his argument that the Respondent has been
made to resign from the post on account of mental torture of
the petitioner, but to establish the fact no material is placed
on record. On the other hand, Ex.R.1 establishes the fact
that Respondent No.1 himself has submitted resignation to
the company. In Ex.R.1 it is specifically stated that with
reference to your letter on resignation we hereby accept your
resignation and by looking into Ex.R.1 it can be safely held
that he himself has resigned for the post.

15. Now in a case filed under Domestic Violence Act,
the petitioner has to establish the Domestic Relationship and
Domestic Violence as stated in the petition. Admittedly she
admitted in the course of cross-examination admitted that
Respondent No.2 to 5 were not residing with the petitioner
for a long period. Hence, the learned VI MMTC, B’luru has
rightly considered that though there is a domestic
relationship with the Respondent No.2 to 5 has not been
established with regard to the domestic Violence. By looking
into the document Ex.R.1 by looking into the document
Ex.P.10 it can be safely held that the petitioner was
subjected to domestic violence. Under Section 3 of the
Domestic Violence Act, the definition of Domestic Violence
Act stats as follows;

“Domestic Violence can be
considered any harasses, harms,
injures or endangers the aggrieved
person with a view to coerce her or any
other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any dowry or
other property or valuable security ; or”

(a) Insults, redicule, humiliation,
name calling and insults or ridicule
specially with regard to not having a
child or a male child; and
Explanation II – of the Section
clearly suggests that while determining
whether any act, omission, commission
or conduct of the Respondent
constitutes “domestic violence” under
this section, the overall facts and
circumstances of the case shall be
taken in to consideration”.

16. By looking into this explanation of the act it can be
safely held that merely one or two stray instance of making
attempt by the Respondent to console the difference arose
between the parties will not ifso-facto disprove the causing of
Domestic Violence. While deciding the fact, the over all facts
and circumstances of the case shall be taken into
consideration. Now in this case, Ex.P.10 will certainly
establishes the fact that she is residing in a rented house. No
doubt, she is an earning member having an employment. It
may not cause the economical abuse. But though she is a
married lady, she had been made force to leave in a rented
house in alone status will itself cause the mental agony and
mental torture and also it will have the impact on the leaving
of the petitioner. Though the Respondent has stated that he
has made attempt to console the difference to corroborate
such a fact no material is placed on record. Under Such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that more weightage will
have to be given for the document produced by the petitioner
and Ex.P.6 also establishes the fact that there was criminal
case for demand of dowry and the Respondent has not made
any attempt to establish the fact that what was the result of
that case. Except the cross-examination of PW-1 and
suggesting them there was a lapse on the part of the
petitioner to continue the marital relationship between the
parties there is absolutely no other material placed on record.

17. On the contrary, the petitioner has establish the
fact of residing separately in a rented house by producing
Ex.P.10 that is also not denied by the Respondent. On the
other hand it is admitted in the course of cross-examination
that she was residing in the PG which certainly establishes
the fact that the petitioner was subjected to domestic
violence Act. Though, the petitioner has claimed maintenance
in the petition, since she is an earning member, the
maintenance cannot be granted as rightly held by the learned
VI MMTC, Bengaluru. With regard to the share in the house,
as rightly held by the learned VI MMTC. B’luru with the help
of decision reported in 2007 SC 169 that relief can also be
not granted.

18. It is to be specifically noted under Section 22 of the
DV Act, it has been specifically empowered the Magistrate
Court to pass an order directing the Respondent to pay
compensation and damages for the injuries including mental
torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of the
Domestic Violation committed by the Respondent. By virtue
of this section, if the petitioner establishes that she was not
only subjected to injuries and she was subjected to mental
torture and emotional distress compensation can be
awarded. In this case also, the petitioner has successfully
established the fact of mental torture and emotional distress
by a cogent and specific evidence. Hence, the petitioner is
entitled for the compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act.
Even according to Section 20(2) of the DV Act, it is
specifically stated that whenever the monitory relief is
granted in this Section, shall be adequate, fair and
reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to
which the aggrieved person is accustomed to be considered.
Admittedly, the petitioner is an earning member and she was
subjected to the mental torture and emotional distress.
Considering the status and standard of living of the
petitioner, I am also of the opinion that the learned MMTC VI
ha rightly granted the compensation to the extent of
Rs.4,00,000/-. Since, the Respondent has made the
petitioner to come to the Court and the petition was filed in
the year 2012 and she has been made to continue the
petition till 2016 and made to spend money for conducting
the petitions, under such circumstances in my opinion the
petitioner is entitled for the compensation as awarded by the
learned VI MMTC, Bengaluru and also the litigation expenses
granted by the court.

19. Though the learned appellant counsel has
specifically contended in the appeal memorandum that the
reasons given by the learned VI MMTC, B’luru while passing
the order is erroneous in nature and in proper reasoning that
is not established before this court. It is also well established
principle that it is only when the appellant establishes that
the judgment passed by the trial court is capricious, illegal
and not based on sound reasoning, and then only the
question of interference by the appellate court arises. But by
looking into the circumstances of the case and as discussed
earlier in my earlier part of this judgment, I am of the opinion
that there are no grounds established by the appellant to
interfere with the judgment passed by the learned VI MMTC,
B’luru. Hence, I have no hesitation to answer Point No.1 in
negative.

20. Point No.ii:- Inview of above reasons, I proceed to
pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal preferred by the
appellant/accused under Section 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed.

Consequently, the order passed by
the trial Court i.e. VI MMTC, B’luru under
the appeal in Crl. Misc. No.113/2012
dated 14.01.2106 is hereby confirmed.

Send back the LCR with the copy of
this judgment to the Court below forthwith.

(Dictated to the stenographer on the computer, corrected and then pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of February, 2020).

(SRI.S.R.MANIKYA)
LXI Addl. City Civil Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.

Leave a Reply

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


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


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
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