Bangalore District Court
Cauvery. T vs K.G Shivakumar Swamy on 21 February, 2025
KABC080051312016
Presented on : 30-05-2016
Registered on : 30-05-2016
Decided on : 21-02-2025
Duration : 8 years, 8 months, 22 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.98/2016
Petitioner : Smt.T. Cauvery
W/o K.G. Shivakumaraswamy,
Aged about 41 years
R/at No.483,
4th Cross, 2nd main Road,
Attur Layout,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Rep. By Sri/Smt.M.S.G. Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent No.1 : Sri. K.G. Shivakumaraswamy,
S/o Gundappa,
Working at Rail Wheel Factory,
2
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Technician Grade - 2,
Employee ID 0066763,
Doddaballapur Main Road,
Yelahanka,
Bangalore.
Respondent No.2 Sri.Muthuraj Y.C.
S/o Chikkamuthaiah,
Aged about 31 years.
Respondent No.3 Sri.Manjunatha Y.C
S/o Chikkamuthaiah,
Aged about 30 years.
Respondent No.2 and 3 at R/t:
No.547, 6th Main, 5th Cross,
Attur Layout, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Rep. By Sri/Smt.P.G. Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioners under
Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are as
under; The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No.1
and their marriage solemnized on 22.06.1989 at
Rajarajeshwari Kalyana Mantapa Yalahanka and from
the wed lock two children were born to them. The parents
of the petitioner have spent entire expenses of the
3
Crl.Misc.98/2016
marriage and provided dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- to the
respondent. After marriage the petitioner has started her
marital life at the house of the respondents wherein, the
parents of the respondent No.1 were also living together.
The petitioner submit that, at the time of marriage
respondent No.1 was unemployed and he used to roam in
the streets and come to home at night and he used to
torture the petitioner verbally as well as sexually. After
her marriage she came to know that respondent No.1 had
health issue of seizure convulsion which was not
disclosed either by the respondent no.1 or his parents at
the time of marriage. During her pregnancy respondent
No.1 and his family did not look after her well. During
her advanced stage of pregnancy the 1st respondent in an
outburst had poured hot coffee on the petitioner due to
which petitioner had sustained severe burn injuries and
and was admitted to Wheel & Axle hospital. After her
delivery respondent demanded that the parents of the
petitioner that naming ceremony should be performed in
large scale otherwise the petitioner and the child would
not be brought back to the matrimonial house. Further
she submitted that, in the year 1993 a big altercation
took place between1st respondent and his parents and
after that petitioner and respondent No.1 started living
separately but after that also respondent No.1 never
4
Crl.Misc.98/2016
mended his ways. Further she submitted that, she had
conceived again in the year 1994, even thereafter fights
between the petitioner and 1 st respondent continued.
After that, she came to know that respondent No.1 has
got all bad vices like debauching, illegal affairs etc., and
used to exchange so many calls and vulgar messages
with the girls. After the marriage, respondent started
to harass her both mentally and physically and because
of the threat and physical assault at the hands of the
respondent. Later the respondent No.1 got job in Wheel
and Axle factory. The petitioner further stated that,
seeing negligent attitude of the respondent the petitioner
started doing Tupperware distribution business and later
she started saree selling business and from the said
business she has purchased a house at Attur Layout
which was registered in her name and she also
purchased a site at Attur layout. Further she submitted
that, respondent No.1 often threatened petitioner to
transfer the property to his name but the petitioner
having refused to do the same on 27.06.2014 the 1 st
respondent along with the other respondent had
assaulted the petitioner during which petitioner had
fracture on her hand.
5
Crl.Misc.98/2016
3. Petitioner further submitted that, the
respondent in the meantime started harassing the
petitioner in several forms and he forced the petitioner to
leave the house and currently she has taken shelter at
Sumangali Seva Ashram, Hebbala. The petitioner further
submitted that, the respondent No.1 is highly influential
and he is threatening her with dire consequence. Hence,
she sought assistance of the police. The respondent is
working as technician Grade 2 at Rail Wheel Factory and
drawing gross salary of Rs.45,280/-. In spite of having
sufficient source of income he is not providing any
maintenance to her. Hence, this application.
4. After the registration of the petition this Court
has issued notice to the respondents and they appeared
through their counsel and filed objection to the main
petition. In the objection statement they have admits the
marriage relationship of respondent No.1 and petitioner
No.1 and from the wed lock they have two children and
now they are major. Further they denied all the
allegation made in the petition against them. Further
they stated that they never caused domestic violence
against the petitioner and they never demanded dowry.
On all these grounds they prays to dismiss the petition
filed by the petitioner.
6
Crl.Misc.98/2016
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case has
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 42.
the respondent himself examined himself as R.W.1 and
got marked Ex.R.13.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The following points that arises for my
consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that
they were subjected to Domestic
Violence by the respondents?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
8. On perusal of materials before this court, my
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the
petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship
7
Crl.Misc.98/2016
between herself and respondent No.1, she was residing
with the respondent No.1 in a shared household, the
domestic violence was caused by the respondent No.1
upon her. The respondent No.1 has neglected the
petitioner without any reasonable cause and the
respondent No.1 is capable to provide maintenance to
the petitioner.
10. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the
relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that, the
petitioner and the respondent No.1 are in domestic
relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the
petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing together till
the date of separation. Hence, they have resided together
in a shared household. Only the aspect of domestic
violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
11. Before analyzing the evidence in the present
matter it has to be borne in mind that, as per Sec.102 of
Indian Evidence Act the petitioner has to prove the
allegations made by her in order to succeed in this
matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @
Nookala Shank Balaji V/s Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari
reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774 has held that, the
proceedings under DV Act are civil in nature. Hence, the
8
Crl.Misc.98/2016
evidence has to be considered on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities.
12. The Court also has to consider the definition of
domestic violence in order to effectively adjudicate the
matter. The United Nations has defined Domestic
abuse, also called “domestic violence” or “intimate
partner violence”, as a pattern of behavior in any
relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and
control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical,
sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or
threats of actions that influence another person. This
includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate,
terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or
wound someone. Sec.3 of PWDV Act provides definition
of domestic violence and it states that it includes
physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional
abuse and economic abuse. As per Sec.3 explanation II
for the purpose of determining whether any act,
omission, commission or conduct of the respondent
constitutes domestic violence U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act the
overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken
into consideration. Hence, a holistic view of the facts and
circumstances have to be considered and a myopic view
cannot be adopted by taking into account incidents in an
9
Crl.Misc.98/2016
isolated manner. Before considering if the petitioner is
able to prove domestic violence it must be borne in mind
that domestic violence is a subjective matter and
perception of each person may differ and there is no
mathematical standard which is formulated to say that a
particular behaviour constitutes domestic violence. It
depends on each individual, their social, economic,
educational status. However, the Court has to weigh the
evidence on record as per the rules of evidence in an
objective and circumspect manner.
