Bangalore District Court
Shalini M P vs Vinay Prasad B R on 21 December, 2024
1
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
fKABC070014812018
Presented on : 23-02-2018
Registered on : 23-02-2018
Decided on : 21-12-2024
Duration : 6 years, 9 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT – V), BENGALURU
Present : VISHWANATH SAVADI
B.A., LL.B.,(Hon’s)
J.M.F.C (TRAFFIC COURT – V) ,
BENGALURU
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
DATED THIS THE 21 s t DAY OF DECEMBER 2024
Petitioner: Smt.Shalini.Μ.Ρ, W/o. Sri.Vinay Prasad.B.R,
Aged about 29 years, R/at.No.103, Lavender
Apartment, 5th Cross, 6th Main, Behind
Subramanya mutt, Akshaya Nagar (West),
Yelanehalli, Hulimavu, Bengaluru – 560 114
(By Sri.M.R.S., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1) SRI.VINAY PRASAD.B.R, S/o.P.N.
Radhakrishna, Aged about 35 years,
2) Sri.P.N.RADHA KRISHNΑ, Aged about
67 years,
2
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
3) Smt.UMA.M.S, W/o.Sri.P.N.Radha
Krishna, Aged about 59 years.
All are residing at No.107, 1st floor, 13th
Main, 4th Cross, Aicaboo Nagar, BTM 1st
Stage, BENGALURU-560063.
4) Smt.SINDURI.B.R, W/o.Shashank
Devpur, Aged about 30 years.
5) Dr.SHASHANK DEVPUR, Aged about 35
years.
Both the Respondents 4 & 5 are R/at.
No.772-A, Vinayaka Nagar, Konena
Agrahara, Vimanapura Post, BENGALURU-
560 017.
(By Sri.M.A., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
against the respondents, seeking various forms of relief as
provided under the Act.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as under:
a. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of
respondent No.1, with their marriage solemnized on
3Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT19.05.2014 at A.G.N. Kalyana Mantapa, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner’s
parents gave 350 grams of gold, 2 kg of silver, and other items
to the respondents as per their demands. The petitioner’s
father, Sri Padmanabhan, withdrew Rs. 20,480/- and Rs.
19,900/- from his Canara Bank account in Davangere on 14-
04-2014, and gave the amount to the respondent No.1 to
purchase a suit and a wristwatch. On 20-04-2014, the
petitioner’s father gave Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents to buy
clothes for their relatives. On 03-05-2014, the petitioner’s
father withdrew Rs. 4,00,000/- from his Canara Bank account
at Konanakunte Branch, Bengaluru, and gave it to the
respondents, requesting more time to fulfill the remaining
dowry demands.
b. After the marriage, on 22nd May 2014, the
petitioner and the respondent No.1 went on a honeymoon to
Kodaikanal and returned on 25th May 2014. The respondent
No.4 often visited the petitioner’s matrimonial home, staying
for 10-15 days at a time. During this period, the respondent
4
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
No.2 did not allow the petitioner to sleep with the respondent
No.1, claiming that her daughter felt uncomfortable. The
respondent No.1 complied with his mother’s wishes,
instructing the petitioner to sleep in another room. The
petitioner resisted, and the respondent No.1 scolded and
physically forced her out of the bedroom.
c. The petitioner was often sent back to her father’s
house when the respondent No.4 stayed at their home.
Despite this, on 5th June 2014, the petitioner’s father gave
Rs.1,50,000/- to the respondents No.2 and 3, as agreed before
the marriage. On 15th July 2014, the petitioner and the
respondent No.1 went to the USA. After a month, the
respondent No.1 demanded that the petitioner ask her father
for money to buy a car, but the petitioner refused. The
respondent No.1 abused and beat her, claiming that the
petitioner’s pregnancy was a problem, as he and his parents
did not want a child. The respondents No.1 and 2 pressured
the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. The respondent
No.1 forced her to drink papaya juice and pushed her to harm
5
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
the pregnancy. The petitioner’s health deteriorated due to
physical and mental torture. The respondent No.1 took the
petitioner to a hospital in the USA without informing her of
the treatment. She later discovered that her pregnancy had
been terminated.
