Bangalore District Court
Pavithra P vs Manohar Reddy G on 31 December, 2024
KABC010242412019
Presented on : 31-07-2019
Registered on : 01-08-2019
Decided on : 31-12-2024
Duration : 5 years, 5 months, 0 days
IN THE COURT OF LXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-67)
PRESENT
SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH A.
B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-67)
Dated this the 31st day of December, 2024
Crl.Appeal.No.1651 of 2019
APPELLANT Smt.Pavithra.P.,W/o Sri.Manohar
Reddy.G.
Aged about 28 years,
D.No.90/A, Pavithra Abhi Nilaya,
8th Main, Malleshpalya,
Bengaluru 560075.
(By Smt.Susheela.S, Advocate)
V/s.
RESPONDENT/s:- 1. Manohar Reddy.G.
S/o Gajappa Reddy,
Aged about 34 years.
2
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
2. Smt.Shantha Reddy,
S/o Gajappa Reddy,
Aged aboaut 60 years.
3. Sri.Gajappa Reddy,
S/o late Hanumanthareddy,
Aged 68 years.
4. Sri.Bharath Reddy,
S/o Gajappa Reddy,
Aged aboaut 32 years,
All are residents of No.34/3,
Owners Court,
Kasavanahalli Main Road,
Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru 560 035.
(By Sri.MRH , Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 29 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to set aside the
order passed by the MMTC -I, Bengaluru in Criminal Misc. Case
No.61/2019 on I.A.No.I and allow the application filed by the
appellant at IA.No.I under Section 20(d) read with Section 23 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
2. The appellant is the complainant and respondents are the
respondents in Crl.Misc.No.61/2019 before the trial Court. The
parties are referred to their ranks before the trial Court.
3
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
3. The brief facts of the case is that the marriage between the
complainant and 1st respondent was solemnized on 11.2.2015 at,
Confident Amoon Resort, Gangapura, near Hosakote, Bengaluru
according to the customs prevailing in their community. After the
marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent No.1 at owners
Court Layout, Kasavanahalli. During the 1 st week of marriage, the
respondent No.2 started taunting the petitioner by saying that
petitioner is fat and have a darker complexion. She was not
allowed to have breakfast since other members of the family were
not having breakfast. On 28.2.2015 the petitioner and respondent
No.1 went to Bali for their honeymoon and when they came back
the respondent Nos.2 and 3 stopped their maids from working at
their house and asked the petitioner to do all house hold works till
they find a maid. The respondents refused to take the petitioner
to their family functions. The respondent No.4 started taunting
the petitioner stating that she did not bring any property from her
parents.
4. It is further stated that the petitioners parents who were
unaware of the same, visited her house and found the petitioner
suffering at the hands of respondents. They requested the
respondents not to subject the petitioner to cruelty. The
respondent Nos.2 and 3 were adamant and demanded the
petitioner’s parents to register the property in the name of
respondent No.1. Accordingly, petitioner’s father purchased 3 bed
4
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
room flat at Basavanapura, KR Puram and registered the same in
the name of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 started
estering the petitioner to transfer the said flat in the name of the
respondent No.1. When petitioner refused to meet their demands,
they humiliated, abused and assaulted the respondent. Such
being the circumstances, respondent Nos.2 and 3 demanded that
the petitioner and respondent No.1. should be sent to Singapore
at the expenses of petitioner’s father. As per their demands,
petitioner’s father financed for the trip to Singapore.
5. It is further stated that petitioner started cooking food for
respondent No.1. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 stopped the
petitioner from cooking food. When the petitioner persisted that
she would cook for respondent No.1, the respondent No.4 slapped
the petitioner and pushed her on the floor. When the petitioner
tried to call her father, respondent No.4 snatched the phone from
the petitioner and threatened her with dire consequences.
6. The petitioner’s father sent the petitioner and respondent
No.1 to Dubai on 9.2.2017. At Dubai the petitioner developed
fever and boils on the skin. The respondent No.1 did not even
bother to take the petitioner to hospital. After the petitioner came
back to India and checked up with the skin doctor, she was
diagnosed with psoriasis. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 tried to
keep her away. Thereafter respondent No.2 demanded that unless
some lands are purchased and given to her son the petitioner will
5
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
not be allowed to enter the house. Therefore, petitioner’s father
purchased the land near Hosakote and registered the same in the
name of the petitioner. But the respondents expressed
displeasure for not registering the property in the name of
respondent No.1. After their demands were met, the respondents
refused to take the petitioner back. The respondent No.1 who was
visiting the petitioner at her parents house often stopped coming
to see the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner went to her
matrimonial house on 24.11.2018 along with respondent No.1.
