Bangalore District Court
Arzoo Samarth Jagnani vs Samarth Vimal Jagnani on 24 January, 2025
KABC080044012019
Presented on : 22-06-2019
Registered on : 22-06-2019
Decided on : 24-01-2025
Duration : 5 years, 7 months, 2 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.122/2019
Petitioner : Smt.Arzoo Samarth jagnani
W/o Samarth Vimal Jagnani
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.C1-1502, L & T South City,
Arekere, Mico Layout, BG Road,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.S.H.N., Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent No.1 : Sri.Samarth Vimal Jagnani
S/o. Vimal Jagnani
Aged about 36 years.
Respondent No.2 : Sri.Vimal Jagnani
2
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Aged about 64 years.
Respondent No.3 : Smt.Madhu Jagnani
W/o Vimal Jagnani
Aged about 57 years.
Respondent No.4 : Sri.Maulik Jagnani
S/o Vimal Jagnani
Aged about 30 years.
All are R/at.302, Balaji Towers,
Jaisukhlal Mehta Road,
Santacruz West,
Mumbai - 400 054.
(Rep. By Sri.D.T. 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 No.1 are
husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on
20.06.2014 at ITC Maratha, Sahar Road, Andheri (East)
in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Further she
submitted that, her parents performed the marriage in
3
Crl.Misc.122/2019
grand manner by spending more than Rs.1.27 crore.
From the date of marriage the petitioner has been
suffering physically and mentally. Ever since from the
marriage the complainant has been suffering physical
and mental abuse pain helplessness and unhappiness
and anger on account of the respondents, eventually
being unable to bear with the trauma and agony, the
petitioner fearing for her life, being destitute without any
money and stridhan has been constraint to file the
present petition.
3. Further petitioner states that, the parties
come from very different backgrounds. The petitioner
belonging to a closely knit family and most educated
family with a lot of family values and culture. On the
other hand, the respondents are behind only money and
not value for relationship, do not have sound relation
with any of their relatives, and concerned for money and
materialistic gains.
4. Further petitioner submitted that, a lavish
wedding was held by her parents and all the demands of
the respondents as regards jewellery, household items
and other items for them as well as the relatives of
respondents were met by the petitioner parents. However
4
Crl.Misc.122/2019
in- laws of the petitioner was not happy with the
jewellery household items and other items and would
constantly taunt and insult her and her parents for not
getting the jewelry household items and items as for the
standards and name in the society.
5. Further she submitted that, the petitioner was
not given any space for freedom to do anything in the
house by her will. Even the 2nd respondent’s driver was
told not to do any of her work and was specially told that
she can’t do a job which the petitioner found very difficult
to deal with as they had clearly agreed on this in their
very first meeting where the respondents family came
across as broad minded and progressive people. But
owing to the values given to her by her parents, she
always made every effort to deal with the miserable
situation and keep quiet for the peace of mind of her
parents and to maintain peace and harmony in the
matrimonial home. Petitioner having no choice give
herself totally to the respondent No.1 and his family and
molded herself according to their ways, which was very
different from her side of the family. Respondents all
together made the petitioner do the entire household
work and made her feel extremely embarrassed and
ashamed by their comments and behavior during the
5
Crl.Misc.122/2019
time of her period and never bothered to care about the
health or the state of mind of the petitioner.
6. Further she submitted that, respondent No.1
was always busy and never given time to the petitioner.
They are all together treated the petitioner as an
unwanted member in the family. The complainant was
always taunted by her in laws on the ground that, her
parents never give them enough money or materials
during the marriage and on other festivals and functions.
Further she submitted that, respondents were harassing
the petitioner and trying each and every time to throw
away from their life by getting divorce which the
respondent already filed a false divorce petition before
family court at Bandra, Mumbai and it is numbered as
M.J.Petition Νo.Α 1080/2017. He has contended all false
ground against the petitioner solely because the
petitioner father refuses to pay any further demand of
dowry.
7. Further petitioner submitted that, respondent
No.1 deserted her for no reason and forcefully made her
to live away from him for no reasonable cause and
intentionally failed to maintain the petitioner without
any support since July 2015 and till date he has not
6
Crl.Misc.122/2019
contributed any support whatsoever. Further she
submitted that, respondent No.1 is well qualified and did
his master degree in CA and working in Morgan Stanley
India Company Private Limited an Executive Director and
Heads Equity Capital Markets and drawing a salary not
less than 15,00,000/- per month. Apart from his salary
he has a Apartment at Andheri which is in his father’s
name in addition to that the respondent owns a 4 BHK
Apartment in Santacruz which is worth of more than 5
crore. The respondent No.1 has funded a commercial
office space at Mumbai, Kalbadevi which is used as an
office for his father worth approximately 3 crore.
Respondents also own 3 cars viz Skoda Superb, Honda
City and Palio, with a driver. The first respondent is also
holding investment in various mutual funds insurance
and also trading in shares. Apart from that there are so
many investments which respondent told to the
petitioner when she was living in her matrimonial house.
The respondent No.1 is earning not less than 15 lakhs
p.m as such he is capable for maintaining the petitioner
at par in a manner he is leading a luxurious life and thus
the petitioner is entitled for maintenance.
8. Further petitioner submitted that, she is well
qualified lady having a degree of Master of Science in
7
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Management & Strategy from very well known university
of LSE (London School of Economics) and she had her
own startup at the time of marriage. At the time of
marriage the respondents all are agreed and given
consent for working after marriage to the petitioner in
front of all family members. But after the family custom
the respondents have forced the petitioner to be house
wife and to do all house hold work.
9. Further petitioner submitted that, respondent
No.1 as a husband failed to look after to maintain the
petitioner as a duty bound husband. The petitioner
suffered cruelty from the hands of the respondents in an
extreme manner which affected the petitioner in to a
psychological set back which amount in to a cruelty and
harassment by the respondents.
10. Further petitioner submitted that, she has
filed FIR against respondent for Dowry harassment she
has undergone lot of trauma, mental agony, Social
boycott, physical torture and stigma for her life. Still she
tried to live in her matrimonial house and tried her best
to patch up the relationship with the support of her
parents but all went in vain.
8
Crl.Misc.122/2019
11. Further petitioner submitted that, her father
in-law made her life hell by wanting her to sit in front of
him all day, watch disgusting movies with full nudity, in
front of him and pretend to watch English shows only
because he did not want her to have a TV in her room,
and of course, the respondent No.1 i.e., her husband
also supported this. He forced her to wear only Indian
outfits post marriage, despite having discussed it before
marriage with him that she doesn’t wear such clothes on
a daily basis. The respondents were forcing the petitioner
to wear bindis and sindoor all the time even when she
was wearing western clothes.
12. Further petitioner submitted that, petitioner
having her own startups before marriage, studied in
London and worked at Google, only wear western outfits.
It was just another way to torture her further. Her
mother in laws words would bite the petitioner each time,
always forcing her to sit with her, because she would
only curse petitioner and her family members for not
fulfilling their demands.
13. Further petitioner submitted that, the mother
in law has tried to keep petitioner and her husband
away by crying incessantly and not even letting her to sit
9
Crl.Misc.122/2019
with her husband if he ever came back early from work.
She has also not cooked for the petitioner for 3 days
when petitioner was not keeping well in January 2015.
Petitioner’s mother-in-law literally made food for
everyone but not to petitioner stating she has to cook
for herself and also forcing the petitioner to cook for
everyone in the house. Moreover, the mother in-law was
always ahead in pushing the petitioner towards entering
her father in law’s room, and forcing to do all his work
“make him happy”.
14. Further she submitted that, when her father
went to see the respondent No.2 in hospital when he was
admitted that time the entire family of respondent
humiliated her father very badly and he had tears in his
eyes. He insulted petitioner and her family and said he
wants the account for everything spent at the wedding
even 1st respondent supported his father saying ‘rishte
barabari ke nahi hai’. Seeing this petitioner was also in
extreme mental stress and felt depressed for long time.
The Respondent No.1 threatened that he would beat up
petitioner just because she said shut up to him for
casual way. He told that he would beat her up if her
parents don’t take her back to her parents house
10
Crl.Misc.122/2019
immediately. This happened on 11 th July 2015, around 2
pm.
15. Further she submitted that, time and again
the 2nd to 4th respondents forced the petitioner to sleep
with doors open, when she and respondent No.1 was
resting at home, by saying that in their house they have
an open door policy. She request to them, that she wasn’t
comfortable because her bed was right in front of the
door and people would see her, moreover, she was not
used to wearing Indian clothes, fell on theirs deaf ears.
The respondents were forcing the petitioner to use
different bed sheets while sleeping, and not to talk with
her husband. However, the petitioner never expected
from her mother in law to come running at her to beat
her twice that is on her first Diwali on Dhanteras day 21 st
October 2014, and 26th January 2015. Her mother in-law
treated the petitioner like an unwanted person and
nothing more than a servant. Petitioner family gave
accounts for 1.27 crore, as marriage expenses and 1 st
respondent once fought with her at night and loudly said
‘where is the balance of that amount because his father
had wanted 1.5 crore and did not accompany the
petitioner to any of her family events, and she was always
alone, because he along with his father wanted to prove
11
Crl.Misc.122/2019
to petitioner entire family that they were very upset and
unsatisfied with petitioner and her family for not giving
dowry as their demand.
16. Further she submitted that, when petitioner
went to Delhi for the cremation of grandfather of 1 st
respondent in May 2015 after being home in Bangalore
with her parents for 3 months, the 4 th respondent was in
India at that time and did not bother to speak with
petitioner or even acknowledge her in front of so many
people. It caused lot of embarrassment and mental
torture as she had visited Delhi to save them from their
relative’s questions about where she was for last few
month. The 3rd respondent had told her mother to keep
her with them and teach her Ramayan and Mahabharat
because petitioner was visiting her parents for some
rituals, called Gangore, which they have to do in the first
year of the marriage i.e., in the year February 2015. 4 th
respondent has repeatedly told her that they only
selected her for her height, that she is nothing great; she
shouldn’t think much of herself. The 4 th respondent
humiliated her to such a degree which she will never
forget in her life, when he brought all her bags out and
also those that she had gifted the 3 rd respondent to
check whether or not they were real. In front of everyone
12
Crl.Misc.122/2019
in the living room of their house, he sat with the bags
and went online to check the authentication certificate,
etc. Just to humiliate her and show her down. It made
petitioner loose confidence and was much painful when it
was said in front of her husband and other people.
17. Further petitioner submitted that, thrice, the
respondents have bluntly told her parents to keep her at
their home only and not send her back. The respondent
No.1 at innumerable occasions has threatened her
mother that if they say anything, then they can keep
their daughter with them and not send her back. She has
been home thrice due to their misdoings. The
respondents intention was to force complainant parents
to beg in front of the respondents to agree to all their
demands. Which all incidents made the petitioner
mentally and emotionally suffer and have extreme
suicidal tendencies.
18. Further she submitted that, she let go of her
2nd startup also because she felt she needed to give time
to her family that was after meeting the 1 st respondent in
march 2016. But her hopes went in vain. They
completely turned their backs on her. Today petitioner
lost her career because she was stupidly emotional
13
Crl.Misc.122/2019
enough to think she would work on making her family a
harmonious one by sacrificing her own career. For that
same reason, today she doesn’t have a job, and she is
finding it extremely difficult to even get one job since the
time lapsed is so long. All this was for the one man that
is for her husband. Her husband still chose to hide and
not even talk to her just to save himself and his family
from any repercussions of their misbehaviours.