d. Upon returning to Bengaluru on 03-01-2015, the
petitioner was informed that her father had been admitted to
the hospital. The petitioner went to Chennai to visit her father,
but the respondents told her not to return to their home. After
the petitioner’s father transferred Rs. 51,000/- to the
respondent No.1, she was allowed to return. The respondent
No.3 took the petitioner’s jewelry and kept it in her locker,
refusing to return it. The respondent No.1 became increasingly
distant, stating that he had married the petitioner due to
expectations of dowry and material possessions. He admitted
to being in love with someone else and wanted to divorce the
petitioner. To force the petitioner out of the house, the
respondent No.1 began quarreling with her.
6
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
e. On 19th February 2015, the petitioner applied for
a job and requested her educational documents from the
respondent No.1. However, the respondents deliberately
avoided returning them. After facing this continued
harassment, the petitioner filed a police complaint on 16-01-
2016 at MICO Layout Police Station. The police recorded
statements from the respondents No.1 and 2, who undertook
not to harass the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged a
complaint at Vanitha Sahayavani on 18-01-2016, but after
attending one counseling session, the respondent No.1
stopped attending. The respondents then began physically and
mentally harassing the petitioner, blaming her for defaming
their names.
f. The respondent No.1 even threatened the petitioner
with divorce, alleging that she was mentally ill. Despite all the
mistreatment, the petitioner refused to leave her matrimonial
home. In May 2015, the petitioner’s father sent her back to
the matrimonial home to salvage the marriage. However, the
respondents No.2 and 3 demanded that she give 75% of her
7
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
salary and provide her email credentials to the respondent
No.1. She reluctantly agreed, but her situation did not
improve.
g. The respondents No.4 and 5 continued to harass
the petitioner, and despite her best efforts to make the
marriage work, the respondent No.1 frequently told her to
leave. The respondents also demanded ten lakhs in dowry to
allow the petitioner back into their home, or alternatively, they
asked for the petitioner’s father’s flat to be transferred to the
respondent No.1. The petitioner’s father refused, and the
respondent No.5 became enraged, verbally abusing him and
forcing him out of the house.
h. The petitioner then received notice of a divorce
petition filed by the respondent No.1, who falsely claimed that
the petitioner was mentally ill. The petitioner’s parents tried to
persuade the respondents to withdraw the case, but the
respondent No.1 refused. After her mother’s death on 14-08-
2016, the petitioner endured further abuse. On 23-10-2016,
8
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
she approached the police again, but they refused to take
action, advising her that they had no time for family disputes.
i. Unable to bear the abuse, the petitioner filed a
private complaint before the VI Addl.C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru
(P.C.R.No.11670/2016), resulting in the registration of FIRs
under Section 498A, 323, 341, 426, 504, 506 R/w.34 IPC,
Sec.3 & 4 of the D.P. Act. The respondents took anticipatory
bail and threatened the petitioner to withdraw the case, but
when she refused, they threw her out of the house.
Eventually, the MICO Layout Police filed charges against the
respondents. The petitioner claims that the respondent No.1
was never interested in the marriage and subjected her to
mental, physical, and emotional abuse to eliminate her from
his life. With these averments, the petitioner prays that the
petition be allowed.
3. After receiving the notice, the respondents
appeared before the court through their counsel. Respondents
No. 2 and 3 submitted their statement of objections in
response to the petition. Respondents No. 1, 4, and 5, in turn,
9
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
adopted the objections filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 as
their own objections. This indicates that Respondents No. 1, 4,
and 5 fully concur with the objections raised by Respondents
No. 2 and 3 and are presenting them as part of their defense
in the case.
4. The statement of objections of respondents is as
follows:
a. The respondents deny all the allegations made by
the petitioner, describing them as false, frivolous, and
vexatious. They contend that they never threatened the
petitioner, who left the matrimonial home without justifiable
reason and with the intent of filing a baseless petition. The
respondents claim that the petitioner was treated with love
and affection and enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle in the
matrimonial home. They assert that there is no cause of action
to file the petition, and that the cause of action presented by
the petitioner is fabricated to mislead the court and obtain
relief.