After seeing the petitioner, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 became
aggressive and started abusing the petitioner. The respondent
No.4 assaulted the petitioner. On 20.12.2018 respondent No.1
had lodged a false complaint to ACP, Marathahalli, Bengaluru
stating that petitioner is in possession of his documents and
laptop and for return of the same. He had also stated that
petitioner had refused to join him. In her reply petitioner has
stated that she is eager to join the respondent No.1 and also about
the intention of the respondents to throw the petitioner out of the
house. On 26.2.2019 the petitioner has given complaint before
Woman Police Station, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and a case came
to be registered in Cr.No.20/2019 for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4
of DP Act. The respondents have forcefully driven the petitioner
out of her matrimonial home on 26.11.2018 and presently she is
under the care and shelter of her parents.
6
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
7. It is further stated that respondent No.1 is an engineering
graduate and working as a bid Manager at Conduent INC and
earning salary of Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The respondent NO.3
holds sufficient agricultural lands at Rayasandra and also rented
out premises and earning rent of Rs.70,000/- per month.
Respondent No.3 has let out premises at Jayanagar and JP Nagar
and earning rent of Rs.60,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 has
failed to pay monthly maintenance to the petitioner, therefore, she
has filed the petition before the trial Court. The substance of the
allegation is that complainant was subjected to Domestic Violence
by the respondent No.1 to 4 and the respondent No.1 deserted her
and not provided anything for her maintenance.
8. Such being the circumstances the complainant filed C.Misc
No.61/2019 and also filed an interim application for monitory
relief of Rs.80,000/- per month which came to be allowed in part
directing the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per
month to the complainant from the date of order till the final
disposal of the application. Being aggrieved by the said order the
complainant preferred the appeal on the following grounds:
i) The order passed by the trial Court is without appreciation
of materials on record and without considering the facts of the
case.
7
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
ii) The appellant in her application has sought for monitory
relief of Rs.80,000/- per month for her day to day expenditure
including medical expenditure.
(iii) The trial court has totally neglected the need of the
maintenance of the appellant and has not passed any order to
that effect and the order is without application of mind.
(iv) The appellant has produced salary certificate pertaining to
respondent No.1 to show that he is earning a sum of
Rs.1,30,000/- per month. The trial Court without assigning any
reasons has awarded meager and negligible amount of Rs.6,000/-
per month.
(v) The Hon’ble trial court has committed illegality by directing
the respondent No.1 to pay maintenance from the date of order
instead of awarding the maintenance from the date of filing of the
petition. Therefore, the said order deserves to be modified.
(vi) The trial Court has failed to consider that the petitioner is
suffering from psoriasis and she require money to meet the
medical expenses.
9. On the above among other grounds the appellant prayed to
allow the appeal.
8
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
10. The trial Court records were secured.
11. The appellant has filed application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the appeal.
12. On registration of the appeal notice was issued to the
respondents, the respondents appeared before the court through
their counsel.
13. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both the
parties.
14. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the materials
placed before the Court the points that arise for consideration are:
(1) Whether the appellant has made out
grounds to condone delay of 17 days in filing
the appeal?
(2) Whether the appellant has made out
grounds enhance the interim maintenance to a
sum of Rs.80,000/- per month as sought for ?
(3) Whether the order dated 23.5.2019 passed
by the learned Magistrate is liable to be
interfered with as sought by the appellant?
(4) What order ?
9
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
15. My answer to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative.
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
16. Point No.1 : The appellant has filed application under
Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 17 days in
filing appeal. In support of her application the appellant has
sworn to an affidavit wherein it is stated that due to the
harassment meted out at the hands of the respondents she was
under depression and suffering from psoriasis skin disease. She
was taking treatment for the same due to which she was unable to
move out and therefore, there is delay in filing the appeal. Hence
prayed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
17. The respondents have not filed any objections to the IA.No.1.
Perused the affidavit which indicates that since the appellant was
taking treatment for the skin disease she was not able to move
and could not file the appeal in time. The said reason assigned by
the appellant cannot be brushed aside.
10
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of cases has held that:
“sufficient cause should be given liberal construction
so as to advance substantial justice when there is no
inaction, no negligence or want of bonafide imputable
to the appellant. The object of the Limitation Act is not
to destroy and take away the rights of the parties.