13. In this case it is the allegation of the petitioner
that, the after marriage it was revealed to her that the
respondent No.1 was suffering from seizure convulsions
and he had not disclosed it to her at the time of marriage.
She has alleged that, respondent No.1 has taken dowry of
Rs.2 lakhs and her parents have spent entire marriage
expenses. Respondent no.1 has denied these contentions.
Admittedly, petitioner and respondent No.1 got married
in the year 22.06.1989 and petitioner has not produced
any documents to show that her parents have spent the
entire expenses or that respondent No.1 has taken dowry
of Rs.2 lakhs. It is the contention of respondent No.1
that petitioner belonged to a poor family and her family
did not have enough income to spend for the entire
10
Crl.Misc.98/2016
wedding expenses and give him dowry. It is also
contended that, respondent No.1 never demanded dowry.
In this regard in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is
elicited that, her father is a retired police official and he
retired before her marriage. Petitioner has admitted
that, her father has given the lands owned by him to her
sister. She has admitted that, her father had the
responsibility of educating and conducting the marriage
of 4 children. She has admitted that, respondent No.1
is her maternal aunt’s son. She has admitted that, she
does not know the exact marriage expenses incurred by
her father. She has admitted that, respondent No.1 was
given only customary gifts at the time of marriage.
These admissions of the petitioner in her cross
examination along with the fact that there are no
documents regarding the marriage expenses prove that
respondent No.1 has not taken dowry and petitioner’s
parents have not spent Rs.5 lakhs towards marriage
expenses as they did not have the requisite financial
capacity.
14. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent
No.1 was suffering from seizure convulsions and this was
not disclosed by him at the time of marriage.
Respondent No.1 in his cross examination has admitted
11
Crl.Misc.98/2016
that, he was suffering from seizure convulsions and
stated that he has informed about the same to the
petitioner. He has admitted that, he has not disclosed
his medical condition to his employer and stated that, he
has passed the medical examination conducted by his
employer. He has further stated that, he did not have
seizure convulsions from 1989 to 2006 and he had one
episode of seizure in 2006 and one episode in 2009.
There is no evidence before the Court apart from
petitioner’s own testimony regarding this allegation.
Hence, it is the say of the petitioner against the say of
respondent No.1. But it is a fact that respondent No.1 is
the son of paternal aunt of the petitioner. Therefore if he
was suffering from any serious medical condition there is
no way the petitioner and her family would not know
about it. That apart, this Court cannot believe the
uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner. Hence, this
contention of the petitioner is not proved.
15. It is alleged by the petitioner that, after
marriage she was harassed by 1 st respondent and his
family members and on one occasion during the
advanced stage of her pregnancy respondent No.1 in an
outburst poured hot coffee on her due to which she
sustained severe burnt injury and she was admitted to
12
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Wheel and Axle hospital and respondent No.1 and his
family members persuaded her not to reveal the same at
the hospital. But respondent No.1 did not reform and
continued to harass her. Respondent No.1 has denied
the said allegation but in his cross examination he has
admitted that, petitioner had suffered burn injury
because her saree grazed the coffee cup and hot coffee
fell on her back. He has admitted that, petitioner has
availed treatment at Wheel and Axle hospital. It is not
possible for coffee to fall on petitioner’s back if her saree
gazed the coffee cup and it fell. Hence, it is clear that
respondent No.1 is giving a different version about the
said incident. This admission of the respondent No.1
probabalizes that, he has thrown hot coffee on the
petitioner as there is no other way it would have fallen on
her back. This incident shows the treatment meted out
to the petitioner in her matrimonial house.
16. It is further alleged by the petitioner that,
respondent No.1 was not interested in taking up
responsibility of the family and would never take care of
her requirements even after the birth of her son on
13.07.1991. She has alleged that, he was in bad
company and would come home late in a drunken stupor
and assault her and manhandle her. Seeing the attitude
13
Crl.Misc.98/2016
of the respondent No.1 she has started doing petty jobs
to earn sufficient sum for taking care of her
requirements. She has stated that, in 1993 respondent
No.1 had a big altercation with his parents and
petitioner, respondent No.1 and their child were shut out
of the matrimonial house and were compelled to take a
rented house. Even after the said incident respondent
No.1 did not take up any responsibility. Therefore,
petitioner started doing saree business and other
household works to meet ends and from the income she
earned she has paid the rent and monthly expenses. She
has further alleged that, she gave birth to a girl baby in
the year 1994. She has stated that, she has purchased a
house at Attur Layout and again purchased a site at
Attur Layout. She has constructed a house at the said
site by availing bank loan and also raising loans from
friends and acquaintances. She has alleged that, during
the said time respondent No.1 would take all her money
kept in the cupboard without informing her and spent
the same on his vices. She has alleged that, she has
taken all the responsibility of the household including
the educational expenses of her children. She has
alleged that, she has also purchased another property in
the same vicinity. But respondent No.1 would often
threaten her to transfer the property to his name and in
14
Crl.Misc.98/2016
this regard on 27.06.2014 respondent No.1 along with
respondent No.2 and 3 assaulted her and she suffered
fracture. In this regard petitioner has submitted Ex.P.5 to
6 sale deed with respect to the properties purchased on
17.03.2007 and 19.06.2003 by her. She has submitted 4
receipts with respect to her saree business as Ex.P.13.
She has submitted GPA dated 05.12.1996 executed in
her favour as Ex.P.14 and lease deed dated 16.08.2000
executed in her favour by one Ashok Kumar. She has
submitted tax paid receipt and EC with respect to
Ex.P.5 and 6 properties as Ex.P.17, BWSSB water
connection application for Ex.P.6 property as Ex.P.19.