19. Further petitioner submitted that, petitioner
family has repeatedly visited respondents’ house, and
pleaded and begged in front of them to make sure
petitioner’s life isn’t ruined. This has happened over 10
times in a span of 2 years, and each time about 1-2
months would pass before they would agree to meet her
family again. At that time the respondents have accepted
all the gifts along with envelopes of money given to them
on Diwali 2016, sankranthi in the year 2017 and many
more occasions. They were torturing the petitioner and
her family to such an extent that they themselves leave
this marriage, so that they are saved from all their
practices of a demanding dowry, tortures, physical
intimidation from respondents and disgusting jokes and
inappropriate talks from 2nd respondent with the
petitioner. Further she submitted that, respondent No.1
14
Crl.Misc.122/2019
got engaged with another girl before her marriage. This
matter was not known to the petitioner. Due to the
respondent’s demand was more hence the marriage was
canceled from the girl’s family just 2 weeks before the
marriage due to the heavy demand from all the
respondents. This matter has come to know to the
petitioner after the marriage. After the marriage the
respondent No.1 has renewed the passport but he has
intentionally not mentioned the name of the petitioner
in the column of spouse name. This was done
intentionally by the respondent because they had
preplanned for throwing the petitioner out from their life
which was not known to the petitioner and she had
been very good with the respondent’s family throughout
the time.
20. Further she submitted that, after she had been
thrown out from the matrimonial house the respondents
were enjoying their life, going for vacations to the
different places without informing to the petitioner which
disappointed her and mentally she could not digest the
things for a long time. Petitioner further states that after
all this torture and humiliation she has finally filed
complaint before Dindoshi police station against all the
15
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondents and it is numbered as the crime no.
59/2018 dated 25/01/2018.
21. Further petitioner submitted that, petitioner
visited her father in law’s office that i.e., 2 nd respondent
in the year 2017 requested him to reconcile the matter
and asking them what was her fault for breaking the
marriage. The petitioner went to 1 st respondent office
several times but he was not ready to meet the petitioner
till the payment of 50 lakhs to his father. Petitioner went
to her matrimonial house and her mother in law did not
open the door of the house to her when she went to
speak with her, where it was a spectacle for the
neighbors as well, because she further locked the door
saying hum busy hain’. 3rd respondent then called the
security to escort the petitioner out from the compound
wall of their house. All these made petitioner suffering
and embarrassment in front of others. This behavior even
continued when she accompanied the police in the year
February 2018 for a search, wherein her father in law
asked her to sit outside the house for 30 minutes.
Petitioner was made fun of and ridiculed in front of 5-6
guests whom these people had called to make a mockery
of her and the police did not do anything at that time.
Petitioner had done all sorts of efforts to reconcile the
16
Crl.Misc.122/2019
marital relationship with respondents but it went to the
deaf ears of the respondents and they were very much
concern about money than a good life and relationship.
22. Further she submitted that, she is unable to
maintain her life and it’s very much difficult and burden
to her parents to take care of the petitioner even after
her marriage spending huge amount of all their savings
and upon that made some hand loan for marriage
expenses. Now petitioner is suffering from financial crisis
along with torture of all the respondents. Further she
submitted that, respondent No.1 is having a good job
and working in multinational company with handsome
salary along with other income, hence the respondent
No.1 is having sufficient means to maintain the
petitioner. On all these grounds she prays to allow her
petition.
23. After the service of notice, respondents
appeared before this court through their counsel and
filed statement of objection and in the statement of
objection respondents have admitted marriage
relationship with the petitioner and respondent No.1 and
they denied all the other allegations against them.
Further they contended that, they never caused domestic
17
Crl.Misc.122/2019
violence against the petitioner and they never caused
dowry demand on the petitioner. On all these grounds
they prays to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
24. The petitioner to substantiate her case has
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.21. The respondent himself examined as R.W.1 and
got marked documents Ex.R.1 to 48.
25. Heard both sides and also filed written
arguments.
26. 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?
27. On perusal of materials before this court, my
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the negative;
Point No.2 : In the negative
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following;
18
Crl.Misc.122/2019
REASONS
28. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the
petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship
between herself and respondents, she was residing with
the respondents in a shared household, the domestic
violence was caused by the respondents upon her. The
respondents have neglected the petitioner without any
reasonable cause and the respondents are capable to
provide maintenance to the petitioner.
29. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the
relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that the
petitioner and the respondents are in domestic
relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the
petitioner and respondents resided 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.
30. 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 @
19
Crl.Misc.122/2019
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
evidence has to be considered on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities.
31. 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
20
Crl.Misc.122/2019
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
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 manner.
32. In order to prove that, the respondents have
committed domestic violence, the petitioner has
examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief wherein she has reiterated the
contents of her petition. She has produced 21
documents and got them marked as Ex.P.1 to 21.
33. The petitioner has alleged that, her parents
performed the marriage in a grand manner by spending
more than Rs.1.27 crores. Said allegation is denied by
the respondent No.1 and he has stated that, he has spent
21
Crl.Misc.122/2019
more than 50% for the wedding. He has stated that, he
booked the rooms for the wedding at ITC, Marata and the
petitioner’s family spent only towards marriage reception
night. In this regard the petitioner has been cross
examined and in her cross examination dated
13.08.2024 in page No.32 petitioner has admitted that,
she has not given the break up for the marriage expenses
of Rs.1.27 Crores. She has further stated in para 7 that
her parents have not borne the entire marriage expenses.
She has stated that, she will not be able to bifurcate the
expenses incurred by her family towards the marriage.
She has stated that, her family incurred expenses for the
reception, wedding ceremony and haldi ceremony held by
her family separately. She has stated that, her marriage
reception and wedding ceremony were held on the same
day and her family served high tea and served a common
dinner for all the guests and separate dinner for close
family members on the said day. She has stated that,
she does not know the mode of payment towards the
marriage expenses. She has stated that, her parents have
the details of the expenses and she has to check with
them. Evidently petitioner has not submitted the bills
for the marriage expenses or bank statements to prove
the marriage expenses incurred by her. The entire
dispute between the petitioner and the respondent family
22
Crl.Misc.122/2019
appears to be emanating from the issue of marriage
expenses. Although the petitioner has not spelled out
the issue in the petition the respondent No.1 in Ex.R.22
i.e., his evidence in MC No.6470/2022 before the Family
Court has specifically alleged that, his family had
specifically requested the petitioner’s parents to give
wedding card to elders of his family but the petitioner’s
parents failed to give invitation to 14 elders of his family
even though the postal address was shared in advance. It
is his contention that, his family faced lot of
embarrassment and discomfort due to this conduct of the
petitioner’s family. He has further alleged that, in the
ritual called Sajjangoth (i.e., event where the groom’s side
family sit for dinner and bride’s family welcome them and
serves for dinner) petitioner’s family failed to demonstrate
their hospitality and respect because of which his family
faced embarrassment. This issue appears to be the
center for all disputes between the petitioner and
respondents. In this regard in the cross examination of
the petitioner dated 21.09.2024 it is elicited that, the
marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was
arranged by a marriage broker. Petitioner has admitted
that, the marriage broker was supposed to be paid by
each party 1% of the marriage expenses incurred by each
party. She has stated that, she does not remember if the
23
Crl.Misc.122/2019
first conversation between respondent No.2 and her
father took place on 30.06.2014. However, petitioner
herself has produced the recording of the said
conversation dated 30.06.2014. In this regard petitioner
is confronted with the Hindi transcript of the
conversation in page No.248 and 249 of Ex.P.18 and
witness confirmed the same and the Hindi transcript is
marked as Ex.R.21. In this case petitioner has produced
multiple audio conversation between various members of
the family of the petitioner and respondents as evidence
to prove her case. Perusal of the said audio conversation
reveals that, there is no conversation between the father
of the petitioner and the respondents before 30.06.2014.
Therefore, it is proved that, the father of the petitioner
spoke to respondent No.2 for the first time 10 days after
the wedding. On perusal of Ex.R.21 it is seen that it is a
conversation between the father of the petitioner and
respondent No.2 and the conversation is around the
quality of food served during Sajjangoth ceremony and
about 1% expenses to be paid to the marriage broker.
This has been admitted by the petitioner in her cross
examination. The petitioner is also relying on the said
conversation to prove that, the respondent’s family had
demanded dowry from their family. She has relied on the
conversation wherein the father of respondent No.1
24
Crl.Misc.122/2019
states “ek ki apne teek mein ek takka nahi diya mere ko
yeh kisine nahi dekha hi….”. Petitioner has stated that,
in pre-marriage talks her father expressed his desire to
hire a event manager that he will be spending about 1.5
crore in the marriage function but the details which her
father gave on demand of respondents could show the
marriage expenditure to the extent of Rs.1.27 crores on
that point respondent No.1 asked her to pay the balance
amount to respondent No.2 and it will settle the things.
34. In the statement of the petitioner annexed to
FIR/Ex.P.2 and in english translation Ex.P.2(a) petitioner
has alleged that, respondent No.2 told the marriage
broker Roop Kishore that he is not asking for too much
money but Rs.1.5 Crore commitment is there that
commitment should be fulfilled. She has alleged that,
she has the recordings of the phone conversations and
they go to clarify that respondent No.1 had married her
only for the sake of money and he has done fraud with
her and caused her mental, physical, social, financial
and sexual harassment to her. This specific allegation is
not found in the present petition. The petitioner has
produced Ex.P.18 page No.249 to 251 to prove the said
allegation. Perusal of the said conversation and its
Hindi and English translation reveals that the father of
25
Crl.Misc.122/2019
the respondent No.1 was definitely unhappy with the
arrangements made by the petitioner’s family at
Sajjangoth ceremony and he has discussed same with
the father of the petitioner. Further it also reveals that,
they had agreed to give marriage broker 1% of the
wedding expenses incurred by each side and he has
discussed about the same. Further, it also reveals that,
respondent No.2 was unhappy with the fact that wedding
invitations were not given to some members of their
family even though he had shared their address. The
said conversation also reveals that, the petitioner’s father
has agreed that he had not sent wedding invitations to
certain members of the family of the respondents and he
is also agreed that there was some goof up in the
Sajjangoth ceremony especially while serving sweets to
the guests and he has apologize for the short comings in
the wedding ceremony arrangements. Nowhere in the
said conversation there is any discussion about giving or
taking dowry as alleged by the petitioner.
35. In the cross examination as well petitioner
has stated that, there was no demand for dowry before
marriage by the respondents but they kept increasing
their demand for customary gifts and money day by day
and she did not suspect anything hence she got married.
26
Crl.Misc.122/2019
This allegations is not made in the petition. Petitioner
has submitted the certified copy of the entire charge
sheet filed against the respondents submitted in CC
No.1070/PW/2021 along with English translation as
Ex.P.16 and 17. In the petition before this Court the
petitioner has not specifically stated anything regarding
dowry demand made by the respondents. She has alleged
that, she has filed a complaint against the respondents
for dowry harassment in 2018. The certified copy of the
FIR along with its english translation is marked as Ex.P.2
and Ex.P.2(a). In the present petition the petitioner has
alleged that, respondents family has taken all her jewelry
and other valuable items belonging to her. She has not
given details of the said items in the petition. However,
petitioner has produced certified copy of the English
translation of the charge sheet filed by Dindoshi Police
station as Ex.P.17. As per the panchanama dated
08.02.2018 conducted by the Dindoshi police at the
house of the respondents the police have seized items
worth Rs.67,13,867/- belonging to the petitioner from
the house of the respondents. In the panchanama there
is no mention about to whom these items were given.
