Bangalore District Court
Annette Anupama vs Ramesha Chandra V on 24 June, 2025
KABC080007722018
Presented on : 16-01-2018
Registered on : 16-01-2018
Decided on : 24-06-2025
Duration : 7 years, 5 months, 8 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.11/2018
Petitioner : Smt.Annette Anupama
W/o V. Ramesha Chandra,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at Arpitha, B-54,
2nd Main, KEB Layout,
BTM 1st stage,
Bangalore - 560 076.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.L.S.C., Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent : Sri.V Ramesha Chandra
S/o. G. Vinaya Chandra
Aged about 52 years,
R/at Arpitha, B-54,
2
Crl.Misc.11/2018
2nd Main, KEB Layout,
BTM 1st stage,
Bangalore - 560 076.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.S.H.G. Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner 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 and the respondent are husband and wife
and their marriage was solemnized on 22.04.1990 and
from the wed lock they have two male children. Further
she submitted that, her parents have given one gold
chain, gold ring, one wrist watch, 350 grams of gold and
other items as dowry as per the demand of the
respondent and her parents have spent Rs.5 lakhs
towards the marriage expenses. After the marriage she
started to live with respondent at matrimonial house and
respondent and his family members started torturing the
petitioner in a filthy and vulgar language and harassed
her both physically and mentally and the respondent
used to come home late night in a drunken state and
3
Crl.Misc.11/2018
respondent used to abuse the petitioner by saying that if
he could marry some other girl he will get more dowry. In
the year 2002 the respondent started to construct a
house and for the same he has demanded dowry from the
petitioner, when she expressed her inability to arrange
the money he assaulted the petitioner. After completion
of the house they shifted to Mangalore because the
respondent was transferred to Mangalore. Thereafter also
respondent No.1 again started his old habit of drinking
alcohol and coming to the home in the late night and
assaulting the petitioner ever day. Several times
panchayath was held but the respondent never changed
his attitude and continued to harass her and abusing her
and also demanded additional dowry. Since from 2010
respondent started neglect of the entire family later she
came to know that the respondent is roaming with one
girl by name Muthurani. Even after panchayath the
respondent never changed his behaviour and he
developed the illegal relationship with said Muthurani
and he started to reside with her and neglected the
petitioner and her children.
3. Further petitioner submitted that in the year
2013 the petitioner received a notice from the State Legal
Services Authority for the mediation center regarding the
4
Crl.Misc.11/2018
complaint filed by the respondent with an intention to
get mutual consent divorce from the petitioner. Further
she submitted that, respondent started to construct a
house for the said Muthurani with whom the respondent
is having illegal relationship and as such the respondent
demanded the petitioner to bring money from her
parents. Further she submitted that, on 15.12.2017 at
about 3.30 p.m petitioner came to know that respondent
was with one Muthurani as such the petitioner went to
the spot and questioned the respondent about his illegal
affair but the respondent has assaulted the petitioner. At
about 7.00 p.m. on the same day respondent came in a
drunken stage assaulted the petitioner with a hockey
stick and threatened the petitioner to kill her if she
comes in his way by saying that he is having an affair
with Muthurani and he wanted to reside with her and he
tried to kill the petitioner and the petitioner escaped
from the spot. Further she submitted that, respondents
started to harass her mentally and physically and not
provided food to her and abused the petitioner to give
divorce or else go and die or accept the Muthurani as his
2nd wife and allow her to live with him, when the
petitioner refused to do so the respondent assaulted the
petitioner brutally. Hence, petitioner lodged a
complaint before Suddaguntepalya police station in
5
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Crime No.274/2017 for the offences punishable
U/Sec.506, 498(A) of IPC. Further she submitted that, to
safe guard the future of two children till day the
petitioner is residing in the same house and till today
the petitioner is suffering from domestic violence from
the respondent. Further she submitted that, respondent
No.1 is working in the Office of the Commissioner of
Central Tax Audit-1, Central Excise, Bangalore as
Assistant Commissioner and getting a gross salary of
Rs.1,20,693/- per month and he is also getting rent more
than Rs.40,000/- and he is also having several movable
and immovable properties. In spite of having sufficient
source of income he has neglected to maintain the
petitioner. On all these grounds she prays to allow her
petition.
4. After service of notice, respondent appeared
before this court through his counsel and filed statement
of objection and in the statement of objection
respondent has admitted his marriage relationship with
the petitioner and admitted that they have 2 male
children from the wedlock and both are majors. Further
he denied all the other allegations against him and he
stated that he never caused domestic violence against the
petitioner and he never demanded dowry from the
6
Crl.Misc.11/2018
petitioner. On all these grounds he prays to reject the
petition filed by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner to substantiate her case has
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 31.
The respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and got
marked documents Ex.R.1 to 71.
6. Heard on petitioner’s side and respondent has
filed written arguments.
7. The following points that arises for my
consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she
was subjected to Domestic Violence by
the respondent?
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 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following;
7
Crl.Misc.11/2018
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the
petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship
between herself and respondent, she was residing with
the respondent in a shared household, the domestic
violence was caused by the respondent upon her. The
respondent has neglected the petitioner without any
reasonable cause and the respondent 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 are in domestic
relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the
petitioner and respondent resided together till the date of
separation. Hence they have resided together in a shared
household. It is also not disputed they have 2 sons from
the wed lock and both have attained majority. Only the
aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the
petitioner.
11. In order to prove that, the respondent has
committed domestic violence, the petitioner has
examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of
8
Crl.Misc.11/2018
her examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the
contents of her petition. She has produced 31
documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to 31. It is
allegation of the petitioner that, at the time of marriage
respondent demanded dowry of one gold chain, gold ring,
one watch, 350 grams of gold and spent Rs.5 lakhs
towards marriage expenses. Even after marriage
respondent demanded for additional dowry and abused
her in filthy language, harassed her and abused her
saying he would get more dowry if he had married some
other girl. She has alleged that, he demanded dowry
from her when he constructed house in 2002. She has
alleged that, he was not providing her proper food,
treating her as a maid servant and also coming home
late in the night in a drunken state and abusing her. She
has alleged that, he was demanding additional dowry
from her.
12. Respondent has denied the said allegation and
contended that, petitioner’s parents did not have the
means to spend such huge amount and conduct the
marriage in the year 1990. Further it is contended that,
there is no custom of receiving or giving dowry in CSI
Indian Christian community. It is also contended that,
petitioner has not submitted any proof regarding giving
9
Crl.Misc.11/2018
dowry to the respondent. In this regard it is elicited from
the petitioner in her cross examination dated
16.08.2023 that there is no custom of receiving and
giving dowry in their community. She has further
admitted in the cross examination that, she has not
produced any documents in support of her allegations.
She has also admitted that, the gold jewelry is in her
possession. She has admitted that her father was
working as Post Master at Shimoga and receiving gross
salary of around Rs.3,500/- and her mother was working
as government school primary teacher. Further her
brother was studying engineering at the time of her
marriage. She has admitted that, at the time of marriage
they were also constructing their house. Respondent has
submitted Ex.R.1 which is the RTI information obtained
by him from BEO, Shimoga regarding salary of a primary
government school teacher serving in April 1990. In
Ex.R.1 it is stated that basic pay would be Rs.1,040/-
and DA Rs.302/-, HRA Rs.100/- for such a government
school teacher serving in 1990. Respondent has argued
that, the gross pay of both the parents of the petitioner in
the year 1990 would be approximately Rs.5,000/-.
Further they were constructing their house and brother
of the petitioner was dependent on the parents. Hence,
they could not afforded to spend Rs.14 lakhs on the
10
Crl.Misc.11/2018
marriage of the petitioner. From the admissions of
P.W.1 in cross examination and from the fact that there
is no evidence before the Court regarding demanding or
giving of dowry before the Court petitioner is unable to
prove that respondent had demanded dowry at the time
of marriage.