She has submitted rental agreement dated 23.02.2015
executed by her in favour of one K.Venkatesh as
Ex.P.20. She has submitted tax paid receipts with
respect to Ex.P.6 property as Ex.P.21. In order to show
her income she has submitted her IT returns for the year
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 as
Ex.P.8. In order to prove she was assaulted by
respondent No.1 to 3 on 27.06.2024 petitioner has
produced Ex.P.7 which is the discharge summary of
Government hospital at Yalahanka. Respondent No.1
has denied these allegations and alleged that, petitioner
was not a dutiful wife and she was not affectionate
15
Crl.Misc.98/2016
towards his family or him and he has stated that, he was
taking care of the family and all the needs of the family.
17. From the cross examination of the petitioner
conducted by the respondent’s counsel it can be culled
out that, it is the contention of respondent No.1 that
petitioner started her saree business in the year 2001
and she did not have enough income to purchase Ex.P.5
and 6 properties. Respondent No.1 has contended that,
the said properties were purchased out of the respondent
No.1’s funds and registered in the name of the petitioner.
In this regard in the cross examination dated
14.12.2020 of the petitioner it is elicited that, she was
depositing her income from her saree business,
Tupperware business and money received from Bajaj
Allianz to her Canara Bank account. She has stated
that, she does not remember when she opened her
Canara Bank account. Ex.P.30 is the Canara bank
account pass book of the petitioner. She has admitted
that, as per Ex.P.30 her account was opened on
01.09.2001. She has denied the suggestion that, she has
not opened any bank account in 1990 since she did not
have in independent income. She has stated that, she
used to get profit of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- from her
Tupperware business and she used to get commission of
16
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- from Bajaj Allianz which
used to be credited to her bank account. She has stated
that, she has started her business in 1991 after the birth
of her 1st child. She has stated that, she has started
saree business by pledging her gold chain and taking a
loan of Rs.5,000/- from her mother. She has stated that,
she does not remember the amount invested by her for
the business. She has admitted that, she has not
produced any document apart from Ex.P.13 to show that
she was running saree business. She has denied the
suggestion that, Ex.P.13 is created by her for the purpose
of this case.
18. Perusal of Ex.P.30 Canara Bank account
statement of the petitioner shows that she has received
various amounts on various dates into her account and
respondent No.1 and her son Y.S. Harish have withdrawn
various amounts from her account. The said account is
starting from 01.09.2001. Ex.P.5 and 6 properties were
purchased in the year 2007 and 2003 respectively.
Hence, Ex.P.30 proves that petitioner had the financial
capacity to purchase the said properties. Further
respondent No.1 himself has produced Ex.R.19 which is
judgment passed in CC No.44247/2010 by Hon’ble 23 rd
ACMM, Bangalore in a case between the petitioner and
17
Crl.Misc.98/2016
the one T.V. Shiva. The said case was filed U/Sec.138 of
N.I. Act by the petitioner alleging that she had given loan
of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused in the said case in
December 2007. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Court
has observed the petitioner was financially sound to give
a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the accused therein. Hence,
even Ex.R.19 proves that the petitioner had enough
income to purchase Ex.P.5 and 6 properties. Further
Ex.P.36 and 37 which are the bank account statements
of the petitioner of Canara Bank and Bank of India from
January 2001 to December 2011 also shows that,
petitioner had constant in flow of income from various
sources which probabalizes that she was running
business and she had sufficient income. Therefore, the
contention of the respondent that, he had purchased
Ex.P.5 and 6 properties from his income in the name of
the petitioner is not proved.
19. Here it is pertinent to note that, currently
respondent No.1 along with his son is residing in Ex.P.5
property and Ex.P.6 property is adjacent to Ex.P.5
property and has a sheet house. This Court by order
dated 10.03.2020 directed the respondent No.1 to permit
the petitioner to stay in the house property bearing
No.483, 4th Cross, 2nd Main road, Attur Layout,
18
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Yelahanka, Bangalore. Respondent No.1 filed memo and
matter was posted for objection and hearing on memo
later another application was filed U/Sec.31 of PWDV Act
and this Court by order dated 13.07.2020 rejected the
said application on a conditional order that the same will
be taken into consideration after diminishing of Covid-19
pandemic. Later respondent No.1 has filed for
modification of the said order in view of his daughter’s
marriage and same was allowed. Even after conclusion
of his daughter’s marriage respondent No.1 did not
provide residence to the petitioner in the said property
and neither did he provide alternate accommodation to
the petitioner. The petitioner is currently residing in a
Ashram. Even after taking several adjournments for
compliance of the said order respondent No.1 has not
provided suitable alternate accommodation to the
petitioner. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.35
photographs and CD containing video of the incident that
took place on 12.03.2020 in the above mentioned
address where respondent No.1 is residing. The counsel
of the petitioner has submitted her certificate
U/Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act since the said
incident was recorded on her mobile phone. It is
submitted by the petitioner that, respondent No.1 has
locked the door and gate and did not allow her inside the
19
Crl.Misc.98/2016
house in spite of residence order passed by this Court. In
this regard she has submitted photographs marked as
Ex.P.33.
20. Respondent No.1 has been cross examined
with respect to the said incident and he has denied
violating the Court order. He has stated that, his
mother was suffering from cancer at that time and hence
he informed the petitioner to execute the order of the
Court after 2 days but she has not come forward. He
has admitted that, he was called to the police station on
10.03.2020 with respect to the execution of the Court
order. He has submitted that, he has informed the
police that he requires 2 days to comply with the Court
order. He has admitted that, Ex.P.33/photographs
were taken when the petitioner approached the house
No.483, 4th Cross, 2nd Main road, Attur Layout,
Yelahanka, Bangalore for compliance of the order of the
Court dated 10.03.2020. He has admitted that, the gate
of the said house was locked on that day. To the
question that, respondent No.1 could have sent his son
or daughter to open the lock respondent No.1 has stated
that petitioner came with 10 people hence he did not
send his children to open the gate. To the suggestion
that, he could have filed a police complaint if the
20
Crl.Misc.98/2016
petitioner had come to his house with 10 people to
execute order dated 10.03.2020, he has stated that, he
went to the police station to lodge a complaint but police
have not taken the complaint. He has stated that,
petitioner, her advocate, 4 to 5 persons came along with
her to enter the house and they left the house by
themselves. He has stated that, petitioner insisted that 4
to 5 women from her Ashram would reside with her and
when respondent No.1 refused for the same and told her
that only she is allowed to stay as per the order of the
Court she has gone back. He has admitted that, he is
deposing about this for the first time. He has stated that,
he has no objection to execute order dated 10.03.2020
even now.