Further from the panchanama it is evident that, the said
items were in a cupboard in a room in the house of the
respondents and said cupboard was locked and the
27
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondents made a duplicate key of the same and
opened it and got the items. Further the key to the locker
was in the drawer in the said cupboard. It is also noted
that, the cupboard was covered in dust. First of all as
already discussed the petitioner has not given details of
any of the jewelry, other valuable items said to be in
possession of the respondents in the petition. However,
she has produced the charge sheet containing the
panchanama. The said panchanama has not yet been
proved in the criminal court. Under such circumstances
without corresponding pleading merely producing the
panchanama cannot prove the contents of the
panchanama. Even if panchanama dated 08.02.2018 is
considered it only goes to show that the respondents had
kept all the belongings of the petitioner in a cupboard in
a room in their house under lock and key. The fact that
the panchanama states that, the cupboard was covered
in dust shows that respondents have not used the said
items. Therefore, it appears that petitioner has kept all
the items in the said cupboard when she was residing in
the shared household and she had not taken them with
her when she left the matrimonial house. Indeed the
panchanama speaks about certain diamond jewelries and
silver articles being seized but from this it cannot be
concluded that the respondents have taken away all the
28
Crl.Misc.122/2019
jewelry and silver articles belonging to the petitioner and
they have kept it with them. In Ex.P.2(a) English
translation of FIR it is the specific allegation of the
petitioner that respondent No.3 has taken all the
stridhan items that petitioner received during marriage
by telling her that she will keep it safe in the locker. But
Ex.P.17 panchanama dated 08.02.2018 reveals that the
locker key was in the drawer itself. As already stated
petitioner has not made this specific allegation in the
present petition. The present petition was filed in the
year 2019 and the complaint was filed in the year 2018.
Therefore, there was no impediment for the petitioner to
state this allegation in the present petition. It appears
that, the petitioner has made allegations selectively
against the respondents. The panchanama dated
08.02.2018 marked as Ex.P.17 does not reveal in whose
bed room the said cupboard was situated. The fact that
the locker key was in the cupboard and covered in dust
and the cupboard key was not with the respondents and
they had to make duplicate key shows that the
respondents were not conscious about the items kept in
the said cupboard and they had left it in a as it is
condition when the petitioner left the matrimonial house.
It is also not proved by the petitioner that, respondents
29
Crl.Misc.122/2019
have taken all these items and the said items are in the
possession of the respondents.
36. Further it is alleged by the petitioner that, the
respondents have continuously taunted her that jewelry,
household items and other items given were not as per
their standards and name in the society. As already
discussed petitioner has not specifically stated the items
that were given as gift to the respondents during the
wedding. Further, she has not specifically stated when,
where, who has taunted her about the jewelry and
household items given. She has not specifically averred
about the exact nature of the taunts made to her. In
absence of material details this Court cannot conclude
that, petitioner was taunted by the respondents.
Petitioner could have produced at least the jewelry bills,
bank statements, receipts, photographs of the wedding
etc., to show the wedding expenses, jewelry and other
gifts given during the wedding. But the petitioner has
failed to give any evidence in this regard. Although
Ex.R.21 and Ex.P.18 page No.248 to 250 reveal that
respondent No.2 was unhappy about wedding
arrangements made by the father of the petitioner it does
not prove that the petitioner was being taunted about the
same regularly in the matrimonial house. If at all
30
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondents were unhappy about jewelry, other gifts
given at the time of the wedding respondent No.2 would
have definitely mentioned the same in his conversation
with the petitioner’s father on 30.06.2014 as per Ex.P.18
page No.248 to 250. But in this conversation respondent
No.2 has only stated that, he was unhappy with the
quality, quantity of food served during the wedding at
Sajjangoth ceremony, he has unhappy about invitations
not being sent to certain members of his family. The fact
that, respondent No.2 has not brought up any other
issue regarding dowry or gifts given at the time of the
wedding by petitioner’s family shows that there was no
such demand and there was no issue regarding gifts,
jewelry etc., on behalf of the respondents.
37. Petitioner has alleged that, respondents have
humiliated her father very badly when he went to visit
respondent No.2 who was hospitalized for the reason that
petitioner’s family had not conducted the wedding
properly and he said he wants the account for everything
spent at the wedding. She has alleged that, 2 nd
respondent stated that, “rishte barabari ke nahi hai” by
she has alleged that, she was in extreme mental stress
due to the said incident. Respondent No.1 has denied
the said allegation and it is stated that, his father was
31
Crl.Misc.122/2019
hospitalized in Bridge Candy hospital in August 2014
and at that time he took 12 days leave and on
05.08.2014 the petitioner along with her father visited
the hospital and a dialogue was initiated between
respondent No.2 and petitioner’s father regarding goof-
ups in the marriage hospitality which displeased the
petitioner’s father and he left the hospital and this
negatively impacted the petitioner and she informed him
that she would leave directly from the hospital and go to
her family’s place. He has alleged that, he requested the
petitioner to support his family at home till his father
recovers but the petitioner paid no heed and left to
Bangalore during the course of his father’s recovery
period. Respondent No.1 has submitted certified copy
of his father’s medical documents as Ex.R.29 which
shows that, respondent No.2 was admitted at Bridge
Candy hospital on 13.08.2014. Therefore, both the
petitioner and respondent No.1 have admitted that there
was an uncomfortable situation at the hospital. In the
present petition petitioner does not state anything about
her conduct after the said incident and she only states
that she was put to stress due to the said incident.
However, in her petition filed U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC before
the Hon’ble Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.635/2019
marked as Ex.R.19 petitioner has stated in para 19 that,
32
Crl.Misc.122/2019
after the said incident she left to Bengaluru and
respondent No.1 did not bother to ask the petitioner why
she is going to Bengaluru and how many days she was
going and he did not even call her once and ask about
her whereabouts through out the said period. It is the
allegation of the respondent No.1 that, he had requested
the petitioner to assist his mother at the house while his
father recover in the hospital but the petitioner left to
Bengaluru without paying any heed to his request. It is
an admitted fact that, the petitioner left to Bengaluru
after the incident at the hospital. It is very strange and
untoward that respondent No.2 brought up the issue of
paying the marriage broker with petitioner’s father in the
hospital when he was recovering from a surgery. It may
be that this behaviour of respondent No.2 caused pain to
the petitioner and her father. But when respondent No.2
is hospitalized it is not proper for the petitioner also to
leave the matrimonial house. Therefore, there was an
aberration in behaviour of the both the petitioner and
respondent No.2 in the said situation.
38. Petitioner’s main allegation is that, her family
has spent Rs.1.27 Crores towards the wedding but she
has not produced any proof in this regard. Petitioner in
her cross examination also admits that her father has
33
Crl.Misc.122/2019
been in a financial crunch for past many years. This
shows that her father did not have the financial
capability to spend such an amount at the wedding.
Hence, petitioner has failed to prove that, her family has
spent Rs.1.27 crores towards the wedding, respondents
were unhappy about jewelry, household items and items
given during the wedding. She has also not proved that,
respondents have demanded dowry from her. However,
it is true that, there was some dissatisfaction about the
treatment of guests and quality of food served during the
wedding. It is alleged by the petitioner that, she was
taunted by the respondents in this regard. However, she
has not produced any proof for the same. From the
evidence it appears that, the family of the petitioner and
respondents have held a meeting along with the marriage
broker to resolve the issue regarding payment of marriage
brokerage. Hence, the petitioner could have examined
the marriage broker, her relatives who attended the said
meeting, her father to prove her allegations. But she has
failed to do so.
39. Petitioner has alleged that, respondents had
agreed and given consent for working after marriage to
her in front of all her family members but after marriage
in the name of family custom forced her to be a
34
Crl.Misc.122/2019
housewife and do all the household works. She has
alleged that, in March 2016 she let go of her 2 nd start up
because she felt that she needed to be on the side of 1 st
respondent but the respondents completely turned their
backs on her. She has alleged that, today because of the
respondents family aggressive, indifferent anger
behaviours, continuous insults, taunting, very cold and
indifferent attitude and dowry demands and harassment
towards her she lost her career. The counsel for the
petitioner has argued that, petitioner was running a start
up at the time of marriage and her income for the year
2015-16 dropped to Rs.3,19,065/- and thereafter for the
year 2016-17 her income dropped to Rs.1,69,367/- and
she had no income in the year 2018-19. Thereafter in the
year 2021 she had annual income of Rs.7,52,000/- in the
year 2021-22 her annual income is Rs.16,85,850/- and
in the year 2022-23 her annual income is
Rs.33,21,400/-. He has argued that, this clearly shows
that, petitioner’s income dropped at the time she was
residing with the respondents in the shared household in
2016-17. Thereafter, for one year she had no income
because her career prospects got ruined due to the
respondents harassment. He has argued that, Ex.R.13
and 14 which is the medical insurance availed by the
respondent No.1 for the petitioner reveals that petitioner
35
Crl.Misc.122/2019
is shown as a housewife. This itself proves that, the
petitioner was not allowed to work after marriage. He has
argued that, this conduct of the respondents amounts to
domestic violence. Per contra, the learned counsel for
the respondents has argued that, the petitioner had all
the freedom to go to work and return home without any
restriction. He has argued that, the petitioner has
submitted false evidence about loosing her career
prospects. He has argued that, the petitioner was
running her own business during the matrimonial life
and there was no restriction on her. In this regard
petitioner has been cross examined in detail by the
counsel for the respondents. It is an admitted fact
that, the petitioner is a highly educated lady who has
done her Masters in Management in London School of
Economics, she has worked in reputed company like
Google. It is also an admitted fact that, petitioner was
running a company when she got married to respondent
No.1. Petitioner in her petition and in her evidence
affidavit has not specifically stated the name of the
company or the start up that she was running at the time
of the wedding. In the cross examination she has stated
that, in November 2012 she started her own company
and she had to close it because she was not allowed to
work. She has stated that, she does not remember the
36
Crl.Misc.122/2019
date of winding up the company. She has stated in her
cross examination that, in 2nd half of 2015 she started
another company which she closed 7 or 8 months to
focus on her marriage. She has stated that, the product
name was Kid Around and she had not registered the
company. She has stated that, she closed the said Kid
Around in 2016 and she cannot produce any document
to show that she has closed the company. In her cross
examination dated 18.07.2024 in para No.1 she has
stated that “after closing the said company I was
consulting for another company called TRACO for 3 to 4
months in 2017. I do not remember exactly I can inform
the Court about the exact date on the next date of
hearing. I started working as a consultant in 2019
September end for a company called Sugar Box. I was
asked to leave from the said company in December 2021
due to my lack of focus in the job. I was working for 6
months in 2021 due to my lack of focus in the job. I was
working for 6 months in 2022 at a company called Better
Place. I was asked to leave from the said company in
June 2022 because I was traveling frequently to Mumbai
due to litigation. I started working in Pine Labs in end of
2022 as a consultant for a group entity. I have been
asked to look for another job because of my frequent
absence from work due to court dates. My income from
37
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Pine Labs for the year 2022-2023 is Rs.33,21,400/-. I do
not have any other source of income. It is true to
suggest that, I am still employed in the same company.
I do not remember my CTC in in Pine Labs.”