13. It is also alleged by the petitioner that,
respondent used to abuse her in filthy and vulgar
language and come home late in the night in a drunken
state and assault her brutally every day. Admittedly,
petitioner has not mentioned any specific instances with
date and time in her evidence. There is no evidence
before the Court with respect to any medical treatment
that petitioner has obtained as a result of such assault.
She has also not produced any evidence to show that
respondent was drinking every day and coming home
late. Although, this Court cannot expect independent
evidence with respect to abuses, insults etc., still when it
is alleged that petitioner was being assaulted everyday
there must be some corroborative evidence. Hence, it
appears that she has made general and sweeping
allegations against the respondent. Petitioner has
alleged that, she was been treated like an maid servant
to do all the household chores. But the petitioner in her
11
Crl.Misc.11/2018
cross examination dated 11.09.2023 in para one has
admitted that, there was a housemaid who was doing all
the household chores and there was a care taker to take
care of the children in 1994 when she was residing along
with the respondent and his mother. This admission of
the petitioner proves that petitioner was not treated as a
housemaid by the respondent. Further she has alleged
that, respondent was not giving her household articles
for cooking. But petitioner in her cross examination
dated 16.08.2023 in para No.7 has admitted that,
respondent was provided her all the household articles
and he had also appointed a maid to do all the household
chores. This admission of the petitioner proves that,
respondent took care of all the household expenses.
Petitioner has alleged that, respondent had abducted her
children in June 1998 and kept them in his brother’s
house and also assaulted her. There is no evidence
before this Court regarding this incident. Hence, this
allegation of the petitioner is not proved. It is also
alleged by the petitioner that, respondent started
demanding dowry in the year 2002 when he started
constructing a house. In this regard petitioner has not
submitted any evidence. Respondent in his cross
examination has categorically denied receiving any
financial help from the petitioner at the time of
12
Crl.Misc.11/2018
construction of 1st floor of BTM Layout house. Hence,
petitioner is unable to prove this allegation. It is the
contention of the respondent that, he had received the
house at BTM Layout, 1st stage comprising of 2 portions
from his mother through a gift deed and he constructed
1st floor by obtaining loan of Rs.4 lakhs and
Rs.1,05,000/- from his GPF savings. Thereafter, he
shifted along with petitioner and his children to the said
house. He has submitted that, petitioner has obtained
injunction from the Hon’ble Family Court with respect to
the first floor of the house where she is residing and she
has also trespassed into the ground floor and she is
receiving rent of Rs.30,000/- per month from the ground
floor of the house. As per the cause title petitioner is
currently residing in the said house. Admittedly, the
house at BTM Layout is shared household of the
petitioner.
14. It is the main allegation of the petitioner that,
in 2010 respondent started having a relationship outside
of the marriage with a lady by name Muthurani and he
started neglecting the petitioner and her children. She
has alleged that, he was not coming home regularly and
was not interested to come home and respondent was
going on holidays and tours with the said Muthurani.
13
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Even after parents have advised the respondent, even
after panchayath was conducted respondent never
changed his behaviour and he started to reside with
Muthurani by neglecting the petitioner. It is alleged that,
he was busy in chatting with the said lady in a indecent
language, organizing many music programs. In support
of her contentions she has submitted Ex.P.1 which is the
whats app conversation said to be between respondent
and the said lady, Ex.P.2 SMS said to be exchanged
between respondent and Muthurani, transcript and
audio recordings of conversation between respondent and
Muthurani marked as Ex.P.3 and 4, complaint filed by
the petitioner against the respondent before the State
Women Commission and the mediation conducted in the
said State Women Commission marked as Ex.P.5. The
invitation card of CD release function of respondent and
Muthurani marked as Ex.P.6, two mobile Phones of LG,
one Nokia mobile phone, 2 pen drive and 3 SIM cards
where the conversation between the respondent and said
Muthurani is stored is marked as Ex.P.7, certificate
issued by Forensic lab with respect to photographs, CD
and pen drive marked as Ex.P.8, certificate issued by
Forensic lab with respect to video with 2 CDs and one
pen drive marked as Ex.P.9.
14
Crl.Misc.11/2018
15. Respondent has denied this allegation and he
has contended that, these are vague allegations made by
the petitioner. He has submitted that,Muthurani is
known to him as she was working in NGO by name
Girzim at Eijipura, Bangalore where the respondent was
a donor. He has stated that, she was talented in
composing devotional songs and writing lyrics. She and
her group approached the respondent for sponsoring a
Tamil Christian music CD and respondent consented and
sponsored the same. They released a CD by name
Saatchiyin Muthukkal in the year 2015 and 2nd volume in
the year 2017. He has submitted that, his 1 st son drove
the car and took the respondent to the CD release
function of the 1st volume and the 2nd son came to the CD
release function of the 2nd volume. He has submitted the
CD cover of both the volumes as Ex.R.57. He has
submitted that, petitioner was very well aware about the
production of CD and she is making a false allegation of
illegal affair way after release of the CD. He has alleged
that, it is the petitioner who has refused to maintain
proper marital relationships since December 2011 and
she has refused to cohabit with the respondent. Further
she is making false allegations against the respondent. It
is further contended by the respondent that, in December
2011 he caught the petitioner with some love messages
15
Crl.Misc.11/2018
in the phone and one love letter written by one of her
B.Ed., classmate during December 2011 indicating illegal
affair with another man which shattered their marital
relationship. Hence, when the respondent came to know
about this he advised the petitioner to mend her ways
but petitioner fought with him immediately shifted to
another room in the same house and stopped all the
communications with respondent, boycotted all social
functions and totally stopped the marital relationship
and stopped cohabitation. Respondent after waiting for
a long time for the petitioner to mend her ways he
approached Karnataka State Legal Service authority for
pre-litigation mediation by application dated 08.04.2013
marked as Ex.R.6 and 7. It is submitted that, petitioner
was not ready to reconcile hence councilor advised them
to take divorce. He has submitted that, respondent did
not approach legal service authority for divorce but for
mediation and till now respondent has not filed any
divorce petition.
16. The main contention of the respondent is that
all the evidence emanating from 3 mobile phone handsets
i.e., Nokia5 basic handset, LG90 phone handset and LG6
phone handset are not admissible in evidence. It is
contended that, the said mobile phones have been
16
Crl.Misc.11/2018
obtained fraudulently as they were kept in locked steel
almirah of respondent in his room and the keys were
with the respondent. Petitioner broke open the lock of
the almirah by committing an offence of theft and
obtained the same. Hence, respondent has filed police
complaint for the same on 29.05.2018 vide NCR PO
2197180600338 before Suddaguntepalya police. He has
stated that he has submitted Ex.R.21 in this regard. He
has further contended that, his LG6 phone was robbed
by the petitioner and her son by assaulting him on
20.01.2018 when he had visited the house at KEB Layout
at 8.00 a.m. and on the same day he has lodged a
complaint against the petitioner and her sons. He has
submitted Ex.R.20 to 27 in this regard.
17. Subsequently only on 4.10.2018 one CD said
to contain the above SMS, photos and voice recordings
were produced before this Court as evidence without
following proper procedure under Sec.65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act. The Court refused to accept the same as no
proper procedure was followed. In the affidavit filed while
producing the CD the petitioner has declared from SIM
the data was copied to the CD. Whereas, in both the old
phone Nokia E5 and LG 90 there was no SIM as when
the old phone was replaced by the respondent with new
17
Crl.Misc.11/2018
phones he had put the same SIM to new phone. Later
she has changed her declaration stating that from phone
memory she has got the data copied to CD. She has also
falsely declared that, the phones were in working
condition and was in use in the hands of the respondent.