10
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENTb. The respondents categorically denied the
allegations regarding the conception and termination of the
pregnancy. They contended that the respondent No.1 wanted
a child, but it was the petitioner herself who secretly
terminated the pregnancy. They further asserted that the
respondent No.1 had no role in the termination and that the
petitioner’s claims were baseless.
c. The respondents contended that the Rs.51,000/-
transferred by the petitioner’s father to the respondent No.1
was not for the purpose of bringing the petitioner back to the
matrimonial home, as claimed by the petitioner. They
specifically stated that the Rs.51,000/- was for the cost of a
mobile phone purchased by the respondent No.1 from the
USA. The mobile was intended for one Mr. Raghavendra Iyer,
a family friend of the petitioner, who had requested the
petitioner to bring the mobile. The respondent No.1 purchased
the mobile with his own money, and the amount of
Rs.51,000/- was repaid by the petitioner’s father.
11
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENTd. The respondent No.1 denies the claim that he
refused to maintain the petitioner. The respondents submit
that the petition is false, frivolous, and vexatious, filed
deliberately by the petitioner to harass them. The petitioner is
described as irresponsible and indifferent, lacking
responsibility in her life. Due to her maladjustment,
indifference, irresponsible behavior, and total non-cooperation
in leading a happy marital life, the respondent No.1 was forced
to file a matrimonial case for separation and divorce,
numbered MC Case No. 577/2016. It is notable that the
petition was filed on 22/02/2018, two years after the
respondent No.1 filed the divorce petition.
e. Furthermore, the respondents submit that the
petitioner failed to appear properly before the Family Court to
defend the MC case. She did not file her objection statement
despite several adjournments. The petitioner engaged an
advocate but failed to appear before the court, allowing only
the advocate to attend and seek repeated adjournments. The
learned Family Judge recorded the evidence of respondents
12Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENTNo.1 to 3 after granting multiple opportunities to the
petitioner. The petitioner’s evidence was closed after several
adjournments, and the petitioner failed to cross-examine
respondent No.1 and the two witnesses examined on their
behalf. The case is now posted for the respondent’s evidence,
but adjournments have been taken multiple times. This
clearly indicates that the petitioner’s intention is only to
harass the respondents.
f. The petitioner has also unnecessarily involved the
respondent No.4, who is the younger sister of the respondent
No.1 and the only daughter of respondents No.2 and 3. The
petitioner further involved the respondent No.4’s husband, a
well-known physician in Bangalore, to create problems for the
respondent No.4 through her in-laws. It is important to note
that respondents No.4 and 5 have been residing separately
since their marriage at the address mentioned in the
complaint. The petitioner has left no stone unturned in
attempting to harass these respondents.
13
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENTg. Due to the reasons mentioned above and after
enduring torture at the hands of the petitioner, the
respondent No.1 filed the MC case for divorce, with no other
alternative. The case is pending before the 4th Additional
Family Court, Bangalore, in MC Case No. 577/2016. This
petition for divorce was filed by the respondent No.1 on
01/02/2016, and the false PWDV petition was filed on
19/02/2018, two years after the divorce petition. This clearly
shows that the current petition is false and frivolous, with all
the allegations made by the petitioner being baseless.
Additionally, the petitioner is gainfully employed at an MNC
company, earning a substantial salary of over Rs. 50,000 per
month. In light of these contentions, the respondents pray
that the petition be rejected.
5. To substantiate her case, the petitioner testified as
PW.1 and submitted documents marked as Ex. P.1 to P.10,
after which she closed her side of the case. Ex. R.1 to R.11
were confronted to PW.1 during her cross-examination. In
defense, Respondent No. 1 testified as RW.1 and submitted
14
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
documents marked as Ex. R.1 to R.13, after which he closed
his side of the case. Ex.P.7 to P.10 were confronted to RW.1
during his cross-examination. Ex.C.1 is the Rental Agreement.