40. From the above extract it is seen that the
petitioner is contending that, she could not stay in a job
and was asked to leave her job frequently because she
was frequently traveling to Mumbai due to of litigation
and she was absent from work and she could not focus
on her job. In the cross examination the petitioner has
stated that, she will produce documents to indicate her
presence in various Courts. However, in further cross
examination she has admitted that, she will not be able
to produce documents to show her presence in various
cases. Further the petitioner has stated in her cross
examination dated 02.08.2024 that, she could not secure
jobs due to severe depression she suffered for 3 to 4
years not only because of Court dates. It is pertinent to
note that, petitioner in the present petition and her
examination in chief has not alleged that, her career got
ruined because of depression or Court dates. Further the
petitioner has not submitted any documents to show that
she has undergone depression. In the cross examination
by respondents counsel when petitioner is questioned if
38
Crl.Misc.122/2019
she has taken any treatment for her depression she has
stated that, she has followed Nichiren Buddhism for
treatment of depression hence she does not have any
documents. The entire cross examination of the
petitioner in this regard shows that, the petitioner has
made good lot of improvements by stating that she has
undergone depression, she lost her job due to Court
dates etc., to suit her case. These improvements made
by the petitioner are not at all believable. Further, the
above extract of the cross examination of the petitioner
shows that, petitioner has continuously worked either on
her own business or in a company from the time of
marriage till now except for 6 to 7 months in between.
This is admitted by the petitioner in her cross
examination.
41. Further the petitioner in her cross examination
dated 17.09.2024 has admitted that, as per Ex.R.4 page
No.202 her gross revenue for the financial year 2014-15
is Rs.26,46,017/-. She has admitted that, gross revenue
is same as turn over. She has further admitted in her
cross examination dated 17.09.2024 in para 19 that, her
revenue in financial year 2015-16 had gone up by
Rs.51,00,000/-. She has admitted she purchased
EcoSport car on a loan in October 2015. She has
39
Crl.Misc.122/2019
admitted that, her gross revenue for the financial year
2016-17 was Rs.39,96,230/- as per page No.190 of
Ex.R.4. She has also admitted that, she has paid rent of
Rs.1,20,000/- in 2016-17 for a business concern called
Seven Dragon International as per page No.191 of Ex.R.4
i.e., schedule-II balance sheet and profit and loss account
of the petitioner for the financial year 2016-17. She has
further admitted that, her business activity for Seven
Dragon International went beyond 31.03.2017. Ex.R.4
is the assets and liabilities affidavit of the petitioner
submitted before the Family Court. The petitioner has
not submitted the said documents before this Court and
hence the counsel for the respondents has confronted her
with the assets and liabilities affidavit filed by her before
the Family Court and got them marked as Ex.R.4 to 6.
The petitioner did not submit these documents even after
she assured to submit them before this Court in her
cross examination. From the admissions of the
petitioner in cross examination dated 17.09.2024
discussed above it is clearly proved that the petitioner
was running her business Severn Dragon International
from 2015 to beyond 2017. Hence, her statement in
cross examination dated 18.07.2014 that, she had to let
go of the company after marriage because she was not
allowed to work by the respondents is not true.
40
Crl.Misc.122/2019
42. Further it is proved that, her company’s
revenue in the year 2015-16 had gone up to
Rs.51,00,000/-. The petitioner according to her
admission separated from the respondent No.1 in July
2015. Hence, the allegation of the petitioner that her
career was lost because of respondents conduct is not
true. Petitioner in her asset and liabilities affidavit filed
before this Court on 26.10.2022 has stated that her net
income from her business/profession/self employment is
Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. She has admitted that, in the
cross examination before this Court she has stated her
annual income in the year 2022-23 was approximately
Rs.33,00,000/-. This proves that, the petitioner has not
disclosed her true income. Further in column No.4 she
has stated that, her income from her liability in her
business/partnership/self employment is Rs.9,00,000/-.
She has stated that, she has a business of sales and
marketing. In the assets and liabilities affidavit she has
not stated the name of her company or her business
concern. In this regard she has submitted her IT
acknowledgment for the assessment year 2020-21
wherein it is stated that, her total income is
Rs.7,52,000/-. It appears that, the petitioner has
purposefully not mentioned the name of her company
anywhere in the petition or her pleadings or her evidence.
41
Crl.Misc.122/2019
43. It is the contention of the petitioner that, she
had no income in the year 2018-19 and in this regard
she has submitted her income tax return showing her
income as zero. However, the petitioner in her cross
examination dated 18.07.2024 has stated that, she was
consulting for a company called Traco for 3 or 4 months
in 2017 and then she started working for a company
called Sugar Box in the year 2019 and she worked in the
said company till 2021. But as per the balance sheet
annexed to her IT acknowledgment as per Ex.R.4
petitioner has stated that she was running a company in
the financial year 2017-18. There is no mention of any
consultation work done for any company in her IT
returns. Further the said balance sheet proves that,
petitioner was running her company for the financial
year 2017-18. As per the balance sheet she has
suffered a loss in the said company in the financial year
2017-18. But admittedly parties separated in the year
2015 itself and in the said year it is admitted by the
petitioner that, her gross revenue from her company was
Rs.50,92,725/-. Therefore, any loss suffered by her in
the year 2017-18 cannot be attributed to the conduct of
the respondents. In any business, profit and loss is a
common phenomena and there is no direct nexus
between the loss suffered by the petitioner in the
42
Crl.Misc.122/2019
business in financial year 2017-18 and the conduct of
the respondents. The very fact that, the petitioner had
gross revenue of Rs.50,92,725/- for the financial year
2015-16 and gross revenue of Rs.39,96,230/- in the
financial year 2016-17 from her own company proves
that there was no impediment for the petitioner to
pursue her career during her stay in the shared
household with the respondents.
44. It is not the case of the petitioner that, she
had engaged someone else to run her company. Further
the petitioner had personally declared her revenue to the
Income tax authorities. Hence, it cannot be said that the
respondents did not allow her to work after marriage. It
is the contention of the petitioner that, the drop in her
income for the financial year 2016-17 shows that she
was not allowed to work. Although it is true that the
statement of income of the petitioner for the financial
year 2016-17 shows her net profit from her business as
Rs.2,18,098/-. However, the said amount is arrived after
deducting expenditure, depreciation, debts and other
liabilities. Therefore, the Court cannot consider the net
profit alone to conclude that the drop in income of the
petitioner is due to the economic abuse caused by the
respondents. The gross revenue of the petitioner for the
43
Crl.Misc.122/2019
said financial year reveals that, the company had
sufficient revenue but because the company also had
expenses the net profit ended up being less. Hence, the
contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted. Moreover, the petitioner has not disclosed
that she was running her business till 2017 anywhere in
her petition, examination in chief and she has stated
that, she lost her career due to the harassment caused
by the respondents. Even today the petitioner is
working in a company called Pine Labs and she has
income of Rs.33,21,400/- for the financial year 2022-23.
This itself shows that, the petitioner is placed well in her
career. Further petitioner has worked continuously
from the date of separation till now. The petitioner
herself has made a career choice to start a business
which has not yielded profit due to which she had to
close the said company and join an employment. This
career choice made by the petitioner cannot be attributed
to the respondents. There is no evidence before the
Court which proves that, the petitioner has lost her
career due to the harassment.
45. Further petitioner in her cross examination
has admitted that, she has purchased EcoSport car in
2015 and Harrier car in 2022. If the petitioner really
44
Crl.Misc.122/2019
had no source of income and had suffered in her career
she would not be in a position to purchase highend car
like EcoSport and Harrier. From the entire cross
examination of the petitioner with respect to this
contention it appears that petitioner is not at all
forthcoming about her financial transactions. Petitioner
being a business woman holding a Masters degree in
Management from a reputed institution like London
School of Economics has given highly evasive answers in
her cross examination. She has stated that, she does not
remember in which banks she has accounts. She has
stated that, she does not invest in stock markets but she
has SIP and she does not know in which broking firm she
has invested. Totally, petitioner has not been
forthcoming regarding her financial transactions with her
parents and her brother. She has stated that, her
mother is transferring approximately Rs.2,25,000/- every
month to her bank account and she has stated that, the
said amount is transferred to her to invest in SIP and to
pay some bills. But petitioner has not submitted any
details of her SIP.
46. Petitioner has specially contended that, the
respondent No.1 did not avail a medical insurance for her
during their matrimonial life in her examination in chief.
45
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Respondent No.1’s counsel in this regard has confronted
and got marked 2 medical policies standing in the name
of petitioner and respondent No.1 for 2014-15, 2015-16
as Ex.R.13 and Ex.R.14. She has stated that, she was
not aware of the said medical policies. Counsel for the
petitioner has relied on Ex.R.13 and 14 and contended
that, in the said medical policies the petitioner is stated
to be a housewife which itself shows that petitioner was
not working from 2014 to 2016. It is contended that,
Ex.R.13 and 14 prove that, respondents have not allowed
the petitioner to work. However, this contention is
meritless because the IT returns of the petitioner
submitted as per Ex.R.4 reveals that, she was running a
business and also getting revenue from the business
from 2015-16, 2016-17. Further, the bank statement of
the petitioner as per Ex.R.4 page No.225 reveals that,
petitioner has received office rent of Rs.39,000/- on
19.04.2017. Petitioner has not explained why deposit of
Rs.39,000/- was made as office rent into her account.
She has admitted that, she has several credits into her
bank account apart from the payment received from her
parents and brother as per Ex.R.4. Petitioner has failed
to explain the reason for such credits. It is also apparent
from Ex.R.4/bank statement of the petitioner that
petitioner’s brother has credited amount of Rs.11,000/-
46
Crl.Misc.122/2019
and Rs.9,800/- to the petitioner’s account on 16.12.2017
and 17.02.2018. Petitioner has explained the said credit
by stating that, they were made to pay the rent to her
father’s office space. On perusal of Ex.R.4 reveals that,
various deposits are made by the parents and brother of
the petitioner into her account every month which are
running into lakhs of rupees. The petitioner in her cross
examination has explained these deposits by stating that,
they pay the amount to her to enable her to make
payment towards credit card bills, rent, SIP, EMI etc., of
her brother and parents. It is strange that, the parents
and brother of the petitioner are crediting amount
running into lakhs of rupees into the account of the
petitioner to pay credit card bills for rent, SIP
instillments, EMI etc., when they could have paid for
their own credit card bill, rent, SIP installments directly
from their own account.
47. Further the petitioner herself has admitted
that, she does not wish to claim that each and every
amount deposited into her account by her parents and
brother are towards payment of credit card bills, rent
etc., That apart, from the bank statements produced by
the petitioner as Ex.R.4 it is clear that apart from family
members petitioner is receiving various amounts from
47
Crl.Misc.122/2019
various unnamed accounts. The petitioner in her cross
examination dated 17.09.2024 has stated that, she does
not know the reason for the said deposits made into her
account. The bank statements marked in Ex.R.4 for the
period between 2015 to 2022. Therefore, they pertain to
the period when the petitioner was residing with the
respondents as well as the period when she got separated
from the respondent No.1. From the bank statements
marked in Ex.R.4 it is apparent that, petitioner has
received various amounts from various account holders
and from her parents in the said period. The petitioner is
unable to explain the receipts of the said amounts into
her account. These transactions of the petitioner as well
as her admissions in the cross examination probabalizes
the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not
disclosing her true income and it is much more than
what is stated by her in her assets and liabilities
affidavit. Further it is also proved that, petitioner had
sufficient income to maintain herself when she got
separated from the respondent No.1 in 2015. Therefore,
her allegation that respondent No.1 has not maintained
her and hence she entitle for maintenance has to be
rejected as she was able to maintain herself. The issue if
respondent No.1 has sent the petitioner out of the
matrimonial home or petitioner has left by herself shall
48
Crl.Misc.122/2019
be dealt with later. Therefore, from a complete scrutiny
of the evidence in this regard this Court can safely
conclude that, petitioner was very well running a
business from 2015 to 2017 and there was no restriction
imposed on her to run her business and she has not
suffered any loss in her career due to the harassment of
the respondents.