Which is false and misleading as the phones were spoiled
and were not currently in use and were not in use ever
since 2015 and 2016 itself. Also the devices were not
petitioner’s and was not in use by her so she cannot give
declaration in respect of the device which does not belong
to her. This is clear violation of Sec.65(B) of Evidence
Act. He has further contended that, petitioner has mis-
declared in her affidavit dated 04.10.2018 that the said
device was in use whereas the said devise was sent for
Forensic examination on 17.07.2018 and it was
effectively not in use for 4 years and 2 months.
Respondent raised objection on the said application of
the petitioner on 03.11.2018 and the Court rejected the
application and accepted the certificate filed by the
petitioner U/Sec.65(B) by its order dated 16.11.2019.
He has further submitted that, with respect to his mobile
handset LG6 he had activated voice recording facility for
his safety however it was interfering with the call quality
hence he uninstalled the same and deleted all the call
recordings but petitioner and her sons have retrieved the
18
Crl.Misc.11/2018
call recordings and installed them back to the device by
creating their version to create evidence and they have
sent the same to Forensic examination on 07.09.2018. It
is further submitted that, the Forensic expert has
retrieved the call recordings lodged in PCB memory and
reproduced this version of call recordings. The Forensic
experts have no where stated that the voice in the said
recording belongs to the respondent. The sample voice of
the respondent was never taken and never matched with
that of the voice contained in the mobile handset.
Therefore, the voice recordings cannot be accepted as
evidence. It is argued that as per Sec.65(A) & (B) of
Indian Evidence Act the procedure laid down should be
followed and certificate should be given by the owner or
lawful operator of the device and the device should be in
working condition and currently in use. In this case the
petitioner is not the owner of the device and few of the
devices were not in working condition. Further they were
password protected. He has further argued that, the
production of whats app conversation and audio
conversation from him phone is a breach of his right to
privacy protected under article 21 of Constitution of India
which is his fundamental right. He has relied on the
judgments of CRMP No.2112/2022 of Hon’ble High Court
19
Crl.Misc.11/2018
of Chhattisgarh and 2015 0 Supreme (Raj) 372 of Hon’ble
High Court of Rajasthan.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent has
contended that, all the whats app conversations, audio
conversations are supported by certificate U/Sec.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act issued by the Forensic Lab.
Further respondent himself admits that, 2 of his phones
i.e., LGD 410, Nokia E500 were with the petitioner.
Further argued that, petitioner has submitted the
primary evidence i.e., the 2 LG phones and one Nokia
phone along with its SIM card to the Court as Ex.P.7 and
the same is kept in safe custody of the Court. Hence,
petitioner has complied with Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence
Act by producing the primary evidence itself. Further
the Court has accepted the evidence. Hence, the
contentions of the respondent are not acceptable.
19. This Court has closely scrutinized the
electronic/digital evidence submitted by the petitioner
vide Ex.P.1 to 4 and Ex.P.7 to 9. The objection of the
respondent with respect to the electronic/digital evidence
is mainly 3 fold viz., the said evidence is not admissible
since it is obtained fraudulently, there is non compliance
of Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, the said evidence
20
Crl.Misc.11/2018
breaches respondent’s fundamental right to privacy
guaranteed to him under article 21 of Constitution of
India.
20. Before dealing with the legal contentions
raised by the respondent with respect to admissibility
and breach of privacy it is necessary to consider if the
respondent is able to prove that petitioner has gained
access to the 3 mobile phones marked in Ex.P.7
fraudulently. In order to prove the said contention
respondent is relying on Ex.R.21 which is NCR
NO.PO219180600338 dated 29.05.2018. In the said
NCR it is stated that, petitioner has taken 2 mobile
phones of the respondent and he has requested the
police to get back his mobile phones and other valuable
properties. Ex.R.22 is said to be the complaint on the
basis of which Ex.R.21 / NCR is registered. In the said
complaint respondent has mentioned that petitioner has
taken his old LG90 phone and old Nokia phone. But
Ex.R.22 does not bear the seal or signature of the
receiving authority. Hence, Ex.R.22 cannot be
considered. Moreover, Ex.R.21 is registered after the
present case was filed. It is the contention of the
respondent that, he had kept his 2 old phones in his
steel almirah under lock and key. The petitioner has
21
Crl.Misc.11/2018
broken the lock and opened the almirah and stolen 2 of
his old phones i.e., LG90 and Nokia phone. But no such
allegation is made by the respondent in Ex.R.21 and
details of the phones are also not given by the
respondent. Since, Ex.R.21 is registered after the filing of
the present petition it appears respondent has created
Ex.R.21 and 22 to suit his case. Further it is the
allegation of the respondent that, petitioner and her sons
have snatched his LG6 phone in the incident that
allegedly occurred on 20.01.2018. Ex.R.40 is the
complaint lodged by the respondent in this regard. Even
in this complaint respondent has only mentioned that
petitioner and her sons took his LG6 phone. But police
have not filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for
theft. Presumably, police have not found sufficient
evidence to prove that petitioner and her sons have taken
respondent’s LG6 phone in the alleged incident dated
20.01.2018. Respondent has given Ex.R.36 statement to
Karnataka State Women Commission on 18.05.2018
even in this letter there is mention of only 2 phones
without the details of the phone. Even Ex.R.36 letter is
submitted by the respondent after petitioner filed the
present petition. There was no impediment to the
respondent to state his contention in the present petition
in Ex.R.40 and Ex.R.36. Even in his statement of
22
Crl.Misc.11/2018
objection respondent has not mentioned anything about
the petitioner stealing 2 of his phones from his lock steel
almirah and the petitioner and her sons robbing LG6
phone on 20.01.2018. This contention of the respondent
is a de-novo contention which he has introduced for the
very first time in the written arguments. Therefore, it
appears that respondent is creating this version about
petitioner stealing his 3 phones after the petitioner filed
the present petition only to suit his case and to exclude
the digital / electronic evidence in the present case.
Therefore, respondent has not been able to prove that
petitioner has obtained the digital / electronic evidence
by committing theft.
21. Before dealing with the objection of the
respondent with respect to non compliance of Sec.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act; it is necessary to thoroughly read
Sec.65 of Indian Evidence Act. Chapter-V of Indian
Evidence Act deals with documentary evidence and it
contains Sec.61 to 100. In the said Chapter Sec.62
defines Primary evidence as the documents itself
produced for the inspection of the Court. Explanation 1
states where a document is executed in several parts
each part is primary evidence of the document. Where as
document is executed in counter part each counter part
23
Crl.Misc.11/2018
being executed by one or some of the parties only each
counter part is primary evidence as against the parties
executing it. Explanation 2 states, where a number of
documents are all made by one uniform process, as in
the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is
primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where
they are all copies of a common original, they are not
primary evidence of the contents of the original.
22. Sec.63 defines Secondary evidence means and
includes:
(1)[certified copies given under the provisions
hereinafter contained;] [See Section 76,infra.]
(2)copies made from the original by the
mechanical processes which in themselves
insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies
compared with such copies;
(3)copies made from or compared with the
original;
(4)counterparts of documents as against the
parties who did not execute them;
(5)oral accounts of the contents of a document
given by some person who has himself seen it.
Illustrations
24
Crl.Misc.11/2018
(a)A photograph of an original is
secondary evidence of its contents
though the two have not been
compared, if it is proved that the thing
photographed was the original.
(b)A copy compared with a copy of a letter
made by a copying machine is
secondary evidence of the contents of
the letter, if it is shown that the copy
made by the copying machine was made
from the original.
(c)A copy transcribed from a copy, but
afterwards compared with the original,
is secondary evidence; but the copy not
so compared is not secondary evidence
of the original although the copy from
which it was transcribed was compared
with the original.
(d)Neither an oral account of a copy
compared with the original nor an oral
account of a photograph or a machine
copy of the original, is secondary
evidence of the original.