This being its objective, provisions to condone the
delay has always been interpreted with a liberal
touch.”
19. On perusal of the above aspect I find no malafide intention
on the part of the appellant for the delay in preferring the appeal.
However in order to meet the ends of justice it is just and proper to
condone the delay as sought for. The appellant has filed
application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay
of 17 days in filing appeal. Under the circumstances the situation
of the appellant is worthy of protection under section 5 of
Limitation Act. Therefore point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative.
20. Points No.1 & 2: Since these points are interlinked with
each other they are taken up together for common discussion in
order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence.
21. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 29 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. It is the
11
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
contention of the appellant that the order passed by the learned
Magistrate awarding interim monetary relief of Rs.6,000/- per
month is inadequate and same needs to be enhanced to a sum of
Rs.80,000/- per month.
22. In support of her contention, appellant has produced copy of
complaint filed by her under Section 12 of Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act. She has also filed objection
statement filed by the other side.
23. I have perused the trial court records which indicates that
the complainant has filed application under Section 20 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the
respondents to pay interim maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per
month till the disposal of the petition. In support of her
application she has sworn to an affidavit wherein it is stated that
she is the legally wedded wife of the 1 st respondent. After the
marriage they were residing in a shared household at Owners
Court Layout, Kasavanahalli. She has been forcefully driven out
from the matrimonial house on 26.11.2018 by the respondents
and presently she is under the care and shelter of her parents.
24. The trial Court was pleased to pass an order for interim
monetary relief of Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of the order
till disposal of application vide order dated 23/05/2019.
12
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
Aggrieved by the said order she has come up with this appeal to
enhance the interim monetary relief.
25. The respondents have filed their objections to the main
petition before the trial Court by denying the case of the
complainant. It is stated that complainant was not subjected to
any kind of cruelty and harassment and she has come up with a
false petition before the Court.
26. The order under challenge is being an interim order, this
Court can look into the affidavit and materials produced by the
parties to verify the correctness or otherwise of the interim order
passed by the learned Magistrate. The materials placed on record
prima facie indicates that the complainant was subjected to
domestic violence. The act of the respondent No.1 in deserting her
without providing for maintenance is the prima facie indication of
domestic violence.
27. The appellant has taken a contention that the trial Court
has passed an order to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the
respondent towards her interim maintenance. She has stated that
she is suffering from psoriasis skin disease for which she required
treatment and she require money for the said treatment. In
support of her contention complainant has produced the
outpatient records and medical records for having obtained
treatment for the skin disease. It is pertinent to note that the
13
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
complainant requires money not only for her maintenance but
also for her medical treatment. Therefore, it is to be ascertained
whether the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate
suffers from infirmities in view of the facts and circdumstances of
the case.
28. Section 23 of the Act says if the Magistrate is satisfied that an
application prima facie discloses that the respondent is
committing or has committed an act of Domestic Violence or that
there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of
Domestic Violence, he may grant an exparte order on the basis of
the affidavit in such form as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved
person under Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 21 or as
the case may be Section 22 against the respondent. On perusal of
the same it is clear that though the learned Magistrate has passed
interim residence order under Section 19 of the Act, there is no
bar to pass an interim order under Section 20 for monetary relief.
29. At this juncture it is necessary to go through section 23 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, wherein it is
stated that ;
(1) in any proceeding before him under this Act the
Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems
just and proper.
(2) if the Magistrate is satisfied that the application
prima facie discloses that the respondent is
committing or has committed the Act of Domestic
14
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
Violence or that there is likelihood that the respondent
may commit Act of Domestic Violence, he may grant
an exparte order on the basis of the affidavit in such
form, as may be prescribed of the aggrieved person
under section 18, 19, 20, 21 or as the case may be
section 22 against the respondent. Therefore it is
clear that no cogent proof is required regarding the
payment of fee. But the learned Magistrate can act
upon the affidavit filed by the appellant No.1.
30. Section 20 of the Act clearly states regarding the monetary
relief. It states that the Magistrate may direct the respondent to
pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and loss
suffered by aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person
as a result of Domestic Violence and such relief may include but is
not limited to loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused due
to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control
of the aggrieved person, the maintenance for the aggrieved person
as well as children. Therefore, it is clear that the relief under the
act cannot be restricted either to residence order or to monetary
relief. The act provide for awarding any other relief which the
learned Magistrate deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
Therefore, this court cannot find fault with the order of the
Magistrate in passing an order to pay interim monetary relief in
addition to the interim residence order.