48. It is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that, the respondents have not supported the
petitioner in her career and this is evidenced by the fact
that petitioner in the cross examination of respondent
No.1 conducted before the Family Court has alleged
that, respondents did not attend petitioner’s office pooja
during Diwali. First of all petitioner has not made this
specific allegation in the present petition. She has only
alleged that, 1st respondent did not accompany her to any
of her family events and she was always alone because
respondent No.1 and 2 wanted to prove to her family that
they were very upset and unsatisfied with the petitioner’s
family. In this regard respondent No.1 has denied the
allegation and he has alleged that, the petitioner
purposefully decided to hold her office Diwali pooja on
the day there was Diwali pooja in the house of the
respondents. In the cross examination petitioner has
49
Crl.Misc.122/2019
admitted that, respondent No.1 conducted her office
pooja along with her during Diwali 2014. This shows
that, respondent No.1 has participated in the pooja
contrary to the petitioner’s allegation. Respondent No.1
in his cross examination in MC NO.6470/2022 in page
No.66 marked as Ex.R.22 has stated that, his mother
has not attended Diwali pooja at petitioner’s office for the
reason that she was required to prepare food at home for
Diwali celebration. He has further stated that, petitioner
has half heartedly invited his parents for the pooja.
Further for the question that, why he attended the pooja
when the petitioner invited him half heartedly he has
stated that he had to attend petitioner’s office pooja
because he had to take her back home after the pooja as
it was first Diwali pooja after marriage. Evidently, the
petitioner’s office pooja and respondents house pooja
were held during Diwali on the same day. Hence, it is
natural that respondent No.3 had to stay back home to
make preparations to perform Diwali pooja at the house
while respondent No.1 and petitioner performed Diwali
pooja at petitioner’s office. Admittedly, it was the first
Diwali pooja post marriage for petitioner and respondent
No.1 and in Hindu culture much importance is attached
to the celebration of first Diwali pooja of newly wed
couple post marriage. It is strange that, the petitioner
50
Crl.Misc.122/2019
chose to perform her office pooja on the same day as 1 st
Diwali pooja at her matrimonial house. It cannot be
denied that, such conduct of the petitioner would have
caused discomfort to the respondents.
49. Further petitioner in her cross examination
dated 13.08.2024 has admitted that, the respondent No.1
has attended a Keerthan held at her uncle’s in-law’s
house in June or July 2015. Evidently, petitioner’s
uncle’s in-law is a far relation to the respondent No.1 and
his family and a Keerthan held at their house is not an
important event as such but the fact that the respondent
No.1 has attended the said function in June or July 2015
shows that respondent No.1 was accompanying petitioner
for her family events. In the cross examination of the
respondent No.1 it is suggested by the counsel for the
petitioner that, respondent No.1 did not allow the
petitioner to go to Bangalore to prepare for her brother’s
Roka ceremony because they were dissatisfied with the
wedding arrangements and because their dowry demands
were not fulfilled. Respondent No.1 has denied the said
suggestion. However, the said allegations is not made in
the petition. Therefore, this suggestion cannot be
considered.
51
Crl.Misc.122/2019
50. Petitioner has alleged that, she was made to
work as a servant in the house of the respondents and
there was no house help in the house of the respondents.
She has alleged that, the driver in house of the
respondents was instructed not to do any of her work
and even the servants were instructed not to hep her.
She has alleged that, she was made to feel extremely
embarrassed and ashamed by the comments of the
respondents during her menstrual period. She has
alleged that, the respondents never cared about her
health. She has alleged that, respondent No.3 did not
cook for her for 3 days when she was not keeping well in
January 2015 and she literally made food for everyone
but not to the petitioner by stating that she has to cook
for herself and also forced her to cook for everyone in the
house. Respondent No.1 has denied these allegations
and he has stated that, there was house help in the
house of the respondents and there was no full time
house help and they were looking for a full time house
help during the said period. He has stated that, petitioner
was unhappy about helping his mother in the kitchen
and she had a habit of staying aloof from his parents and
complaining about frivolous issues. Evidently, the
petitioner has not stated the exact nature of comments
made by the respondents regarding her menstrual
52
Crl.Misc.122/2019
period. Ex.R.13 and 14 medical insurance policies
availed by respondent No.1 proves that respondent No.1
has taken care of the heath of the petitioner.
51. Further the petitioner in her cross examination
has admitted in her written statement filed before the
Family Court in para 49 page 51 about house help being
available in the house of the respondents during her
matrimonial life. Petitioner in order to corroborate her
evidence she is relying upon audio conversations marked
in Ex.P.3. In the cross examination petitioner has
admitted that, she is unable to point out any
conversation wherein she has complained about the
absence of maid servants or she being forced to do the
household chores in the house of the respondents. The
said audio conversations marked in Ex.P.3 are
contemporaneous evidence and if at all the petitioner was
harassed by the respondents by making her do the
household chores and by not allowing the house helps to
do her work she would have definitely complained about
the same to her family members. Petitioner and her
family members have recorded all conversation regarding
the matrimonial issue between the petitioner and
respondent No.1 right from June 2014 i,e., from the
beginning of the marriage. Therefore, if this allegation
53
Crl.Misc.122/2019
was true the petitioner would be able to point out the
conversation wherein she or her relatives spoke to the
respondents about the absence of maid servants at
respondents place. The counsel for the petitioner has
relied on the statement of the respondent No.1 in his
cross examination before the Family Court marked as
Ex.R.22 wherein he has stated that it is true to suggest
that, there was no help to the petitioner to the household
work done by her. He has argued that, this admission of
respondent No.1 proves that there was no house help in
the respondents house and petitioner was forced to do all
the household chores. The said statement of the
respondent No.1 is elicited in the course of cross
examination whereas the statement of the petitioner that
there was house help in the respondent’s house is made
in her pleadings. Therefore, the admission of the
petitioner in her pleadings as much more evidentiary
value as per Sec.18 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, this
allegation of the petitioner is not proved. Further it is an
admitted fact that, there were only 4 members in the
house of the respondents including the petitioner.
Respondent No.1, 2 and the petitioner were working
people. Hence, it is no possible that the there would be
much household work in the house of the respondents.
With the availability of amenities like washing machine,
54
Crl.Misc.122/2019
vacuum cleaner it is not very difficult to do one’s
household chores. Further it is a basic requirement for
any person to do their own house chores and it cannot be
said that doing household chores is harassment. It is
responsibility for every person to do the housework.
Therefore, it appears that the petitioner is portraying the
expectation of the respondents from her to do household
chores as domestic violence. This cannot be accepted by
the Court.
52. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondents
were constantly taunting her for not giving enough
jewelry and household items and other items during
marriage and not giving valuable gifts to their relatives at
the time of marriage. She has further alleged that,
respondent No.4 humiliated her by bringing out all her
bags out of her room and also those she had gifted to
respondent No.3 to check whether or not they were real
and he sat with the bags and went online to check the
authentication certificate just to humiliate her and show
her down and which made her loose confidence and it
was painful when it was said in front of the entire family.
Petitioner in her cross examination has admitted that,
she uses fake branded items. Apparently petitioner has
not stated the date on which the alleged incident took
55
Crl.Misc.122/2019
place. She has not stated the circumstances under which
the alleged incident took place. It is not clear why
respondent No.4 would suddenly bring out bags to check
their authenticity. Further respondent No.4 is a resident
of USA and petitioner has admitted that he was in India
during the wedding and post wedding for very short time.
Apart from her own testimony petitioner has not given
any proof regarding the said incident. Even if this
incident is believed indeed it is painful to the petitioner
but a single incident by a single member of the family
cannot be termed as domestic violence. It is
misbehaviour at best and family members have to openly
communicate with each other and sort out such issues.
53. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent
No.2 had a bad eye and always used to ask her sit on
sofa near him while he was watching program on TV. She
has alleged that, 3rd respondent always pushed her to 2 nd
respondent room and forced her to do all his work to
“make him happy”. Respondent No.1 in his statement of
objection has denied the said allegation. He has stated
that, petitioner has made outrageous allegations against
his father. In Ex.P.2/FIR filed by the petitioner
Sec.354(a) of IPC is also included. In the said complaint
petitioner has alleged that, respondent No.2 would pass
56
Crl.Misc.122/2019
bad comments and jokes in front of her and he would
look at her in dirty way and he would always be keeping
a watch on her. In the present petition and in the chief
examination the petitioner has not stated the details of
the events which made her to conclude that respondent
No.2 has a bad eye on her. In her cross examination
dated 24.08.2024 petitioner has stated that, she does not
remember if she told respondent No.1 that his father is
characterless in November 2015 after she had left the
matrimonial home. To the question if she wishes to
claim that she had never called respondent No.2 as
characterless to respondent No.1 she has stated that, she
has narrated the incidents that occurred between herself
and respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 but she does
not remember if she has used the word characterless.
Further to the question if she has made allegations of
molestation against respondent No.2 petitioner has
stated that, she has informed respondent No.1 that
respondent No.2 has touched her in a way that made her
uncomfortable and embarrassed. She has further stated
that, she also told respondent No.1 about what
respondent No.2 told her directly and also in front of
respondent No.1. She has further stated that, she does
not remember in which month the alleged incident of bad
touch by respondent No.2 took place. She has stated
57
Crl.Misc.122/2019
that, it occurred in the year 2014, 2015. She has stated
that, she remembers the events during which the alleged
incident of bad touch occurred and there were multiple
such incidents. She has stated that, she can verify the
audio conversation marked as Ex.P.3 and 19 and inform
the Court if the alleged incident of bad touch came up in
any of the conversations in Ex.P.3 and 19. She has
denied the suggestion that, she has deliberately made a
false allegation about bad touch and hence she is using
the said allegations selectively in certain proceedings.
Evidently, the petitioner has not mentioned specific
events when the alleged incident of bad touch took place.
In her examination in chief she has only stated that,
respondent No.2 had a bad eye and would make her sit
with him while watching TV. But in her petition she has
stated in para 17 that, respondent No.2 made her life
hell by wanting her to sit in front of him all day, watch
disgusting movies with full nudity, in front of him and
pretend to watch english shows only because he did not
want the petitioner to have a TV in her room and
respondent No.1 supported this. In the FIR as per
Ex.P.2 she has alleged that, respondent No.2 would pass
bad comments and jokes in front of her and he would
look at her in dirty way and he would always be keeping
a watch on her.
58
Crl.Misc.122/2019
54. In her written statement before the Family
Court in MC No.6470/2022 marked as Ex.R.3 she has
stated that, on 15.06.2014 at a Keerthan in the
respondent’s building respondent No.2 held her hand
and his touch was inappropriate. But this allegation is
not found anywhere in the present petition or in the FIR.