25
Crl.Misc.11/2018
23. Sec.64 of Indian Evidence Act states proof of
documents by primary evidence. Documents must be
proved by primary evidence except in the cases
hereinafter mentioned.
24. Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act states
Admissibility of electronic records.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
any information contained in an electronic
record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to
as the computer output) shall be deemed to be
also a document, if the conditions mentioned in
this section are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question and shall
be admissible in any proceedings, without
further proof or production of the original, as
evidence or any contents of the original or of any
fact stated therein of which direct evidence
would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in
respect of a computer output shall be the
following, namely:–
26
Crl.Misc.11/2018
(a) the computer output containing the
information was produced by the
computer during the period over which
the computer was used regularly to store
or process information for the purposes of
any activities regularly carried on over
that period by the person having lawful
control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the
kind contained in the electronic record or
of the kind from which the information so
contained is derived was regularly fed
into the computer in the ordinary course
of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said
period, the computer was operating
properly or, if not, then in respect of any
period in which it was not operating
properly or was out of operation during
that part of the period, was not such as
to affect the electronic record or the
accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the
electronic record reproduces or is derived
from such information fed into the
27
Crl.Misc.11/2018computer in the ordinary course of the
said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or
processing information for the purposes of any
activities regularly carried on over that period as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was
regularly performed by computers, whether–
(a) by a combination of computers operating over
that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in
succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers
operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive
operation over that period, in whatever order,
of one or more computers and one or more
combinations of computers, all the computers
used for that purpose during that period shall
be treated for the purposes of this section as
constituting a single computer; and references
in this section to a computer shall be
construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a
statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a
28
Crl.Misc.11/2018certificate doing any of the following things, that is to
say, —
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the
statement and describing the manner in which
it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved
in the production of that electronic record as
may be appropriate for the purpose of showing
that the electronic record was produced by a
computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the
conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person
occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device
or the management of the relevant activities
(whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of
any matter stated in the certificate; and for the
purposes of this subsection it shall be
sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of
the knowledge and belief of the person stating
it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to
a computer if it is supplied thereto in any
29
Crl.Misc.11/2018appropriate form and whether it is so
supplied directly or (with or without human
intervention) by means of any appropriate
equipment; –
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on
by any official, information is supplied with a
view to its being stored or processed for the
purposes of those activities by a computer
operated otherwise than in the course of
those activities, that information, if duly
supplied to that computer, shall be taken to
be supplied to it in the course of those
activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have
been produced by a computer whether it was
produced by it directly or (with or without
human intervention) by means of any
appropriate equipment.
Explanation – For the purposes of this section any
reference to information being derived from other
information shall be a reference to its being derived
therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other
process.
30
Crl.Misc.11/2018
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Pandith
Rao Khotkar V/s Kailash Kushan Rao Gorantyal reported
in 2020 SCC Online SC 571 after analyzing Sec.62, 63,
65 and 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act held, “the situation
would have been different had the appellant adduced
primary evidence, by making available in evidence, the
CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs
used for objectionable songs or announcements been
duly got seized through the police or Election
Commission and had the same been used as primary
evidence, the High Court could have played the same in
court to see whether the allegations were true. That is
not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and
announcements were recorded using other instruments
and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made
there from which were produced in court, without due
certification. Those CDs cannot be admitted in evidence
since the mandatory requirements of Section 65- B of the
Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clarified that
notwithstanding what we have stated herein in the
preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of
electronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65-A and
65-B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such
is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the
Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without
31
Crl.Misc.11/2018
compliance with the conditions in Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act.”
26. Further in the said judgment it is held,
“coming back to Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, sub- section (1) needs to be
analysed. The sub-section begins with a non-
obstante clause, and then goes on to mention
information contained in an electronic record
produced by a computer, which is, by a deeming
fiction, then made a “document”. This deeming
fiction only takes effect if the further conditions
mentioned in the Section are satisfied in relation
to both the information and the computer in
question; and if such conditions are met, the
“document” shall then be admissible in any
proceedings. The words “…without further proof or
production of the original…” make it clear that
once the deeming fiction is given effect by the
fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the
Section, the “deemed document” now becomes
admissible in evidence without further proof or
production of the original as evidence of any
contents of the original, or of any fact stated
32
Crl.Misc.11/2018
therein of which direct evidence would be
admissible.
The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1)
makes it clear that when it comes to information
contained in an electronic record, admissibility
and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section
65B, which is a special provision in this behalf –
Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose.
However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates
between the “original” document – which would be
the original “electronic record” contained in the
“computer” in which the original information is
first stored – and the computer output containing
such information, which then may be treated as
evidence of the contents of the “original”
document. All this necessarily shows that Section
65B differentiates between the original information
contained in the “computer” itself and copies made
therefrom – the former being primary evidence,
and the latter being secondary evidence.
Quite obviously, the requisite certificate in sub-
section (4) is unnecessary if the original document
itself is produced. This can be done by the owner
of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a
33
Crl.Misc.11/2018
mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box
and proving that the concerned device, on which
the original information is first stored, is owned
and/or operated by him. In cases where “the
computer”, as defined, happens to be a part of a
“computer system” or “computer network” (as
defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000)
and it becomes impossible to physically bring such
network or system to the Court, then the only
means of proving information contained in such
electronic record can be in accordance with
Section 65B(1), together with the requisite
certificate under Section 65B(4). This being the
case, it is necessary to clarify what is contained in
the last sentence in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V.
(supra) which reads as “…if an electronic record as
such is used as primary evidence under Section
62 of the Evidence Act…”. This may more
appropriately be read without the words “under
Section 62 of the Evidence Act,…”. With this minor
clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of
Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited”.
34
Crl.Misc.11/2018
27. Thus as per the above judgment when primary
evidence is submitted before the Court it is not necessary
to comply with Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. In this
case petitioner has submitted the primary evidence i.e.,
the 3 mobile phones i.e., one Nokia handset and 2 LG
handsets along with 3 SIM cards marked as Ex.P.7.
Hence, in view of the production of the primary evidence
itself it is not necessary for the petitioner to comply with
Sec.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. It is pertinent to note
that, respondent is not denying ownership of the 3
mobile phones produced in Ex.P.7. It is his case that,
the petitioner has stolen one LG mobile phone and one
Nokia phone and she has snatched another LG mobile
phone from him while assaulting him in 2018. As
already discussed respondent is unable to prove that
petitioner has stolen the 3 mobile phones from him.
Since, respondent is admitting the ownership of the said
phones the evidence emanating from the said phone is
also acceptable especially since the primary evidence i.e.,
the phones are submitted to the Court.
28. It is the contention of the respondent that, he
had kept his LG90 phone and Nokia phone under lock
and key in his steel almirah in his house and petitioner
35
Crl.Misc.11/2018
has broken the lock of the steel almirah and he has
stolen the phones. The son of the respondent Philbert
Pratheek Chandra is an expert in hardware and he has
implanted the evidence. Further his LG6 phone was
snatched by the petitioner and her sons. Hence,
petitioner has obtained evidence illegally and therefore,
it is not acceptable. As already stated respondent is
unable to prove that petitioner has illegally obtained the
phones. Even if it is assumed that petitioner has illegally
obtained the phones the evidence emanating from such
phones are admissible. In this regard reference can be
had to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in RM
Malkani V/s State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 1
SCC 471 laid down the following conditions to allow tape
recorded conversation to be admissible as evidence before
a Court of law. It is held in the said decision “tape
recorded conversation is admissible provided first the
conversation is relevant to the matters in issue, secondly
there is identification of the voice, thirdly the accuracy of
the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating
the possibility of erasing the tape recorder. The tape
recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact U/Sec.8
of Indian Evidence Act and is admissible U/Sec.7 of
Indian Evidence Act”.