21. In cross examination dated 04.03.2024 when
respondent No.1 is asked if he is willing to give the house
key to the petitioner he has refused and said it is
unnecessary to give her the house key. He has stated
that, he is ready to give house key of house No.435 and
not of house No.483. He has admitted that, house
No.483 where he is residing is a duplex house and house
No.435 is a sheet house. Therefore, from the entire
evidence especially photographs/Ex.P.33 and 36 and the
answers given by respondent No.1 in the cross
21
Crl.Misc.98/2016
examination it is clear that respondent No.1 was
unwilling to comply with order dated 10.03.2020 and
allow the petitioner to reside in house No.483. He has
specifically stated that, he is willing to give house key of
house No.483 which is a sheet house and not a house
No.435. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner that, the
respondent No.1 has refused to allow her to reside in her
own house. This conduct of the respondent No.1
definitely amounts to domestic violence.
22. To prove that petitioner was assaulted by
respondent No.1 to 3 on 27.06.2014 petitioner has
submitted Ex.P.7. Perusal of Ex.P.7 reveals that,
petitioner has obtained treatment on 26.12.2014 with
respect to an alleged assault. According to the petitioner
the alleged incident of respondent No.1 to 3 assaulting
her occurred on 27.06.2014 whereas Ex.P.7 pertaining to
the incident that allegedly occurred on 26.12.2014.
Therefore, there is no sufficient evidence before the Court
with respect to the incident that allegedly occurred on
27.06.2014. Hence, petitioner has not proved the same.
It is the allegation of the petitioner that, respondent No.1
with the instigation and support of respondent No.2 and
3 were forcing her to transfer Ex.P.5 and 6 property to
the name of respondent No.1. The role of respondent
22
Crl.Misc.98/2016
No.2 and 3 is not proved by the petitioner. However, the
conduct of respondent No.1 in ousting the petitioner from
her own house and not allowing her to enter into her
house in spite of Court order and claiming that he is the
owner of the properties before this Court itself proves
that he is forcing the petitioner to transfer Ex.P.5 and 6
properties in to his name.
23. It is alleged by the petitioner that, on
17.03.2017 she visited house No.483, 4 th cross, 2nd Main,
Attur Layout, Yelahanka New Town along with her
advocate and adviser of Sumangali Seva ashram
Smt.Parvathi but respondent No.1 has not allowed her to
enter the room in which all her property documents were
kept and told her to secure an order from the Court to
access her documents from the house. She has
submitted photographs and CD containing video with
respect to the said incident. She has also submitted
complaint given by her to Yelahanka Upanagara police
station on 17.03.2017 marked as Ex.P.25 and
acknowledgment issued by the police in NCR No.68/2017
marked as Ex.P.26. In the said acknowledgment it is
stated that, petitioner was not allowed to enter her house
by the respondent No.1.
23
Crl.Misc.98/2016
24. Respondent No.1 has denied these allegations.
But he has not produced any evidence contrary to the
evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is
successful in proving incident dated 17.03.2017.
Therefore, from the conduct of the respondent No.1 it is
proved that, he is unwilling to let the petitioner reside in
the shared household. U/Sec.17 of PWDV Act the
petitioner has a right to reside in the shared household.
Moreover, in this case the shared household is the
absolute property of the petitioner. The right of residence
granted U/Sec.17 of PWDV Act can be enforced U/Sec.19
of PWDV Act. This Court by order dated 10.03.2020
directed the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner to
reside in the shared household. As already discussed
respondent No.1 has refused to comply with the said
order and not allowed the petitioner to reside in shared
household. Sec.3(iv)(c) of PWDV Act states that,
economic abuse includes prohibition or restriction to
continued access to resources or facilities which the
aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of
domestic relationship including access to shared
household. Therefore, the respondent No.1 by not
allowing the petitioner to enter the shared household has
committed economic abuse which amounts to domestic
violence.
24
Crl.Misc.98/2016
25. It is the allegation of the petitioner that,
respondent No.1 was not taking up any responsibility of
the house and the petitioner was shouldering all the
responsibility and further respondent No.1 and her son
would harass her for money and they were continuously
taking money from her bank account. In this regard
petitioner has submitted Ex.P.30 her Canara bank
account statement, Ex.P.36 and 37 her Bank of India
and Canara bank account statement. Perusal of these
documents reveal that, respondent No.1 and petitioner’s
son Y.S. Harish have received various amounts from the
petitioner by way of cheque continuously. In the cross
examination respondent No.1 has admitted that, as per
Ex.P.36 he has received Rs.35,000/- from the petitioner
on 31.01.2006, Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner on
20.04.2006, Rs.8,000/- from the petitioner on
10.06.2006. He has explained these credits from the
petitioner’s account by stating that the petitioner would
not personally visit her bank hence she would give him or
his son cheques to withdraw money on her behalf.
However, if that was the case petitioner could have
written self cheques and withdrawn the amount. Further
Ex.P.36 reveals that, the petitioner has on various
occasions deposited cash in to her account which means
to say that she is perfectly able to visit the bank and
25
Crl.Misc.98/2016
conduct all the necessary transactions. Respondent in
his cross examination has stated that, himself and his
son have actually deposited the cash and the banking
rules at that time did not mention the name of the
deposition of cash. However, he has not produced any
banking rule to support his statement. Hence, the only
inference that can be drawn statement. Hence, the only
inference that can be drawn is that petitioner herself
deposited the cash. Therefore, Ex.P.30, 36 and 37 prove
that respondent No.1 and his son have taken various
amounts from the petitioner continuously. Although,
there is not direct evidence before the Court to show that
respondent No.1 has harassed the petitioner and forced
her to give him money, the fact that respondent No.1 has
never credited even a single rupee to the bank account of
the petitioner during their marital life but taken heavy
amounts from her continuously itself probabalizes the
contention of the petitioner. Further the contention of
the respondent No.1 sans proof that Ex.P.5 and 6
property were purchased by him. His unsubstantiated
contention that, depositors mentioned in Ex.P.30 are his
friends and they owed him money go to show that
respondent No.1 was harassing the petitioner for her
money and he has an eye on her property. Here it is
pertinent to note that, petitioner has contended that, she
26
Crl.Misc.98/2016
is unable to pay the property tax for Ex.P.5 and 6
properties and respondent No.1 in his cross examination
has contended that, he has been paying property tax
from 2014. But he has not produced any documents in
this regard. This also indicates that respondent No.1 is
not willing to take up any responsibility regarding the
petitioner or the property but he wants to enjoy the
property and deprive the petitioner of her legitimate
rights to enjoy and reside in her own property.