The petitioner is not able to point out if the said
allegation has come up anywhere in the audio recordings
marked as Ex.P.3 and 19. Allegation of molestation is
very serious and when such an allegation is made it has
to be with full responsibility. It is true that, such
incidents do not occur in the public eye and Court
cannot expect proof and the Court can rely on the sole
testimony of the victim. But at the same time the sole
testimony has to be truthful. In this case it appears
that, the petitioner has made different allegations in the
FIR, her written statement filed before the Family Court,
this petition and her examination in chief regarding bad
eye / bad touch allegedly made by respondent No.2. In
the cross examination when petitioner was questioned
about the specific events or dates she is unable to state
the same and she has vaguely stated that there were
multiple such incidents. If at all there were such
incidents especially happening to a newly wedded bride
from her father in law she would definitely remembered
59
Crl.Misc.122/2019
the specific incidents and would be able to recall the
same in the cross examination. Further, given that the
petitioner is a highly educated lady who owns businesses
would not have turned a blind eye to such incidents and
would have definitely aggressed them in front of the
family members.
55. In the cross examination of the petitioner when
she is questioned about the reason for using evidence
selectively and making allegations selectively petitioner is
unable to give a convincing answer and she has stated
that, she has only made allegations in the petition that
were relevant to this petition. It is not clear as to how the
petitioner decided what was relevant and what was
irrelevant to the present petition since the divorce
petition, maintenance petition filed by the petition
U/Sec.125 of Cr.PC and the present proceeding emanate
from the same cause of action. It appears that, the
petitioner has made improvements to her case by adding
allegations each time she has filed a petition. Hence,
this allegation of the petitioner is not believable.
56. It is the contention of the respondent No.1
that, in November 2015 when the petitioner called his
father characterless and his mother intimidating and told
60
Crl.Misc.122/2019
that he is weak and coward person and told him that she
would stay with him only if he left his parents and his
family members for a period of 6 months and then she
would determine if they could stay with his parents the
respondent No.1 decided that their marriage would not
progress. He has alleged that, since the petitioner
expected him to desert his aging parents and called his
father characterless and his mother intimidating and she
deserted him in July 2015 he has filed for divorce. This
allegation made by the respondent No.1 is denied by the
petitioner. In the cross examination discussed above
when the petitioner is specifically asked if she called the
father of the respondent No.1 as characterless she has
not answered the question in a straight forward manner
but she has stated that, she has informed respondent
No.1 about his father’s behaviour. As already discussed
the petitioner has not specifically stated what this
behaviour was. Further, she has used the word bad
touch in the cross examination whereas in her
examination in chief she has stated that, the respondent
No.2 had bad eye. To the pointed question in the cross
examination if she has made an allegation of molestation
against respondent No.2 she has stated that, there were
incidents of bad touch without stating if she considered
the same as molestation. It appears that, the petitioner
61
Crl.Misc.122/2019
has engaged in word play and has dodged the questions
put to her regarding her allegation of bad touch or bad
eye against the respondent No.2. Evidently, in the FIR as
per Ex.P.2 Sec.354(A) of IPC has been invoked against
the respondent No.3 on the basis of the complaint made
by the petitioner. Sec.354(A) states if a man commits
any of the following acts;
a) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome
and explicit sexual overtures; or
b) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
c) showing pornography against the will of a woman;or
d) making sexually coloured remarks constitutes sexual
harassment.
57. Petitioner has not stated a single incident that
would come under the above stated definition of sexual
harassment in her evidence. Petitioner has stated that,
respondent No.3 would push her to enter respondent
No.2’s room to do all his work which would make
respondent No.2 happy. She has alleged that,
respondent No.2 had a bad eye and asked her to sit on
sofa near him while he was watching TV. Both these
allegations do not fall under the ambit of sexual
62
Crl.Misc.122/2019
harassment and also cannot be termed as bad touch as
stated by the petitioner in her cross examination.
58. Petitioner herself has stated in her petition
that, she informed about the alleged incident of bad eye /
bad touch to respondent No.1 and he took it very lightly
and scolded her. In this regard petitioner has produced
audio conversation marked as Ex.P.8. This is the
conversation between the petitioner and respondent No.1
on Diwali 2015. It is the allegation of the respondent
No.1 that in this conversation petitioner called his father
characterless and his mother intimidating and demanded
for a separate home. At this stage it is pertinent to note
that, the counsel for the respondent has argued that the
audio conversations have to be completely excluded from
evidence since the petitioner has not complied with the
requirements of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act.
Although it is true that the petitioner has not complied
with the requirement of Section 65 B of Indian Evidence
Act, the respondents counsel has himself relied on the
audio conversation to prove that there was no demand
for dowry and he has got marked Ex R.14 / Hindi
translation of a portion of the audio conversation in
Ex.P.18. Therefore the counsel for the respondents
cannot blow hot and cold and rely on the portions of the
63
Crl.Misc.122/2019
audio conversations that are suitable to him and contend
that the rest have to be ignored. Hence, the audio
conversation can be relied upon by this Court as it is
admitted by the respondents. By considering the entire
conversation that occurred between the petitioner and
respondent No.1 on Diwali 2015 it can be gathered that
the petitioner has repeatedly stated that respondent No.2
has said some sexual stuff to her. She has given
reference to a joke about Sunny Leone made by
respondent No.2 to her, she has alleged that respondent
No.2 has told her to wear loose clothes while meditating
which she found to be sexual, she has alleged that
respondent No.2 has told her that, “subah hone na de
raat sone na de, hum toh bohot dances karte hain ispe”
and she has said that such comments are intolerable for
her and for that reason she cannot sit with parents of
respondent No.1 in the drawing room. She has repeatedly
alleged that, respondent No.3 has asked her parents to
take her home at least 25 times in past 1 year for some
or the other reason. Petitioner has alleged that on
diwali/dhanteras and on 26.01.2015 respondent No.3
has physically intimidated her, she has alleged that the
behavior of respondent no. 2 to 4 has driven her to
suicide and if she has to stay with them she will commit
suicide. She has alleged that, her security is under threat
64
Crl.Misc.122/2019in the house of the respondents and hence even though
she is willing to continue her marriage with respondent
No.1 she wants to stay separately from his family
members at least for some time. Petitioner has also
alleged that, she was thrown out of the matrimonial
home on 11.07.2015 by the respondents. In the said
conversation respondent No.1 has stoutly denied all the
allegations and repeatedly contended that, his father has
not told her any sexual stuff and his statements are not
intentional, he has denied his mother has ever physically
intimidated her, he has denied throwing the petitioner
out of the matrimonial house.
59. Before analyzing the said conversation it has
to be kept in mind that this conversation has occurred
after the separation of parties and petitioner has
recorded it without the knowledge of the respondent
No.1. In the cross examination dated 13.08.2024,
petitioner has admitted that, she and her family
members are aware about the importance of evidence in
a judicial proceeding and she has denied the suggestion
that since they are aware about the importance of
evidence in a judicial proceeding they have collected
evidence from 2014. As already stated the petitioner and
her parents have recorded their conversation with the
65
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondents right from the very inception of marriage, It
appears that, this has been done in a calculated manner.
In Ex P8 respondent No.1 has clearly asked the petitioner
if she is recording the said conversation and she has
denied the same. Therefore, the said recording is done
without the knowledge of respondent No.1. Since, it is the
petitioner who is recording the said conversation
evidently she is careful about the words being used,
allegations made and she has made the allegations
repeatedly to ensure that it is very clear that there is a
threat to her security in the respondents house and she
needs to move out into a separate house for her security.
The very fact that petitioner and her family members
were recording conversation with the respondents ever
since 2014 shows that they intended to use it as evidence
or put the respondents under a fix by showing them
these recorded conversation. Ex.P.8 conversation reveals
that, petitioner has not used the word “characterless”
against respondent no.2 however she has made serious
allegations against his character which insinuates that
respondent no.2 is of a poor character. As already stated
the allegations of the petitioner in this said conversation
are very serious against all the respondents. Respondent
no.1 has denied these allegations and stated that the
petitioner is misconstruing statements made innocently
66
Crl.Misc.122/2019
by respondent no.2 as having sexual innuendos and that
his mother has not physically intimidated her and he has
not thrown her out of the house. He has stated that, he is
willing to stay with her and it is up to her to decide
whether she wants to stay with him. The petitioner has
stated that, she cannot stay with the respondents in their
house and she wants a separate house which is denied
by respondent no.1. He has stated that, he cannot leave
his aging parents. Petitioner has repeatedly made the
same allegations and it appears that this is done with a
view to elicit a confession or apology or a sharp response
from respondent no.1. Petitioner has also ensured that
she explains why she has not made the said allegations
earlier in an e-mail sent by her by saying that she did not
want to talk about respondent no.1’s parents in the said
e-mail. The said e-mail has been marked as EX R16 and
there will be a discussion on the said e-mail later. In
Ex.P.8 petitioner has led most part of the conversation
and hardly allowed respondent no.1 to respond or talk.
Therefore, it appears the petitioner has steered the
conversation in such a way that her point of view is put
across as the truth. Hence this conversation and all the
audio recordings produced by the petitioner at the outset
have to be considered with a pinch of salt. Be that as it
may, even if this conversation is assumed to be natural,
67
Crl.Misc.122/2019
free flowing conversation, even then it proves that,
petitioner was making very serious allegations against
the family of respondent no.1 and demanding a separate
residence. In the said conversation petitioner has
admitted that, respondent no.1 has visited her in
Bangalore after separation to sort out the issues. She has
admitted that, after separation there was a meeting and
her relatives told that they would get back after a week
and they never called. Even in this conversation the
allegations made by her against respondent No.2 that he
was speaking sexual stuff to her and making her feel
uncomfortable is not believable. Her allegation is that,
respondent no.2 made a joke about sunny leone, spoke
about petitioner’s clothes and made some comment
about some song cannot fall under the ambit of domestic
violence. From the entire evidence on record regarding
said allegation it appears that the petitioner is hyper
sensitive and has read too much into innocent situations
and has ended up making them big issues.
60. Petitioner has alleged that, respondents have
forced her to wear only Indian clothes and would not
allow her to wear western clothes even though she had
explained to them that she was not used to wearing
Indian clothes. In the cross examination of the
68
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondent No.1 before the Family Court in MC
No.6470/2022 respondent No.1 has denied the said
allegation and has stated that, there was no restriction
for petitioner regarding her clothes. He has stated that,
petitioner has worn pant and shirts before his parents.
He has stated that, she has not worn any clothes which
were above the knee in front of his parents. Petitioner
has also alleged that, time and again the 2nd to 4th
respondents forced the petitioner to sleep with doors
open, when she and respondent No.1 were resting at
home, by saying that in their house they have an open
door policy. She requested to them, that she wasn’t
comfortable because her bed was right in front of the
door and people would see her, moreover, she was not
used to wearing Indian clothes, fell on theirs deaf ears.
The respondents were forcing the petitioner to use
different bed sheets while sleeping, and not to talk with
her husband. Admittedly, petitioner and respondent
No.1 are from the same community and they follow the
same traditions, customs etc., Admittedly, petitioner has
worked and studied abroad and naturally that has
molded her temperament, world view. Petitioner has no
evidence to corroborate her allegations except of her oral
testimony. Hence, these allegations are not proved in the
first place. Even if these allegations are assumed to be
69
Crl.Misc.122/2019
true it may be that parents of the respondent No.1 are
conservative in their nature and expected the petitioner
to follow certain rules and customs. These sort of issues
or hiccups, differences in temperament and out look are
natural in a family. Each person comes from a different
social, cultural, economical background and time is
needed for each person to adjust and accommodate each
other. Hence, even if these allegations are assumed to
be true the petitioner could have worked out a solution
for the same by openly communicating with the
respondents. Some amount of tolerance, accommodation
and understanding is needed from both parties in
marriage. In situations where the parents are
conservative the younger members of the family will have
to accommodate and this is natural in any family. Such
situations cannot be considered as a domestic violence. If
such events are considered as domestic violence it will
have a disastrous effect on the institution of marriage.