36
Crl.Misc.11/2018
29. Therefore, by applying above mentioned
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court even
in the present case the recorded audio conversations and
the messages exchanged between the respondent and his
paramour are relevant to the matter in issue. Firstly,
petitioner has to prove the accuracy of the conversation.
For this petitioner has submitted report and certificate of
Forensic Lab which has hash verification for the all the
audios and messages. It is also categorically stated in
the report that the audios and messages are found not to
be doctored and have not been tampered since they were
digitally captured. Hence, petitioner is able to prove the
accuracy of the conversations. Further it is the
contention of the respondent that, the said report does
not authenticate that the voice in the audio conversation
is belonging to the respondent since his voice sample was
never taken by the Court in accordance with law and it
was not compared with the voice in the audio recordings.
The said audio conversations submitted by the petitioner
as per Ex.P.3 is declared by the petitioner to be
belonging to the respondent by way of affidavit.
Petitioner being the wife of the respondent who has led
marital life with him for 27 long years can obviously
identify the voice of the respondent and she has declared
the voice to be of the respondent. Hence, the question of
37
Crl.Misc.11/2018
taking the voice sample of the respondent and comparing
it with the audio conversation does not arise. Further, as
already stated the report and certificate U/Sec.65-B of
Indian Evidence Act submitted by Forensic Lab proves
the accuracy of the conversation by placing the hash
value. Further it is a contemporaneous record of a
relevant conversation and hence it is a relevant fact
admissible U/Sec.8 of Indian Evidence Act as it is res-
gastea. When the petitioner-wife has identified the voice
of the respondent-husband there is no dispute regarding
the identification of the voice. Here it is also pertinent
to note that the present proceedings are under PWDV Act
which is meant for the protection of rights of a woman
who is victim of violence and it aims at preventing of
such violence in the society. Further U/sec.28(2) of
PWDV Act this Court can lay down its own procedure for
disposal of application U/Sec.12 of PWDV Act. Moreover,
it is a quasi criminal and quasi civil proceeding.
Therefore, as per the law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shank Balaji V/s
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari reported in (2016) 11 SCC
774 the evidence has to be considered on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. Hence, the Court cannot
ask for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even on this
aspect the audio recordings and whats app conversations
38
Crl.Misc.11/2018
submitted by the petitioner are relevant and admissible.
In this regard reference may be had to the Judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in Crl. Revision
Application No.1243/2023 in the case of JIL W/o Priyank
Manubhai Choksy V/s State of Gujarat and another
judgment dated 16.07.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat
High Court held that it is not necessary to seek to get
voice sample of the respondent in a case where audio
recording is submitted to the Court by petitioner-wife.
Further the Hon’ble High Court also held that, such
audio recordings are admissible. The Hon’ble High
Court of Gujarat drew an analogy from Sec.14 of Family
Courts Act and held that a Court which is dealing with
family matters can receive as evidence any report,
statement, documents, information or matter that may in
its opinion assist it to deal effectually with a dispute
whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or
admissible under Indian Evidence Act and held that
audio conversations become admissible and in a
matrimonial case parties need not prove them in
accordance with Indian Evidence Act. Hence, even if the
petitioner has illegally obtained the evidence such
evidence becomes relevant since it is matrimonial dispute
and it is the only evidence available to the petitioner to
prove the violence committed by the respondent.
39
Crl.Misc.11/2018
30. It is also the contention of respondent that,
petitioner by producing the audio conversations and his
whats app messages has violated his right to privacy
which is protected under Article 21 of Constitution of
India. In this regard he has relied on judgment of Hon’ble
High Court of Chattisgarh in CRMP No.2112/2022,
Judgment of Hon’ble High court of Rajasthan in the case
of Mohammed Rafiq V/s Family Court and others in Civil
Writ Petition No.14726/2013 dated 26.05.2015 wherein
it is held that recording of conversation without the
knowledge of the other spouse cannot be admissible as
evidence since it breaches the right to privacy of the
other spouse.
31. The present Court while dealing with
provisions of PWDV Act essentially always deals with
sensitive, personal disputes relating to marriage. By its
very nature the issues involved are always private and
personal in nature. Hence, the evidence sought to be let
in would also relate to the private affairs of the parties.
Hence, evidence cannot be excluded on the ground that it
would be a breach of fundamental right of privacy of
respondent. In this regard reference may be had to the
case of Deepti Kapur V/s Kunal Julka reported in AIR
40
Crl.Misc.11/2018
2020 DELHI 156 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while
considering whether CCTV recording done by the
husband without the knowledge of the wife violates her
right to privacy held,
“while a litigating party certainly has a right
to privacy, that right must yield to the right of
an opposing party to bring evidence it
considers relevant to court, to prove its case.
It is a critical part of the hallowed concept of
fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair
chance to bring relevant evidence before
Court. It is important to appreciate that while
the right to privacy is essentially a personal
right, the right to a fair trial has wider
ramifications and impacts public justice,
which is a larger cause. The cause of public
justice would suffer if the opportunity of fair
trial is denied by shutting-out evidence that a
litigating party may wish to lead at the very
threshold.
Since no fundamental right under our
Constitution is absolute, in the event of
conflict between two fundamental rights, as
41
Crl.Misc.11/2018
in this case, a contest between the right to
privacy and the right to fair trial, both of
which arise under the expansive Article 21,
the right to privacy may have to yield to the
right to fair trial. Reference in this regard
may be made to the observations of a 5-
Judge Constitution Bench decision of our
Supreme Court in Sahara India Real Estate
Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. Securities and
Exchange Board of India & Anr“.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice KS
Puttaswamy (retired) and another V/s Union of India and
others reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1 recognized privacy as
fundamental right but held that it is not an absolute
right and has to be placed in the context of other right
and values. This case being filed under PWDV Act is
also for protection of right of the aggrieved person under
the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the present case
which is filed by the petitioner-wife seeking various reliefs
for domestic violence undergone by her, the right of
privacy of the respondent has to be viewed in the context
of the right of a woman to live with dignity and her right
to fair trial. The right of privacy of respondent has to
yield to the right to live with dignity and right of fair trial
42
Crl.Misc.11/2018
of the petitioner. Here it is also pertinent to note that,
this Court by order dated 16.11.2019 allowed the
application filed by the petitioner U/Sec.65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act and accepted her affidavit filed under the
said provision. The respondent did not file an appeal
against the said order. He did not object even at the time
of marking. Hence, the admission of the digital /
electronic evidence submitted by the petitioner came to
be admitted by the Court. Now, after the completion of
trial respondent cannot come up with a contention that,
the evidence itself was not admissible in the first place.
He ought to have taken such a contention at the time of
marking of evidence itself. In this regard reference may
be had to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sonu V/s State of Hariyana reported in 2017 8 SCC 570
wherein it is held that, objection regarding mode or
method of proof of a document is procedural in nature
and such an objection if not taken at trial it cannot be
permitted to be taken at the appellate stage. Therefore,
the court held that “we are satisfied that an objection
that CDRs are unreliable due to violation of the
procedure prescribed in Sec.65-B(4) cannot permitted to
be raised at this stage as the objection relates mode or
method of proof”. The judgment relied by the respondent
are passed at the stage of admitting the evidence.
43
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Further in the said cases the spouse had recorded the
conversations of the other spouse on their phone without
their consent. But in this case petitioner has not
recorded any conversation of the respondent without his
consent. She has merely accessed the conversations and
messages recorded/saved by the respondent himself and
as already discussed respondent is unable to prove that
she has accessed them illegally. Hence, the judgment
submitted by the respondent are not applicable to the
present case.