26. It is the main contention of the respondent
No.1 that, petitioner and one Mohan Krishna started
having a relationship outside the marriage in 2016 and
whenever he questioned the petitioner she told him that
they were talking as friends. He has alleged that,
petitioner left the house along with Mohan Krishna to
Tirupati by taking the property documents and her
jewels. He has alleged that, when he found out that
petitioner and the said Mohan Krishna were staying in a
hotel in Tirupati he went there along with his son and
found out the petitioner and said Mohan Krishna were
together and they have taken one single room and they
were residing in the said room. He has alleged that, he
went to the police station and petitioner and said Mohan
Krishna also came to the police station. Further the
27
Crl.Misc.98/2016
police asked him to lodge a complaint at Bangalore.
Hence, he lodged a complaint on 14.04.2016 at
Yelahanka Upanagara police station.
27. Respondent No.1 has further stated that,
petitioner’s parents directed her to lead a life with him
and the children but she refused and she has voluntarily
deserted him and his children and she is leading a
adulterous life. He has further submitted that, he has
got his son to study B.E. and he has got married his son
and daughter. He has further stated that, petitioner’s
parents have performed his son’s and daughter’s
marriage as the petitioner refused to even attend the
marriage ceremony. In support of his contentions he
has produced photographs of the petitioner and the said
Mohan Krishna at Tirupati as Ex.R.6 to 9. He has also
produced his complaint dated 14.04.2016 lodged against
Mohan Krishna before Yalahanka Upanagara police
station marked as Ex.R.12, statement of the petitioner
given before Yalahanka Upanagara police station marked
as Ex.R.13, acknowledgment issued by the police to the
petitioner on 14.04.2016. He has also produced
photographs of his sons and daughters marriage marked
as Ex.R.14. Respondent No.1 has examined his son
28
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Harish Y.S. as R.W.2 in support of his contentions.
R.W.2 in his evidence affidavit has stated that;
“when this was the situation all the problems
started when the petitioner without giving
any information and also with out telling
anyone in the family, she went to Tirupati in
the month of April 2016, but when she was
leaving the house my mother informed me in
the morning that she was going to Mysore
with neighbour and told that she will be
returning back on the next day. I state that
when respondent noticed on the next day
and was shocked to notice that all the gold
jewels and property paper were missing from
the house, immediately my father called my
mother mobile number but my mother didn’t
pick the call. I state that after detail enquiry
it was found that the petitioner was in
Tirupati with a person named Mohan
Krishna. I was shocked to hear the same
and immediately called my mother. After
trying several time, she picked my call and
admitted that she was in Tirupati with a
person named Mohan Krishna.
29
Crl.Misc.98/2016
I further state that she also admitted that,
police were coming to take her to the police
station with the help of hotel management
staff. Soon I left to Tirupati along with my
sister and my mother’s sister. I further state
that my mother refused to come to Bangalore
with us and told that she will come by
herself to Bangalore on the same day. Later,
I tried to reach her phone several times but it
was switched off and she did not return to
home.
I state that next day my father went to
the Yelahanka police station to file a
complaint against her mother. But the
petitioner didn’t turn back and stayed away
from me and my sister. I stated that after
some time my father received the summons
from this Hon’ble Court. I further sate that
my mother has not returned home since
2016 and when the elders of the family tried
to convince her, my mother flatly refused.
She has deserted her family and is leading
the life, apart from the incident which
happened in Tirupati my mother did not
30
Crl.Misc.98/2016turn back nor she made any attempt to join
the family and refused voluntarily to stay
with family where in leaving the children
alone”.
28. R.W.2 has further stated that, petitioner has
refused to perform the rituals in his marriage and his
sisters marriage ceremony in spite of him inviting her. He
has stated that, his grand parents, his mother’s sisters
and their husbands performed his marriage and his
sister’s marriage ceremony. He has stated that, several
times his father and himself have requested the
petitioner to attend the marriage ceremony but the
petitioner has refused.
29. The petitioner has denied these allegations and
she stated that, respondent No.1 is of suspicious
character and he has portrayed her as a characterless
person in front of the children and they have joined
hands with respondent No.1 to compel her to transfer all
the properties in the name of respondent No.1. She has
stated that, on advice of family astrologer she had been
to Tirupati to perform certain rituals during that time
respondent No.1 along with other respondents and
unruly elements of vicinity came to Tirupati and created
31
Crl.Misc.98/2016
big nuisance. She has stated that, respondent No.1 to 3
have threatened her with life threat if she does not
transfer all her assets in the name of respondent No.1.
She has stated that, respondent No.1 even filed a false
complaint before the police and ever since then he has
locked all the cupboards, retained all her belongings and
articles. She has stated that, after coming back from
Tirupati, respondent No.1 and the children went on
humiliating her and she was forced to walk out of the
house and reside at Sumangali Seva Ashrama.
Petitioner in support of her contention has submitted her
attendance register maintained in Sumangali Sevashram
as Ex.P.2.
30. Petitioner has been cross examined and it is
elicited from her that, she went to Tirupati on 12.04.2016
alone for well being of her family. She has denied the
suggestion that, she was with Mohan Krishna at Tirupati
ITC Fortune Hotel on 12.04.2016. She has stated that,
she has not stayed at any Hotel and she traveled entire
night. She has stated that, respondent No.1 came near
the Kalyani in Tirupati where she was taking a holy dip
and forced her to transfer the property to him and sign
documents and when she refused respondent No.1
lodged a false complaint against her. She has admitted
32
Crl.Misc.98/2016
that, she made an attempt to give complaint against
respondent No.1 before 07.03.2017 but police did not
receive the complaint. She has stated that, respondent
No.1 forced her to perform all the poojas. She has
denied the suggestion that, due to Mohan Krishna, her
sisters have abandoned her. She has denied the
suggestion that, she has not approached her parents for
mediation and advice since she committed a mistake.
31. Respondent No.1 in his cross examination has
admitted that, he got acquainted with Mohan Krishna
though his friend in 2012. He has admitted that, Mohan
Krishna is an astrologer. He has admitted that, he used
to talk to Mohan Krishna over the phone once in 6
month. He has admitted that, he has never sent the
petitioner alone with Mohan Krishna. Respondent No.1
in his cross examination is questioned as to when he got
to know that petitioner had gone to Tirupati with Mohan
Krishna, he has answered that he has heard the
petitioner discuss her travel plan to Tirupati with Mohan
Krishna. In the cross examination when he is
questioned about the reason for not stopping the
petitioner from going to Tirupati he has answered that he
was not in talking terms with the petitioner at that time.