Therefore, it appears that, the petitioner has taken minor
issues which could be solved with passage of time very
seriously and she is terming them as domestic violence.
61. It is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent
No.3 came running to beat her twice on her first Diwali
on 21.10.2014 and on 26.01.2015. Petitioner has not
70
Crl.Misc.122/2019
given any context whatsoever to the said allegation. It is
not at all averred under which circumstance or context
respondent No.3 has come running to beat her. In
Ex.P.2/FIR petitioner has stated that, respondent No.3
came to assault and physically intimidate her on
21.10.2014 as petitioner had her breakfast without
asking respondent No.3. Petitioner has not stated
anything about the alleged incident of assault that
occurred on 26.01.2015 in Ex.P.2. In her written
statement filed in Ex.R.3 in para 56 in ink page No.62
petitioner has stated that, on the said day i.e.,
21.10.2014 when respondent No.3 was going to kitchen
she asked why the petitioner won’t ask her before eating
when the petitioner replied that she had milk and
makhana that’s why she did not ask. Respondent No.3
came barging at her with fingers pointed towards her and
shouted that she should not talk to her in loud voice.
Nowhere the petitioner has stated that, respondent No.3
came to beat her in para 56 of Ex.R.3. If at all
respondent No.3 had come to beat her on 21.10.2014
there was no impediment to the petitioner to state the
same in her statement of objections. The very fact that,
the petitioner has made different allegations in different
cases pending between the parties indicates that the
petitioner is making improvements to suit her case. This
71
Crl.Misc.122/2019
proves that, the allegation made by the petitioner is not
believable.
62. The petitioner has alleged that, on 11.07.2015
at 2.00 p.m. respondent No.1 threatened that he would
beat her up if her parents don’t take her back to her
parents house. The said allegation is denied by the
respondent No.1 and he has stated in his evidence that
on 11.07.2015 when he requested the petitioner who was
in their room to come out and have lunch, the petitioner
suddenly lost her cool and went to the extent of slapping
him and he jumped back. He has stated that, he
immediately called petitioner’s father and told him about
the unacceptable behaviour of the petitioner and
requested him to teach her good manners and take the
petitioner home. He has stated that, petitioner packed
her bag and stated that, he would hear soon from her
divorce lawyer on the matter. He has stated that, on the
very day petitioner’s uncle Shravan Jajodia and his wife
came to take the petitioner to his house. He has stated
that, later petitioner’s father called him and abused him
on the phone in most filthy and foul language.
63. Petitioner has stated 11.07.2015 to be the date
of separation. It is the case of the respondent that, in
72
Crl.Misc.122/2019
July – August 2015 there was an mediation between
himself and the petitioner and one Pawan Didwania and
in the said meeting an amicable solution could not be
reached hence petitioner continued to stay with her
parents. He has alleged that, there was no
communication between himself and the petitioner after
the said incident but in September 2015 he met the
petitioner in Bangalore with the hope of resolving issues
and in the said meeting petitioner was ready to come
back only if the respondent No.1 left his parents. He has
further stated that, with a hope of change in
temperament he sent a bouquet of flower and cake to the
petitioner at her Bangalore home on her birth day on
14.10.2015. He has alleged that, petitioner’s brother
made few attempts to patch things up between
September to November 2015. He has reached out to the
petitioner in September 2015 face to face meeting.
Respondent No.1 has further stated that, petitioner’s
brother called on 11.11.2015 to wish for Diwali and said
that petitioner would call him to demonstrate her positive
intent to maintain the relationship. He has stated that,
petitioner has called him on 12.11.2015 but instead of
wishing him for Diwali she started shouting angrily on
him. He has alleged that, in the said conversation
petitioner called his father characterless and his mother
73
Crl.Misc.122/2019
intimidating and called him as weak and coward person.
He has alleged that, petitioner asked him to leave his
parents and when the respondent No.1 refused she said
that she cannot put any more effort and hung up the
phone on him. He has alleged that, in March 2016
petitioner called him all of a sudden and requested him
to meet her and in the said meeting she highlighted the
old age of his parents and their expected short life
expectancy and blamed all the marital discord on him
and his parents and urged him to focus on her
happiness. He has alleged that, again mid April 2016 a
meeting was arranged with the uncle of the petitioner
wherein respondent No.1 expressed that he has no trust
left in the said relationship and it would be better to end
the relationship mutually.
64. Respondent No.1 has stated that, there was no
communication between their families after March 2016.
He has alleged that, thereafter, the petitioner’s uncle
communicated to Sri.Pawan Didwania informing that
petitioner would return back and stay with respondent
No.1 and his family if they could arrange a full time
maid, a separate vehicle with a driver for the petitioner
and no one should interfere in her life and petitioner
should be allowed to come or go as she pleases and
74
Crl.Misc.122/2019
petitioner would also not help in household chores.
Respondent No.1 has stated that, he discussed about the
said condition with his family and informed Sri.Pawan
Didwania that marriage cannot sustain on such dictating
terms and it would be better to end the marriage
gracefully. Respondent No.1 has alleged that,
subsequently 2 more meetings occurred between himself
and petitioner’s father on 05.05.2016 and himself and
petitioner’s uncle and father on 08.08.2016. But they
were not fruitful. He has alleged that, by Diwali 2016
respondents family had realized that the marriage was
not progressing and they should arrive at a mutual
dissolution. He has stated that, again there is a meeting
between himself and petitioner but it was not fruitful. He
has alleged that, the petitioner and her family continued
with multiple demands that respondent and the
petitioner could stay separately leaving respondent No.1’s
old aged parents and the petitioner would not do any
household chores and nobody should ask her about her
whereabouts. Since, the respondent No.1 did not want
to separate from his own parents who are dependent on
him he has filed for divorce in April 2017. The petitioner
in her petition and her examination in chief has not
stated anything about any of the meetings that occurred
after March 2016. The petitioner has stated that, in
75
Crl.Misc.122/2019
March 2016 she let go of her 2 nd start up i.e., Kid Around
in order to be on the side of 1 st respondent but the
respondents turned their back on her. She has alleged
that, she has repeatedly visited respondent’s house and
pleaded and begged in front of them but they gave false
promises to her family that they would discuss and
inform them in some time but each time one to two
months would pass before they would agree to meet her
family again. Petitioner in Ex.R.3 has given a completely
different version of the incident that occurred on
11.07.2015 which makes her version in this petition not
believable. In Ex.R.3 in para 102 petitioner has not
stated anywhere that, respondent No.1 threatened that
he would beat her up if her parents won’t take her back.
Petitioner has stated that, she shouted at respondent
No.1 and told him to shut up for that respondent No.1
called her father and told him that petitioner is not a
child and she cannot sit in the room the entire day and
he i.e. petitioner’s father should call her back as
respondent no.1 cannot control her anymore. He told
petitioner’s father that it has not happened that anybody
has told him to shut up in a loud voice and he has not
beaten them up. Evidently, the petitioner is construing
this statement as a threat by respondent no.1 to beat her
up if her parents did not take her back home. As per
76
Crl.Misc.122/2019
respondent No.1 and petitioner’s own admission the
situation on 11.07.2015 was very tense and even
according to the petitioner in Ex.R.3 even though such
allegations are not made in the present petition it
appears that petitioner was unhappy because she could
not meet her friend for lunch on 11.07.2015. For that
she was crying and hence the altercation between her
and respondent No.1 occurred. Petitioner in Ex.R.3 has
stated that, when her uncle came to the house of
respondent No.1 and spoke about her and even she
spoke about respondent No.1’s parents and how she was
treated in the house. Petitioner herself has stated that,
respondent No.1 asked his mother to keep quite when
she entered the room and petitioner herself has stated
that respondent No.1 told his mother several times to go
into her room. Petitioner herself has stated that,
respondent No.1 told petitioner’s uncle that she had
threatened to take the respondents to the police.
Petitioner herself has stated that, she had asked
respondent No.1 for divorce in the Ex.R.3. In the same
paragraph petitioner has stated that, it was respondent
No.1 who asked for divorce first hence, she also told she
wanted divorce and she has also stated that she
threatened to go to the police because of money issue
raised by respondent No.1. Petitioner has herself stated
77
Crl.Misc.122/2019
that, respondent No.1 told her uncle that he was very
sorry for what he had done and he would call petitioner
father and to apologize him. She has further stated that,
since respondent No.1 did not call her father till 7.00
p.m. her father called respondent No.1 told him that he
would never give his daughter back to a person who did
not deserve her and he shouted at respondent No.1.
even though all these allegations are not made in the
present petition and they have not been tested by way of
cross examination since Ex.R.3 is on record from
petitioner’s own statement in Ex.R.3 it appears that
petitioner was not thrown out of the matrimonial house.
She left on 11.07.2015 from the matrimonial house after
a altercation between her and respondent No.1 and it
was her father who told respondent No.1 that he would
not send the petitioner back.
65. It appears that, the issue on 11.07.2015 was
not so big for both the parties to react in such a way.
Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner left along with
her uncle on the said day. Although petitioner has
admitted that respondent No.1 met her in Bangalore in
September 2015, it is her contention that respondent
no.1 was in Bangalore on work and he contacted her at
the same time and he has not made any separate effort to
78
Crl.Misc.122/2019
contact her. Respondent No.1 in his cross examination in
Ex R14 has admitted that he was in Bangalore for an
official visit when he met the petitioner. From the
evidence on record it is proved that the petitioner and her
family member and respondent no.1 and 2 have met
several times after 11.0.7.2015 to resolve the issues but
the efforts have gone in vain and petitioner has continued
to stay with her parents. Finally respondent no.1 has
filed for divorce in April 2017.
66. It is an admitted fact that till after the divorce
petition is filed by respondent no.1 petitioner has not
filed any complaint or petition against him. Admittedly
the petitioner lodged a police complaint against the
respondents soon after respondent no.1 filed a divorce
petition against her. It is also pertinent to note that the
petitioner who was residing along with her parents in
Bangalore after separation from Respondent no.1 turned
up at respondent no.1’s office and residence and also
office of respondent no.2 soon after respondent no.1 filed
divorce petition. This is admitted by the petitioner in her
cross examination. It is strange that the petitioner who
had not visited the house of the respondents ever since
separation and in Ex P8 has stated that respondent no.1
should take her back since he threw her out all of a
79
Crl.Misc.122/2019
sudden turned up unannounced at respondent no.1 and
2’s office and their residence. Petitioner has alleged that,
she was not allowed to enter the house by respondent
no.3. Respondent no.1 has admitted the allegation and
stated that since his mother i.e. respondent no.3 stays
alone in the house and petitioner earlier had given
threats of committing suicide and taking respondents to
the police, respondent no.3 did not allow her inside the
house. Ex P8 proves the contention of respondent no.1 as
the petitioner in Ex P8 stated that she will commit
suicide and she has also admitted in her written
statement in divorce proceedings about threatening to
take respondents to police. Hence it is proved that
respondent no.3 did not allow her inside the house
fearing petitioner will lodge false complaint against her.