33. Hence, from the above discussion evidence
emanating from the mobile phones are acceptable. On
scrutiny of Ex.P.3 in page No.25 and 26 respondent while
talking to his sister about his paramour has stated “I am
not married to her officially but she is more than a wife to
me she is more than any wife to me”. This conversation
itself proves that respondent was having a relationship
outside the marriage with Muthurani. Further the
messages submitted by the petitioner as per Ex.P.2
especially page No.20 of Ex.P.2 also proves the
relationship outside marriage between respondent and
Muthurani. Petitioner has also submitted photographs of
the respondent and Muthurani on various tours.
44
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Respondent in his cross examination has denied these
messages and audio conversation and stated that,
petitioner’s son who is a hardware specialist has
implanted the said messages and conversations. As
already stated Forensic Lab has submitted certificate
U/Sec.65(B) along with hash value and primary evidence
is also submitted before this Court. Hence, there is no
question of implanting the said evidence. On the basis
of preponderance of probability petitioner is able to prove
that respondent was having a relationship outside the
marriage with another lady.
34. Further respondent counsel has argued that,
even if it is assumed that respondent was having a
relationship outside the marriage the same cannot be
valid ground for domestic violence as held in the case of
Prakash Babu V/s State of Karnataka. This Court has
perused the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Prakash Babu V/s State of Karnataka reported in AIR
2016 SC 5430 which is a judgment passed in criminal
appeal filed against judgment of conviction for the
offences punishable U/Sec.306 and 498(A) of IPC. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing Sec.498(A) of
IPC held that having an extra marital affair may not
45
Crl.Misc.11/2018
constitute cruelty as specifically defined U/Sec.498(A) of
IPC and lead to abetment of suicide U/Sec.306 of IPC.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically
clarified “we intend to make it clear that if the husband
gets involved in an extra-marital affair that may not in all
circumstances invite conviction under Section 306 of the
IPC but definitely that can be a ground for divorce or
other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute under other
enactments. And we so clarify”. Hence, by the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is relied by the
respondent himself it is settled that having an extra
marital affair can be a ground for divorce or other reliefs
in matrimonial disputes under DV Act or other divorce
laws. Therefore, from the above discussion petitioner by
producing Ex.P.2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 is able to prove that
respondent has subjected her to domestic violence by
having a relationship outside the marriage with another
lady.
35. Petitioner has alleged that, when she
questioned respondent about his relationship he abused
the petitioner to give him a divorce or accept the said
lady as his 2nd wife and allow her to live with him and
when she refused respondent assaulted her and hence
46
Crl.Misc.11/2018
petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent in
crime No.274/2017 before Suddaguntepalya police
station on 18.12.2017 for the offences punishable
U/Sec.498(A) and 506 of IPC. Petitioner has submitted
Ex.P.11 i.e., the charge sheet filed in Crime No.274/2017
to prove her contention. Respondent in his statement of
objection has denied the entire incident. As already
stated petitioner only needs to probabalize her case and
the very fact that a charge sheet is filed in crime
No.274/2017 probabalizes the case of the petitioner.
Therefore, petitioner is able to prove that respondent has
assaulted her when she questioned him about his
relationship outside the marriage.
36. Petitioner has further alleged that, on
20.01.2018 at 8.30 a.m. respondent came to the shared
household started to abuse her and her children in filthy
language, threatened to kill her if she does not vacate the
house. Respondent went to the kitchen and took a knife
and assaulted her with a knife on her stomach as a
result she suffered injuries on her right finger and after
that respondent caught hold of her hair and hit her head
against the wall also assaulted the children. As a result
she lost conscious and she was admitted to Sagar
47
Crl.Misc.11/2018
hospital Jayanagar and she has lodged a complaint
which is registered in Crime No.26/2018 against the
respondent for the offences punishable U/Sec.506, 34,
504, 120(b) and Sec.307 of IPC. She has further alleged
that, in order to over come her complaint respondent has
filed false complaint against her in crime No.27/2018.
Respondent has denied all the allegations and he has
stated that, it is the petitioner who has forcibly confined
him in the house by locking the door and windows and
petitioner and her sons have assaulted him and also
robbed his ID cards, credit card, debit card and 2 mobile
phones. When he approached Suddaguntepalya police
station police took him to General Hospital, Jayanagar
for treatment instead of registering the case and in the
meanwhile petitioner to escape from future consequences
caused self injury and lodged a complaint before
Suddaguntepalya police in crime No.26/2018 before he
could lodge a complaint. Thereafter, when respondent
returned from the hospital he registered the complaint
against the petitioner and her sons in crime No.27/2018.
Respondent has submitted charge sheet filed in crime
No.26/2018 and 27/2018 in Ex.38 and 39. In this
case it is admitted fact that, there is case and counter
case between the petitioner and respondent. Admittedly,
the alleged incident took place after the present petition
48
Crl.Misc.11/2018
was filed and both the criminal cases are pending trial.
Since, the alleged incident took place after the petition
was filed it is not necessary for this Court to go into the
alleged incident.
37. Respondent has contended that, through out
the marital life he has looked after the petitioner and his
children with utmost care and he has paid for the
education of the children, supported the petitioner during
her ill-health, purchased a two wheeler for her,
maintained all the expenses of the house, took the
petitioner and the children to various tourist destinations
in the interest of the family. He has further submitted
that, he has constructed a house at Uttarahalli by
making his 2nd son Wilbert Prathyush as co-applicant in
the housing loan obtained by him from Can Fin Homes
with an intention to make him legal heir to his property
in the future and it is not a house that is constructed for
Muthurani as alleged by the petitioner. It may be true
that respondent has maintained the family and provided
for them. But it is the duty of the respondent to do so.
However, it is proved from the discussion made above
that respondent was also involved in a relationship
outside of the marriage. There is no dispute that such
49
Crl.Misc.11/2018
conduct by the respondent would amount to emotional
abuse and it would harm the mental well being of the
petitioner. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner and
respondent have not had marital relationship since 2010.
It is the contention of petitioner that, since respondent
started a relationship with another lady he has neglected
her. The messages submitted by the petitioner are from
the year 2014 as per Ex.P.2 which indicate that
respondent’s relationship was before the year 2014.
Therefore, from Ex.P.2 petitioner is able to prove that
respondent did not have marital relationship with the
petitioner due to his relationship outside the marriage
from 2010. This conduct of the respondent also
amounts to emotional neglect of the petitioner.
Respondent has contended that, petitioner was having a
relationship outside of the marriage with one of her
B.Ed., classmates and he found some love messages
exchanged between them in 2010 and when he
questioned her about the same she cut all relationship
with him. But respondent is not able to prove this
contention. There is not even an iota of evidence before
the Court to prove this contention of the respondent. He
has also made a counter allegation that soon after he
started constructing a house at JP Nagar petitioner asked
him to transfer the house at KEB Layout to her name
50
Crl.Misc.11/2018
and when he refused to do so she has filed false cases
against him. Even this contention of the respondent
remains not proved. Even though petitioner is unable
to prove her allegations regarding dowry she is able to
prove that respondent was in a relationship outside of
the marriage and he has neglected her. Hence, just
because petitioner has not proved the dowry allegations
her evidence does not become unreliable with respect to
the rest of the allegations. Hence, from the above
discussion it is proved that, respondent has committed
domestic violence against the petitioner. Hence, point
No.1 answered in the affirmative.
38. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for
monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- for herself and
household expenses of Rs.20,000/- per month excluding
rent. She has also sought for Rs.50 lakhs for mental
and physical loss U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act. Admittedly,
both the sons have attained majority and both are
working. The respondent has filed his assets and
liability affidavit. He has stated that, he has studied
M.Sc., Statistics and he is a retired Assistant
Commissioner, GST and he is getting provisional pension
of Rs.60,650/-. He has stated that, he is residing in his
51
Crl.Misc.11/2018
own house at JP Nagar, 8th phase. He has stated that,
his annual expenses is Rs.3,58,530/- and his monthly
expenses is Rs.49,880/-. He has given a detailed break
up of his expenses. He has stated that, he is suffering
from diabetes, hyper tension and prostrate enlargement
and under regular medication, periodical diagnostic tests.