15
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
31. At this juncture it is necessary to go through the ruling
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
and another, wherein it is held that:
“the obligation of the husband to provide
maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than
the wife. Thus the Courts have held that if the
wife is earning it cannot operate as a bar from
being awarded maintenance by the husband. In
fact, further more merely because the wife is
capable of earning it would not be a sufficient
ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by
the family Court. The Court to determine
whether the income of the wife is sufficient to
enable her to maintain herself in accordance with
the life style of her husband in the matrimonial
home. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be
allowed to mean mere survival.”
32. Therefore it is the duty of the respondent to look after the
well being of the complainant. Though the respondents have
taken a contention that the complainant is owning properties and
having sufficient income, same is not a ground to deny monetary
benefits to the petitioner. Since there is no dispute regarding the
relationship of the parties, it is the duty of the respondent No.1 to
pay maintenance to the complainant.
33. Now it is to be seen whether the interim maintenance
awarded by the learned Magistrate is inadequate. I have perused
the documents produced by the appellant i.e., pay slip issued by
16
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
SLK Software Pvt.Ltd., pertaining to respondent No.1 and copy of
income tax returns acknowledgment pertaining to the respondent
No.1 which indicates that his income is Rs.2,21,519/- per month.
It is stated that he is working as Senior Manager. On perusal of
the same it indicates that the interim maintenance awarded by the
learned Magistrate is very meager. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the
above said judgment has clearly stated that the income of the wife
should be sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in
accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial
home. Sustenance does not mean and cannot be allowed to mean
mere survival. On perusal of the same it indicates that the award
of interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- is sufficient for mere
survival, but the complainant cannot lead a normal life which she
enjoyed with the respondent No.1 in her matrimonial home. The
order of the Magistrate appears to be a cryptic order. The learned
Magistrate has not at all gone through the materials placed before
him. The Magistrate has also not considered the fact that the
complainant has to obtain treatment for her skin disease and the
substantial amount is required for her treatment for skin disease.
The learned Magistrate has failed to consider this material aspect
which is made out in the application before passing the interim
order.
34. The learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of
17
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
Smt.Veena Panda Vs Devendra Kishore Panda wherein it is held
that :
” The wife should not be a relegated to a lower
standard of living than that the husband enjoys. She should
be given maintenance according to status of her husband.
As regards quantum of maintenance it may be from 1/3rd to
50% of the income of the respondent, but no rigid formula
can be fixed. It may defer from case to case.”
Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to enhance the interim
compensation as sought by the appellant. Under these
circumstances I find grounds to interfere with the orders passed
by the learned Magistrate in awarding interim monetary relief to
the appellant. Under the facts and circumstances of this case and
considering the annual income of the respondent No.1 it is just
and proper to enhance the interim maintenance in order to enable
the complainant to lead a normal life without any difficulty.
Though the complainant has sought for maintenance of
Rs.80,000/- per month, it is suffice if monthly maintenance of
Rs.25,000/- is awarded as interim relief. Hence it is just and
proper to enhance the interim maintenance to Rs.25,000/- per
month. Therefore, point No.2 is answered partly in the
affirmative and point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
35. Point No.4:- In view of the findings given on point No.2 and 3,
I proceed to pass the following:-
18
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
ORDER
The application filed by the appellant under
Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed. Delay of 17
days in filing appeal is condoned.
The appeal filed by the appellant under Section
29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
2005 is hereby partly allowed.
The order of the learned Magistrate dated
23/05/2019 is modified.
The respondent No.1 is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.25,000/- per month to the appellant as interim
maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal
of the application on merits.
Office is directed to to transmit the records to
the trial Court along with the copy of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her on
computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this 31st day of December, 2024)
(JAYAPRAKASH. A)
LXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
19
Cri.A.No.1651/2019
Pronounced vide separate order with
following operative portion:
ORDER
The application filed by the appellant
under Section 5 of Limitation Act is
allowed. Delay of 17 days in filing appeal is
condoned.
The appeal filed by the appellant under
Section 29 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act 2005 is hereby partly
allowed.
The order of the learned Magistrate
dated 23/05/2019 is modified.
The respondent No.1 is directed to
pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month to the
appellant as interim maintenance from the
date of petition till the disposal of the
application on merits.
Office is directed to to transmit the
records to the trial Court along with the
copy of this order.
LXVI Addl. CC & SJ Judge,
Bengaluru