As already stated the very fact that petitioner turned up
at respondent’s office and house unannounced after
respondent no.1 filed for divorce shows that petitioner
did not approach the respondents in good faith. In the
cross examination petitioner has stated that, she is
contesting the divorce proceedings in order to defend the
allegations made against her by respondent no.1 in
divorce petition and she has filed the present petition in
order to avail maintenance. Hence it is clear that the
petitioner does not have the intention to save her
80
Crl.Misc.122/2019
marriage. The fact that petitioner has filed this petition 4
years after her separation with respondent no.1 proves
that it is an after thought and it is filed to harass the
respondents by making them to run around in the
Courts. From Ex.P.8 it is proved that, respondent No.1
was clear in his communication and he has not given
false promise to the petitioner as alleged by her in the
petition and made her to wait for 2 years after
separation.
67. It is the contention of respondent no.1 that, it
is the petitioner who has demanded for divorce first and
in this regard he has relied on Email marked as Ex R 16.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has
written the said e-mail in a state of anguish and the
same cannot be considered to prove that petitioner asked
for divorce first. The said E-mail is dated 07.03.2015 and
it is addressed by the petitioner to respondent no.1.
Perusal of the said e-mail reveals that, petitioner was
unhappy as respondent no.1 had refused to give her a
gift of her liking for valentine’s day citing financial
crunch. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that,
petitioner expected expensive gifts on each and every
occasion and respondent no.1 found it difficult to fulfill
her wishes due to financial problems. Petitioner in the
81
Crl.Misc.122/2019
said e mail has stated respondent’s mother stopped her
maalishwali as she charged extra for the petitioner and
refused a cook because he cost more. In the said e-mail
petitioner has made several allegations against the father
of respondent no.1 by alleging that he is controlling
respondent no.1. Interestingly, in the said e-mail she has
not mentioned anything about respondent no.2 having a
bad eye or respondent no.3 physically intimidating her. It
was a perfect opportunity for the petitioner to state the
said allegations but there is no reference to the said
allegation in EX R16, This in itself shows that petitioner
is making false allegation. Petitioner in Ex R16 has stated
that, if respondent No.1 cannot provide her basic things
and she has to fend for herself then it is her request to
dissolve the marriage. Hence the petitioner has first
asked for divorce. From the said email it is paradoxical
that petitioner on one hand states that she is career
oriented and on the other hand is expecting respondent
no.1 to provide her basic things. Evidently from
petitioner’s income she is able to afford the same bags it
is ironical that she is expecting the respondent no.1 to
gift her some items. It may be that the petitioner wrote
the said email in a state of despair and anguish. But the
email also indicates the disposition of the petitioner. In
the e-mail she has stated “Samarth, if you want to
82
Crl.Misc.122/2019
continue leaving me at their pity, then that isn’t right. I
cannot now ‘save for the future’ by giving up small
pleasures, I can do that for myself. I have seen people
who earn 10 L a year, buy gifts on EMIs for their wives.
How does life become happy? When you know what
you’re doing, if for a reason and there is hope that
someday who you are doing all this for, will understand
and stand by you. But you didn’t even think about me
while writing that email. For me what matters is in front
of you. If I have to do small things for me, and keep
myself happy, then I don’t need a husband. It’ll hurt
once for sometime, and not all my life”. These
statements by petitioner goes to prove that, there was a
constant demand for expensive gifts by the petitioner and
she was unhappy because the respondent did not gift her
as per her wishes and wrote email dated 07.03.2015.
68. From the entire evidence on record, it can be
seen that the main allegation of the petitioner is that
respondents have taunted her for the reason that, the
wedding arrangements were dissatisfactory, gifts given
were not up to their standard, respondent No.2 has made
sexual innuendos to her and made her feel
uncomfortable and respondent No.3 has physically
intimidated her on 2 occasions and constantly humiliated
83
Crl.Misc.122/2019
her insulted her. Respondent No.4 has humiliated her
for not giving branded items as gifts and she has lost her
career due to the harassment of the respondents. As
already discussed the evidence submitted by the
petitioner does not prove any of her allegations. It
appears that, the petitioner has exaggerated and
magnified certain incidents. The very fact that, the audio
recordings submitted by the petitioner’s begin in June
2014, 10 days after the marriage with a recording of the
conversation between the father of the petitioner and
father of the respondent No.1 i.e., respondent No.2 shows
that the petitioner had an intention of creating evidence
for a dispute that may arise between herself and
respondents. This conduct of the family of the petitioner
and the petitioner herself shows that there was no faith
in them with respect to the respondents. In absence of
faith it is very difficult to continue any relationship. A
foundation for a sound marriage to a great extent is
tolerance to each others fault to certain bearable extent.
No one expects the parties to tolerate the faults to an
unbearable extent. However, if there is an attempt to
create or record evidence without the knowledge of the
other party at every step it trifles the relationship.
84
Crl.Misc.122/2019
69. Further, the petitioner has made grave
allegation regarding respondent No.2 making sexual
innuendo against her but she is unable to prove the
same. It is pertinent to note that, in Ex.R.16 petitioner
does not mention anything about the sexual innuendos
allegedly made by the respondent No.2 even though she
brings up respondent No.2’s conduct but in Ex.P.8 audio
conversation petitioner brings up the issue of sexual
innuendos and explains that she did not bring them up
on her email out of respect to respondent No.2 knowing
very well that she is recording the said conversation. It
appears that, petitioner had the entire conversation in
Ex.P.8 to create a foundation for a domestic violence
event. In the said conversation respondent No.1 has
stated that, he is aware about the fact that petitioner
and her family members have a habit of recording all
conversations and he feels that there is a criminal
investigation being conducted against him. Petitioner in
the said conversation has denied recording the said
conversation when in fact she was recording the said
conversations. The very fact that, the petitioner kept
recording all conversations shows that she was creating a
foundation for all legal proceedings. Further she has
given improved and different versions in each of the legal
85
Crl.Misc.122/2019
proceedings filed by her which makes her entire evidence
not believable.
70. The Court while dealing with matrimonial
affairs cannot look at isolated incidents but has to look at
all the incidents and weigh from prospective of both the
parties. The Court cannot adopt the standard of
‘reasonable man’ or ‘reasonable women’ while dealing
with matrimonial offences. The Court has to deal with
the parties before it and the Court cannot adopt a
standard applicable to ideal husband and ideal wife. This
has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
various cases pertaining to divorce and the same
principal will be applicable even to domestic violence
proceedings. Therefore, there may be conduct by the
respondent which may have caused pain in the mind of
the petitioner but before such conduct can be called
domestic violence it must touch a certain pitch of gravity
or severity. It has to be seen whether such conduct was
for a long period of time and whether it was a sustained
reprehensible conduct. The inference of domestic
violence has to be drawn from the attending facts and
circumstances taken cumulatively. It is not correct to
take an instance of misbehaviour and decide that such
behavior itself constitutes domestic violence. As stated in
86
Crl.Misc.122/2019
explanation II of Sec.3 of PWDV Act the approach
adopted by the Court should be to take cumulative effect
of facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence
on record and then draw a fair inference whether
petitioner was subjected to domestic violence due to the
conduct of the respondents. By taking into account the
entire evidence on record it appears that both the parties
have blown up certain incidents out of proportion and
dragged it on due to their egos but the burden of proof is
on the petitioner in the present case and petitioner has
failed to prove that the conduct of the respondents was
to such an extent that it can be termed as domestic
violence U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act. Hence, point No.1
answered in the negative.
71. POINT No.2 :- As already stated commission
of domestic violence is sine qua-non to grant any of the
reliefs under PWDV Act. As per the discussion made in
point No.1 the petitioner has been unable to prove that
the respondents have committed domestic violence
against her. Hence, point No.2 answered in the
negative.
72. POINT No.3 :- In view of the materials placed
before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary
evidence this court proceed to pass the following;
87 Crl.Misc.122/2019 ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed. 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 January 2025).
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 : Arzoo Samarth Jagnani
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Wedding Invitation Card Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.P.3 : Pen drive containing 12 audio recording
along with Certificate U/Sec.65-B of IEA
Act.
88
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Ex.P.4 to 15 : English translation copy of audio recording
No.1 to 8 and 10 – 13.
Ex.P.16 & 17 : Certified copy of charge sheet in CC
No.1070/PW/2021 and along with certified
English translation
Ex.P.18 : Transcript audio recordings 1, 2, 4 to 8, 10
to 12
Ex.P.19 : Pen drive containing 1 audio recordings
along with Certificate U/Sec.65-B of IEA
Act.
Ex.P.20 : Transcript of Ex.P.19
Ex.P.21 : Transcript of audio recordings 2, 13 as per
Ex.P.3 (Pen drive)
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1 : Samarth Vimal Jagnani
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 : Part of Ex.P.9 page No.364
Ex.R.2 : Part of Ex.P.18 page No.153
Ex.R.3 to 8 : All documents filed before various Court
Ex.R.10 to 12 : 3 Photos
Ex.R13 & 4 : 2 health Insurance policy
Ex.R.15 : Whats app chat copy
Ex.R.16 : 2 Page Email
Ex.R.17 : Photo of petitioner
Ex.R.18 : Article
Ex.R.19 : Crl.Misc.635/2019 petition copy
Ex.R.20 : Linked in account
Ex.R.21 : Hindi transcript
Ex.R.22 : Certificate copy of examination in chief
and cross examination of respondent in
MC NO.6474/2022
Ex.R.23 : Photocopy of marriage certificate
89
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Ex.R.24 : Certified copy of wedding invitation card
Ex.R.25 : Certified copies of 2 wedding photograph
and Roka ceremony
Ex.R.26 : Certified copy of petitioner’s brother’s
profile in Linked in website
Ex.R.27 : Certified copy of the relevant extract of the
ledger from the books of accounts and
redacted copy of the extract of capital
account for the assessment year 2015-16
income tax returns
Ex.R.28 : Certified copy of the email
Ex.R.29 : Certified copies of the medical documents
of respondent’s father
Ex.R.30 : Certified copies of medical documents of
respondent’s mother
Ex.R.31 : Certified copy of the credit card statement
Ex.R.32 : Certified copy of the photographs along
with itineraries of Coorg trip
Ex.R.33 : Certified copy of the email with vendor
delivering bouquet
Ex.R.34 : Certified copy of of the itineraries along
with 2 photograph of New Zealand and
Fiji
Ex.R.35 : Certified copy of email interaction with
vendor to deliver bouquet
Ex.R.36 : Certified copy of the emails reflecting
payment made at Taj, Bengaluru with
credit card and booking at Taj Westend,
Bengaluru and invoice issued by Taj
Westend
Ex.R.37 : Certified copy of the letter sent by
respondent’s father to Sr. Inspector of
Police, Santacruz police station
Ex.R.38 : Certified copy of the article published in
Economic times dated 14.01.2013
Ex.R.39 : Certified copy of the screen shot of
Instagram profile of the petitioner
90
Crl.Misc.122/2019
Ex.R.40 : Certified copy of the screen shot of the
petitioner’s Linked in profile
Ex.R.41 : Certified copy of the letter dated
26.08.2023 sent by respondent’s advocate
to the advocate of the petitioner
Ex.R.42 : Certified copy of the letter dated
26.08.2023 sent by respondent’s advocate
to petitioner’s advocate at Bengaluru
Ex.R.43 : Certified copy of the CDR
Ex.R.44 : 3 photographs of the petitioner with her
friends
Ex.R.45 : Original Letter dated 24.05.2017 written
by father to Sr. Inspector of Police,
Santacruz police station
Ex.R.46 : Extract of the ledger account maintained
by respondent for marriage expenses
Ex.R.47 : Certified copy of the order dated
19.08.2024 passed in WP NO.8612/2024
clubbed with WP NO.6222/2024 by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
Ex.R.48 : Certified copy of the certificate U/Sec.65-
B of Indian Evidence Act
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.