He has stated that, he is paying medical insurance
premium of Rs.25,869/- for the full year, he spends
Rs.10,000/- towards annual check ups, Rs.10,000/- per
annum towards doctors fees, Rs.6,000/- per month
towards medicines, Rs.250/- towards blood test. He has
stated that, he pays income tax of Rs.5,245/- on his net
pension of Rs.60,650/-. He has submitted that, the said
pension is only provisional pension as the petitioner has
filed W.P.No.50194/2019 wherein the retirement benefits
of the respondent have been stopped. He has submitted
that, he is not receiving any rental income. He is getting
interest of Rs.2,92,524/- of which Rs.1,13,458/- per
annum is from his FD investments and he has paid TDS
of Rs.71,625/- on the same and his disposable income
from interest is Rs.1,79,066/-. He has stated that, he has
2 bank accounts at SBI, Jayanagar branch and Canara
Bank at 7th phase, JP Nagar branch. He has stated that,
he has a 2 floor residential property at BTM Layout, 1 st
stage which is gifted to him by his mother and petitioner,
52
Crl.Misc.11/2018
her 2 children and her mother are residing in the 1 st floor
of the said house. He has stated that, if the said house is
rented it will fetch rent of Rs.25,000/- to which he is
entitled. He has stated that, the said house has 2
portions in the ground floor which would fetch rent of
Rs.30,000/- per month and petitioner is in possession of
the said ground floor and she has let out the same to the
new tenants and she is enjoying Rs.30,000/- rent per
month. He has stated that, he has a residential property
at No.101, 4th Cross, Venkateshwara layout, JP Nagar, 8 th
Phase where he is currently residing. Further he has 10
guntas of dry agricultural land at Maralbukappu village,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara district. He has stated
that, he has 2 cars Maruthi 800, Honda Amaze and he
has 2 scooters. He has stated that, gold worth about
Rs.2,36,000/- is with the petitioner who has refused to
return the same. He has further stated that, he has gifted
100 grams of gold jewelry to the petitioner at the time of
marriage and afterwards which is in her possession. He
has further stated that, petitioner is working as
Administrative Assistant at Mithralaya Girls High School
and composite junior college for past 30 years and her
monthly salary may be around Rs.50,000/-. He has
stated that, petitioner is owner of residential site
measuring 53*32.75 sq.ft at Tumkur. She has 350
53
Crl.Misc.11/2018
grams of gold which was gifted to her by her parents and
she owns a scooty pep vehicle. He has submitted his SBI
bank account statement from 01.09.2022 to 06.12.2022,
his IT returns for the year 2022-23.
39. The petitioner has filed her Assets and
liabilities affidavit and stated that, she is a B.A graduate
and she is working as a Clerk at Mithralaya Girls High
School and composite junior college and she is getting
gross salary of Rs.20,686/- and her net income is
Rs.7,764/-. She has stated that, she has given a detailed
break up of her expenses and she has stated her monthly
expenses is Rs.1,31,905/- and her annual expenses is
Rs.1,19,000/-. She has admitted that, she is residing at
BTM Layout.
40. Admittedly, due to the order passed in WP
No.50194/2019 respondent is receiving only provisional
pension of Rs.60,650/-. Respondent has not submitted
all his bank statements for past 3 years, he has also not
submitted his IT returns for past 3 years. Further the
house in which respondent is residing also consists of 2
storied building comprising of one BHK residential house
in the ground floor and n the first floor one portion
comprising of office and prayer hall, another portion
54
Crl.Misc.11/2018
comprising 2 BHK residential house. Therefore,
respondent has evidently let out or can let out at least
one portion of the said house and he has not disclosed
the same. Respondent has not disclosed his actual
pension. It appears that, respondent has purposefully
not disclosed the same in order to avoid paying
maintenance to the petitioner. Further respondent has
given a detailed break up of his expenses but he has not
submitted any document regarding the same. It appears
that, he has inflated his expenses. Admittedly,
respondent does not have any pending loans. On the
other hand petitioner is working as a clerk in a school
and she is getting a meager salary of Rs.7,764/- and
even she has not filed her 3 years bank statement. It is
contended by the respondent that, petitioner has let out
the house at BTM Layout and she is getting rental
income of Rs.30,000/- per month which she has failed to
disclose. It is an admitted fact that, the house at BTM
Layout has 2 floors and ground floor has 2 portions both
of which can be let out. But there is no evidence before
the Court regarding any rental income received by the
petitioner. Petitioner has given a break up of her
expenses but she has not given any document with
respect to her expenses. She has also not submitted her
bank statement. Hence, an adverse inference has to be
55
Crl.Misc.11/2018
drawn against the petitioner also. Respondent being
the husband of the petitioner is duty bound to maintain
her. Further since it is proved by the petitioner that she
has been subjected to domestic violence by the
respondent he is duty bound to provide monetary relief
U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act. Even if it is assumed that,
petitioner is receiving the rental income the gap between
the income of the petitioner and income of the
respondent is very large. The income of the petitioner is
not sufficient to enable her to lead life as she was
accustomed to during her marital life.
41. U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act the Magistrate has
power to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to
meet the expenses incurred by the petitioner and losses
suffered by her as a result of domestic violence and such
relief may interalia include the maintenance for the
aggrieved person including an order under or in addition
to an order of maintenance U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC or any
other law for the time being in force. U/Sec.20(2) the
monetary relief has to be adequate fair and reasonable
and consistent with the standard of living in which the
aggrieved person is accustomed.
56
Crl.Misc.11/2018
42. 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.
43. Considering all the above factors respondent
is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to the petitioner
towards maintenance.
44. The petitioner has sought for Rs.50 lakhs
U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act towards physical and mental loss.
U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act this Court can direct the
respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses
incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a
result of domestic violence which may include loss of
earnings, medical expenses, loss caused due to
destruction damage or removal of any property from the
57
Crl.Misc.11/2018
control of the aggrieved person and maintenance
including an order U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC. U/Sec.20(3) the
said amount may be a lumpsum amount or monthly
payment. Petitioner has not submitted any document
regarding her losses or expenses before the Court.
However, this Court by visualizing all the expenses she
may have incurred from the time of separation has
already ordered Rs.30,000/- per month. Hence, it is not
necessary to award additional sum of Rs.50 lakhs as
prayed by the petitioner.
45. Petitioner has sought for direction to the
respondent to pay compensation and damages of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture
suffered at the hands of the respondent. 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 has subjected
the petitioner to domestic violence and she has incurred
litigation expenses as well. The respondent has not
maintained the petitioner after the separation. Hence,
58
Crl.Misc.11/2018
U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, petitioner is entitled for
compensation. Hence, respondent is directed to pay an
amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs
only) to the petitioner towards compensation.
46. Petitioner has also sought for residence order
U/Sec.19 of PWDV Act. Petitioner has sought for same
level of alternate accommodation or sought for direction
to the respondent to pay rent for alternative
accommodation. It is an admitted fact that, petitioner is
currently residing in the shared household. U/Sec.17(1)
of PWDV Act petitioner has a right to reside in the
shared household whether or not she has any right title
or beneficial interest in the same. U/Sec.17(2) aggrieved
person cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared
household or any part of it by the respondent save in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
Admittedly, respondent has not taken any action in
accordance with law against the petitioner to evict her
from the shared household. U/Sec.19(f) of PWDV Act
this Court can direct the respondent to secure same level
of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as
enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for
the same if the circumstances so required. Since
petitioner is already residing in the shared household in
59
Crl.Misc.11/2018
this case it is appropriate to direct the respondent not to
evict or exclude her from the shared household save in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
47. Petitioner has also sought for protection order
U/Sec.18 of PWDV Act and she has sought for direction
prohibiting the respondent from alienating his assets.