Hence, he has not stopped her from going to Tirupati.
33
Crl.Misc.98/2016
He has stated that, he has not spoken to the petitioner
since 2014. He has admitted that, he did not have any
impediment to lodge a complaint against the petitioner as
soon as he got to know about her leaving to Tirupati
along with Mohan Krishna. Further it is elicited in the
cross examination dated 04.03.2024 of respondent No.1
that “ನೀವು ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರ ಜೊತೆ ಮಾತನಾಡದೆ ಇದ್ದಿದ್ದಾಗ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರು ತಿರುಪತಿಗೆ
ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ವಿಷಯ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದು ಅವರನ್ನು ತಡೆಯದೆ ಇದ್ದಾಗ ಅವರನ್ನು ಏತಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ತಿರುಪತಿಗೆ
ಹುಡುಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರಿಗೆ ಏನಾದರೂ ಆದರೆ
ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಬರುತ್ತದೆ ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ನಾನು ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ”. He has admitted that,
he went to Tirupati along 2 of his friends. He has stated
that, on reaching Tirupati he immediately went to
Fortune Kenses lodge and met the Manager. He has
admitted that, there are CCTV cameras in the said hotel.
He has stated that, he met the petitioner for the first time
in the said lodge. He has admitted that, there was no
impediment for him to take photographs of the petitioner
and Mohan Krishna at the lodge. He has admitted that,
Ex.R.6 to 11 photographs were taken in a Tirupati police
station. He has stated that, he does not know the
persons present along with Mohan Krishna and
petitioner in Ex.R.10. He has denied the suggestion that,
those persons in Ex.R.10 had also gone along with
Mohan Krishna for performing pooja at Tirupati. R.W.2
34
Crl.Misc.98/2016
in his cross examination has stated that, petitioner had
told him that she would be going to Mysore and she
instead went to Tirupati one day prior to when she was
supposed to leave. He has stated that, his father
informed him at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. that his mother has
left to Tirupati. He has admitted that, he knew his
mother was not in the house on the previous day itself at
9.00 p.m. He has denied the suggestion that, he has not
invited the petitioner to his marriage. He has denied
receiving Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner on 21.10.2010
as per Ex.P.30. He has denied the suggestion that, he
was leading a wayward life and he was harassing the
petitioner for money. He has admitted that, Mohan
Krishna is an astrologer and he has visited their house 3
times and petitioner was seeking his astrology advice. He
has further stated that, he has called the petitioner 17
times on the day she went to Tirupati and he went along
with his maternal aunt and sister at 2.30 p.m. to
Tirupati.
32. This Court has perused Ex.R.6 to 11
photographs taken at Tirupati police station. Petitioner
is not denying the entire incident that took place at
Tirupati. It is her contention that, she does not have
any relationship outside marriage with Mohan Krishna
35
Crl.Misc.98/2016
and she had been to Tirupati along with other persons to
perform pooja. From the cross examination of the
respondent No.1 it is very clear that, he was very much
aware of the petitioner going to Tirupati along with
Mohan Krishna on 12.04.2016. In spite of the same
instead of stopping her he has gone to Tirupati along
with his friends and intercepted the petitioner and
caught her off-guard and created a scene by alleging that
she has come to Tirupati along with her paramour. When
respondent No.1 was very much aware that petitioner
had plan to go to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna he could
have stopped her or he could have even filed a complaint
before going to Tirupati. But respondent No.1 has not
chosen any of these courses of action but he has waited
for the petitioner to go to Tirupati and then he has lodged
a complaint. The very fact that, respondent No.1 over
heard the conversation between the petitioner and
Mohan Krishna where they planned to go to Tirupati
shows that the said plan was not made secretly or
clandestinely. Here it is pertinent to note that, R.W.2 in
his cross examination has given a completely different
version regarding the incident that occurred on
12.04.2016 by stating that, petitioner had informed him
that she would be going to Mysore and she left to
Tirupati. Respondent No.1 has nowhere stated that,
36
Crl.Misc.98/2016
petitioner had told that she would be going to Mysore.
Respondent No.1 in his statement of objection has stated
that, he went to Tirupati with his son i.e., R.W.2. But
R.W.2 has given an unbelievable version that he got to
know on 12.04.2016 in the evening that his mother was
not in the house but he received a call from respondent
No.1 on the next day morning at 6.30 to 7.00 a.m. that
his mother had gone to Tirupati with Mohan Krishna.
R.W.2 went to Tirupati along with his maternal aunt and
sister. Whereas, it is the evidence of respondent No.1
that he knew petitioner was going to Tirupati on
11.04.2016 itself and he went along with his son on
12.04.2016 to Tirupati. Therefore, there is no
consistency between the evidence of respondent No.1 and
R.W.2. This probabalizes the contention of the petitioner
that, respondent No.1 has made false allegations against
her. It is after this incident the petitioner was compelled
to leave the matrimonial house and take shelter at
Sumangali Ashram. Respondent No.1 has denied that,
petitioner is residing in the Ashram and contended that,
she is residing with her paramour. Petitioner to prove
that she is residing in the Ashram has produced
attendance register of the ashram and certificate from the
ashram as Ex.P.2 and 3. Counsel for the respondent
No.1 has contended that, petitioner has created Ex.P.3
37
Crl.Misc.98/2016
by including her name in the register as the attendance
register is filed till 01.10.2020 whereas her evidence
affidavit is filed on 16.12.2016 and Ex.P.3 is filed on
05.09.2018. Perusal of Ex.P.3 reveals the last date of
attendance is on 01.08.2017 and Ex.P.3 was produced
before the Court on 17.05.2018. Therefore, the
contention of respondent No.1 that Ex.P.3 is created
document is not proved. R.W.2 has admitted that,
petitioner is residing in the Ashram. Therefore, it is
proved by the petitioner due to the suspicious attitude of
respondent No.1 and because respondent No.1 lodged
false complaint against her she was compelled to leave
the matrimonial house and take shelter in a Ashram.
Whereas, respondent No.1 on the other hand has been
residing in the shared household which is the absolute
property of the petitioner and he has refused to allow the
petitioner to enter the shared household.
33. Further, even if the contention of the
respondent No.1 is accepted the said contention holds
good when the petition is filed under Sec.125 of Cr.PC.