U/Sec.18(e) this Court can prohibit the respondent from
alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank
accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties,
jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or
singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any
other property held either jointly by the parties or
separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate.
In this case it is an admitted fact that, respondent has a
house at BTM, 1st stage, a house at JP Nagar 8 th phase
and 10 guntas of agricultural land which are his self
acquired property. Since petitioner has not mentioned
the details of the assets with respect to which she has
sought this prayer. Since, the prayer is vague it cannot
be granted. Further petitioner has sought for a direction
prohibiting the respondent from acts of domestic violence
and also prohibiting the respondent from communicating
with the petitioner in any form. Since petitioner is able
to prove that respondent has committed domestic
60
Crl.Misc.11/2018
violence it is necessary to prohibit him from committing
any acts of domestic violence and communicating with
the petitioner in any form. Hence, point No.2 answered
partly in the affirmative.
48. POINT No.3 :- In view of the materials placed
before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary
evidence this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as
against respondent is hereby allowed in
part.
Respondent is hereby directed to pay
an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand only) per month to the petitioner
towards maintenance from the date of
petition till her life time or her remarriage
whichever is earlier.
61
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Further, respondent is directed to pay
an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty five lakhs only) to the petitioner
towards compensation within 3 months
from the date of this order.
Further respondent is directed not to
evict or exclude the petitioner from the
shared household save in accordance with
the procedure established by law.
Further respondent is directed to not
to commit, aid or abet in any acts of
domestic violence against the petitioner.
Further respondent is directed not to
communicate in any form whatsoever with
the petitioner including personal, oral,
written or electronic or telephone contact.
Office is hereby directed to send a
copy of this order to Suddaguntepalya
police station to give protection to the
petitioner for the implementation of the
order if she approaches them.
62
Crl.Misc.11/2018
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 24th day of June 2025).
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 : Annette Anupama
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Whats app chat conversation 187 pages
along with FSL report
Ex.P.2 : Whats app chat conversation 35 pages along
with FSL report
Ex.P.3 : Audio conversation along with FSL report
Ex.P.4 : CD & Pen drive
Ex.P.5 : Copy of mediation
Ex.P.6 3 page of advertisement copy
Ex.P.7 2 LG mobile, 1 nokia mobile, 2 pen drive and
3 SIM
Ex.P.8 : FSL report CD & Pen drive
Ex.P.9 : FSL report CD & Pen drive
63
Crl.Misc.11/2018Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of charge sheet & documents
in crime No.26/2028
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of charge sheet & documents
in crime No.274/2017
Ex.P.12 : Marriage certificate
Ex.P.13 : 4 Photos & CD
Ex.P.14 : Central Tax office letter
Ex.P.15 to : Pay Slips
18
Ex.P.19 : RTI application
Ex.P.20 : CPIO letter dated 10.05.2022
Ex.P.21 & : Pay bill & postal cover
22
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of respondent letter dated
14.05.2001 to Commissioner
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of letter dated 14.06.2001
Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of letter dated 06.02.2002
Ex.P.26 : Certified copy gift deed dated 02.02.2001
Ex.P.27 : Sale deed dated 22.06.1994
Ex.P.28 : Certified copy sale deed dated 19.04.2010
Ex.P.29 : Salary certificate of the petitioner
Ex.P.30 : Indian Overseas Bank statement of the
petitioner
Ex.P.31 : State bank of India Statement of the
petitionerLIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
R.W.1 : V. Ramesh Chandra
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 : PIO Letter dated 20.09.2023
Ex.R.2 : Respondent letter dated 23.08.2023
Ex.R.3 : PIO letter dated 04.10.2023
Ex.R.4 : Respondent letter dated 23.08.2023 to PIO,
Mysore
64
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Ex.R.5 & 6 : KSLAS letter dated 10.05.2023 &
21.09.2017
Ex.R.7 : Respondent letter to KSLAS dated
08.04.2013
Ex.R.8 : CGHS letter dated 27.10.2023
Ex.R.9 : CGHS letter dated 25.09.2023
Ex.R.10 : CGHS appeal dated 12.10.2023
Ex.R.11 : Respondent letter to PIO dated 14.09.2023
Ex.R.12 : Assistant Commissioner, Vigilance section
letter dated 18.02.2019 along with 2
enclosures
Ex.R.13 : Respondent letter to Commissioner of
Central Tax dated 06.10.2017
Ex.R.14 : Assistant Commissioner, Vigilance section
letter dated 04.10.2017along with 2
enclosures
Ex.R.15 : Respondent letter to Commissioner of
Central Tax dated 22.09.2017
Ex.R.16 : Loan statement of Can Pin Homes Ltd.,
from 01.01.2016 to 15.01.2018
Ex.R.17 : Respondent letter to Commissioner of
Central Tax dated 21.12.2017
Ex.R.18 : Letter to Commissioner of Central Tax
dated 11.12.2017
Ex.R.19 : LTC advance letter
Ex.R.20 : Respondent letter to Police Commissioner
dated 19.01.2018
Ex.R.21 : Suddaguntepalya police acknowledgment
dated 29.05.2018
Ex.R.22 : Complaint to Suddaguntepalya police
dated 29.05.2018
Ex.R.23 : Suddaguntepalya police acknowledgment
dated 07.11.2018
Ex.R.24 : Police Commissioner letter dated
28.09.2018
Ex.R.25 : Respondent letter to Cyber Crime Branch,
CID dated 09.11.2018
65
Crl.Misc.11/2018Ex.R.26 : Complaint dated 12.11.2018
Ex.R.27 : Suddaguntepalya police acknowledgment
dated 12.11.2018
Ex.R.28 : Konanakunte Police acknowledgment dated
15.09.2018
Ex.R.29 : Complaint to Konanakunte police dated
14.09.2018
Ex.R.30 : Statement of Kenchappa to Konanakunte
police
Ex.R.31 : Petitioner letter to Konankunte Police
Ex.R.32 : Letter dated 06.05.2019 of Subramanya
Pura Sub-division
Ex.R.33 : Complaint to Subramanyapura Sub
Divison dated 22.10.2018
Ex.R.34 : RTI application dated 03.05.2019
Ex.R.35 : Case sheet of KSWW NO.473/2017-18
Ex.R.36 : Complaint dated 18.05.2018
Ex.R.37 : 3 Notice in No.473/2017-18
Ex.R.38 : Charge sheet in CC No.17309/2018
Ex.R.39 : Charge sheet in CC No.10545/2018
Ex.R.40 : Charge sheet in CC No.19528/2018
Ex.R.41 : Notice and order sheet in Crl.A.2156/2019
Ex.R.42 to 47 : Order sheet, written argument, deposition,
objection to petition and IA in OS
No.7578/2018
Ex.R.48 : Notice in OS No.23/2020
Ex.R.49 & 50 : Notice & Income and expenditure
statement in Crl.Misc.651/2021
Ex.R.51 : Acknowledgment of Vivek Nagar Police
Ex.P.52 : Complaint of Muthurani to Vivek Nagar
police
Ex.R.53 : Statement of Sabaspian to Vivek Nagar
Police
Ex.R.54 : Case sheet dated 22.05.2018 in 473/2017-
18
Ex.R.55 : FIR in Crime No.203/2018
66
Crl.Misc.11/2018
Ex.R.56 : Acknowledgment issued by Konanakunte
police
Ex.R.57 : Saatchiyin Muthukkaa CD 2 covers
Ex.R.58 : Petitioner's father's pay slip
Ex.R.59 to 62 : 4 Photos of petitioner and respondent
Ex.R.63 to 67 : 4 Photos of CD release function
Ex.R.68 to 70 : 3 Photos
Ex.R.71 : Pen drive(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
[ad_1]
Source link