The Subsection 4 of Sec.125 bars women who is living in
adultery from claiming maintenance. The instant petition
is filed under domestic violence Act and in the entire
scheme of the Act there is no such bar. Even for
38
Crl.Misc.98/2016
argument sake the said contention was taken into
consideration the respondent has filed complaint before
police and concerned police has not initiated any case
against the offender. This shows the respondent has not
made out a prima-facie case. Currently the Honble Apex
Court has held that adultery is not a criminal offence.
Which means no criminal complaint can be lodged
against the adulterer it can be used only as a ground for
divorce and defence in Civil case.
34. The superior Courts has expressed opinions
about adultery and whether it acts as a bar to claim
maintenance has been discussed by the several High
Courts of the country. What amounts to adultery is
discussed in (Ramsaran v. Soman Wati)1964 (1) Cri. L.J.
483 (Punj). The said observation which are found at page
486 read thus:
“Living in adultery‟ is living together as
husband and wife and exercising sexual
rights and duties implied by such
relation when legally created. Proof of
occasional acts of illicit intercourse may
fall short of what in intended by the
expression “living in adultery”. It
suggests a man and the wife of another
39
Crl.Misc.98/2016living continually as husband and wife.
An adulterous intercourse is a condition
contemplating repetition of extra marital
relationship when opportunity offers
itself. It is a condition of cohabitation in
contradistinction to occasional acts. The
wife forfeits her right to be maintained
on proof of repeated adulterous
meetings.”
35. The question whether a single meeting
amounts to adultery is discussed the the case of Ashok
v. Anita, 2011 SCC OnLine MP 2249, the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh interpreting the said provision and
observed as reproduced:-
“8. A perusal of the provisions of section
125(4) of Cr. P.C. makes it clear that a
stray act of adultery on the part of the
wife does not amount to adultery within
the meaning of section 125(4) and
further does not disentitle the wife to
maintenance., The expression “living in
adultery” connotes a course of
40
Crl.Misc.98/2016adulterous conduct more or less
continuous and not occasional.
36. As per the interpretation of various High
Courts it is settled law that “living in adultery” applies to
a continuous adulterous conduct and not a single or
occasional lapse from virtue. Solitary Act of adultery or
isolated lapse of wife will not disentitle her from claiming
maintenance. If that aspect is taken into consideration
even adultery is considered as a bar the contention of the
respondent is not tenable because respondent No.1 has
failed to establish continuous acts and he is relying on
one incident as discussed above i.e., Tirupathi incident
as discussed above. Further the said single incident is
taken into consideration it will not bar the wife from
claiming maintenance. Furthermore, as discussed
above the said incident is not proved by respondent No.1.
37. Respondent No.1 has contended that,
petitioner has deserted him and his children and she has
not performed marriage ceremony of her children even
though himself and his children requested her. In the
cross examination of the petitioner on 17.05.2023 it is
elicited that, she does not know the name of the college
where her daughter is studying. She has admitted that,
41
Crl.Misc.98/2016
she has not taken care of her children, their future and
education after 2016. She has admitted that, respondent
No.1 has paid their educational expenses after 2016. It
is an admitted fact that, petitioner has not attended the
marriage ceremony of her children and marriage was
conducted by petitioner’s parents and her sisters. It is
the contention of respondent No.1 that, because
petitioner has committed a mistake she has not taken
part in the marriage ceremony of the children. He has
further contended that, he has invited the petitioner but
she refused to attend the marriage.
38. Per contra, petitioner has contended that,
respondent No.1 and her children have never invited her
to the marriage ceremony and respondent No.1 has
instigated her children against her and he has portrayed
her as a characterless person to the children.
39. From the evidence on record especially from
the fact that, petitioner and respondent No.1’s son Y.S.
Harish examined himself as R.W.2 and given a
completely different version from that of respondent No.1
goes to show that respondent No.1 has portrayed falsely
about the petitioner to his children. This fact also
42
Crl.Misc.98/2016
probabalizes the reason for petitioner not attending the
marriage ceremony of her children.
40. Petitioner has also filed petition against
respondent No.2 and 3. However, respondent No.2 and 3
never resided along with the petitioner in the shared
household and they do not have any domestic
relationship with the petitioner as defined U/Sec.2(f) of
PWDV Act. As already discussed petitioner is unable to
prove about the involvement of respondent No.2 and 3 in
the alleged incident dated 27.06.2014. Hence, petitioner
has not proved that respondent No.2 and 3 have
subjected her to domestic violence. Hence, petition
against respondent No.2 and 3 is dismissed.
41. From over all scrutiny of evidence on record
petitioner is able to probabalize that respondent No.1 has
subjected her to domestic violence. Hence, point No.1
answered partly in the affirmative.
42. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for
monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself and she
has sought for direction to the respondent No.1 to
provide alternate accommodation to her. Both the
parties to the petition have filed assets and liability
43
Crl.Misc.98/2016
statement. Respondent No.1 is working as Senior
Technician in Rail Wheel Factory, Yalahanka and he is
getting gross salary of Rs.1,19,107/- and he is getting
take home salary of Rs.60,593/- and he has contended
that he has the monthly expenditure of Rs.55,000/- per
month and contended that out of Rs.1,19,107/- he has a
total deduction of Rs.58,514/- and amount deducted
towards VPF is Rs.30,000/ and income tax is
Rs.23,154/-. The Court while awarding maintenance has
to take into consideration the gross income of the party
because usually the parties will borrow loans in order to
avoid payment of maintenance to the petitioner. In the
instant case the major portion of deduction is towards
VPF and income tax. Income tax is usually deducted in
the month of January and February. The pay slip
furnished by the respondent No.1 is with regard to
January 2023 hence the deduction will normally be
more. As far as other loan transaction is concerned no
document is placed before the Court.
43. The respondent in his assets and liability
affidavit has stated that, his mother is dependent on him.
However, during the trial his mother has passed away
and both the children have attained majority. In the
cross examination of respondent No.1 it is elicited that,
44
Crl.Misc.98/2016
he has no dependents on him. He has further admitted
that, he has no impediment to provide maintenance to
the petitioner. He has further admitted that, he has
rental income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month
from his parents house. Respondent No.1 has not
disclosed regarding the said rental income in his assets
and liability affidavit.
44. Per contra the petitioner contended that her
income is nil and she has an expenditure to the tune of
Rs.90,000/- per month. In her cross examination she
has stated that her food and shelter is taken care by the
Ashram but she has to work in the Ashram.
45. It is proved from the evidence on record that
respondent No.1 had salary of Rs.1,19,107/- and he also
has rental income of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
Respondent No.1 has stated that, he has expenditure of
Rs.55,000/- per month. Admittedly, the respondent No.1
is residing in the house belonging to the petitioner hence,
he is not paying any rent. Further it is proved that, he
has no dependents on him. Therefore, it is not clear the
reason for respondent No.1 requiring Rs.55,000/- per
month for his own expenses. Respondent No.1 has not
provided a break up of his expenses and he has also not
45
Crl.Misc.98/2016
provided any documents to prove his expenses. Under
such circumstances it is proved that, respondent No.1
has exaggerated his expenses. On the other hand even
the petitioner has claimed expenses of Rs.90,000/- per
month. She has not given a break up of her expenses or
document supporting her expenses. Therefore, it
appears that she has exaggerated her expenses as well.
46. Respondent No.1 has contended that,
petitioner has capacity to maintain herself. Hence, he
need not maintain her. Although from the discussion
made in point No.1 it is apparent that, petitioner was
running a saree business and Tupperware business and
also getting income as a insurance agent from Bajaj
Allianz between 1991 to 2017 there is no evidence before
the Court that, she is earning after 2017. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shylaja V/s Khobanna has held that,
there is difference between capability of earning and
actually earning and has held that merely because the
wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to
reduce the maintenance awarded to the wife. Further, in
the cross examination respondent No.1 himself has
admitted that, he has no impediment to provide
maintenance to the petitioner and he has also admitted
that, he has no other dependents on him apart from the
46
Crl.Misc.98/2016
petitioner. It is an accepted principal of law the
husband has the obligation to maintain his wife. Hence,
petitioner is entitled for maintenance.
47. Currently, respondent No.1 is about 53 years
old and as already discussed he has sufficient income to
maintain the petitioner. Hence, respondent No.1 cannot
escape his liability to provide maintenance to the
petitioner.
48. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan
Singh vs. Meena reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 held that
“the concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to
lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be
thrown away from grace and roam for her basic
maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to
lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived
in the house of her husband. That is where the status
and strata come into play, and that is where the
obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a
prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the
husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the
benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the
solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in
consonance with the statutory law that governs the field,
47
Crl.Misc.98/2016
it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife
does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not
to be maladroitly created where under she is compelled to
resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is
totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to
render the financial support even if the husband is
required to earn money with physical labour, if he is
able-bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an
order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get
maintenance from the husband on any legally
permissible grounds. In this case respondent No.1 has
not made out any such legally permissible grounds.
49. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rajanesh V/s Neha reported in (2021)
2 SCC 324, the Court has to consider the status of the
parties, earning capacity of the parties, needs and
expenses of the petitioner, number of dependents on the
respondent, expenses of the respondent, educational
qualification of the parties, whether the petitioner has
independent source and whether the same is sufficient to
enable her to maintain herself, standard of living as she
was accustomed to in the matrimonial home, whether
she was working before marriage, cost of litigation for a
non working wife etc., while ordering for maintenance.
48
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Considering all the above factors petitioner is entitled for
monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and
rent of Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent No.1
for her alternate accommodation.
50. The petitioner has sought protection order.
But petitioner and respondent No.1 are not living under
the same roof and there is no evidence before this Court
to show that the respondent No.1 has disturbed the
petitioner after separation. Hence, it is not necessary to
grant protection order.
51. The petitioner has sought for direction to the
respondent to pay compensation and damages of
Rs.20,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture
suffered at the hands of the respondent No.1. Sec.22 of
PWDV Act states, Magistrate may grant compensation in
addition to the other reliefs that may be granted under
this Act and direct the respondent to pay compensation
and damages for injuries including mental torture and
emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic
violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in
point No.1 it is proved that the respondent No.1 has
subjected the petitioner to domestic violence and she
has incurred litigation expenses as well. Hence, U/Sec.22
49
Crl.Misc.98/2016
of PWDV Act, she is entitled for compensation. Hence,
respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner
towards compensation. Hence, point No.2 answered
partly in the affirmative.
52. Point No.3 :- In view of the materials placed
before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary
evidence this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
hereby allowed in part.
Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to
pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only) per month
towards maintenance and Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) per month
towards rent to the petitioner from the
date of petition till her life time or till she
gets re-married whichever is earlier.
50
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Further, respondent No.1 is directed to
pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards
compensation within 3 months from this
order.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of
this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by
her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on
this the 21st day of February 2025).
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW.1 : T. Cauvery
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Invitation card
Ex.P.2 & 3 : Sumangala Seva Ashrama letter
dated 24.08.2017 & attendance
register
Ex.P.4 : Complaint dated 17.03.2017 NCR
68/2017
51
Crl.Misc.98/2016
Ex.P.5-6 Sale deed
Ex.P.7 : OPD bill
Ex.P.8 : IT returns
Ex.P.9 : Voter ID
Ex.P.10 : CD
Ex.P.11 & 12 : RTI Document and information
Ex.P.13 : Saree business Bills 4
Ex.P.14 : Site No.483 E.C.
Ex.P.15 : Lease agreement
Ex.P.16 :
Ex.P.17 & 18 : BBMP document
Ex.P.19 : Water connection report
Ex.P.20 : Rental agreement
Ex.P.21 : Tax receipt
Ex.P.22 : RTI document acknowledgment
Ex.P.23 : Ladies club ID card
Ex.P.24 : Copy of complaint dated 14.04.2016
Ex.P.25 : Copy of complaint dated 17.03.2017
Ex.P.26 to 28 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.29 to 31 3 CD
Ex.P.32 2 Marriage photo
Ex.P.33 Photos along with certificate
U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.P.34 Planet Cyber cafe bill
Ex.P.35 6 Photos
Ex.P.36-37 Bank of India and Canara bank
account statement
Ex.P.38 & 39 Property tax receipt
Ex.P.40 Railway services conduct rules
Ex.P.41 & 42 Gold bills
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 K.G. Shivakumarswamy
RW.2 Harish Y.S.
52
Crl.Misc.98/2016
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 : Attendance register
Ex.R.2 to 11 : Photos
Ex.R.12 : Complaint dated 14.04.2016
Ex.R.13 : Statement of petitioner
Ex.R.14 : Marriage invitation card
Ex.R.15 to 17 : 3 Photos and CD
Ex.R.18 : Bank statement
Ex.R.19 : Certified copy of Judgment in CC
No.44247/2010
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