6. I have carefully considered the oral arguments
presented by both sides, thoroughly perused their written
submissions, and examined all the materials and evidence
available on record
7. The points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has
been subjected to domestic violence by the
respondents?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
maintenance?
3. What order?
8. The findings of this Court on the above points are
as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative;
Point No.2 : In the Negative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
15
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
REASONS
9. Point No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that,
petitioner being legally wedded wife of respondent No.1 has
been subjected to cruelty and domestic violence by the
respondents. She contended that, her marriage was
solemnized on 19.05.2014 at A.G.N. Kalyana Mantapa,
Bannerghatta Raod, Bengaluru. During the stay of petitioner
in the house of respondents, the respondents have given ill-
treatment to the petitioner and drove out the petitioner
without providing any maintenance.
10. The petitioner in order to establish her case she
herself got examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence in
lieu of her examination in chief, wherein she has deposed in
consonance with the averments of the petition and in support
of her oral evidence she has got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10.
Pw.1 deposed about the ill-treatment given by the respondents
during her stay in the house of respondents. The petitioner
has produced the Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card,
Ex.P.2 is the Certified copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.3 is the
16
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
Certified copy of Panchanama, Ex.P.4 is the Certified copy of
order sheet, Ex.P.5 is the Certified copy of FIR, Ex.P.6 is the
Certified copy of photos, Ex.P.7 to 10 are the Photos.
11. The respondents in order to establish their
defense, the respondent No.1 himself got examined as RW-1
by filing affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination in chief,
wherein he has deposed in consonance with the averments of
the objection and in support of his oral evidence he has got
marked Ex.R.1 to R.13. Ex.R.1 is the Certified copy of petition
in M.C.No.577/2016, Ex.R.2 is the Certified copy of
Objections to main petition filed by the respondent in
M.C.No.577/2016, Ex.R.3 is the Certified copy of chief-
examination in M.C.No.577/2016, Ex.R.4 is the Certified copy
of memorandum of private complaint in PCR.No.11670/2016,
Ex.R.5 is the Certified copy of petition in
Crl.Misc.No.3602/2017, Ex.R.6 is the Certified copy of order
in Crl.Misc.No.3602/2017, Ex.R.7 is the Certified copy of
Absolute Sale deed, Ex.R.8 is the Certified copy of
MFA.No.6746/2023, Ex.R.9 is the Certified copy of application
17
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
under Section 5 of Limitation Act in MFA.No.6746/2023,
Ex.R.10 is the Certified copy of Affidavit in
MFA.No.6746/2023, Ex.R.11 is the Photo, Ex.R.12 is the
Medical Report and Ex.R.13 is the Medical Report.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that
the petitioner has detailed several incidents of domestic
violence committed by the respondents. It was further argued
that respondent No.1 failed to provide any financial support
for the petitioner, which constitutes economic abuse. Based
on these submissions, the counsel requested the court to
allow the petition.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents contended that the allegations of domestic
violence were directed solely at respondent No.1, with no
accusations made against the other respondents. The counsel
further argued that no additional witnesses were presented to
corroborate the petitioner’s claims. It was also asserted that
the petitioner voluntarily left the matrimonial home and
18
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
refused to return. With these submissions, the counsel urged
the court to dismiss the petition.
14. It is observed that the fact of the marriage between
the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not disputed by either
party. This is further substantiated through documentary
evidence marked as Ex.P.1, Ex.P.7 and 8, which include the
marriage invitation card and photographs of the marriage.
Therefore, the domestic relationship between the petitioner
and respondent No.1 is established.
15. The petitioner claims that, following the marriage,
the respondents demanded dowry. The harassment allegedly
continued, with the petitioner being pressured to bring even
more dowry. Unable to cope with the situation and finding no
other alternative, the petitioner lodged a private complaint
register No.11670/2016 against the respondents before the
Hon’ble 6th ACMM, Bengaluru. Consequently, the Mico
Layout police registered a case against the respondents for
offenses punishable under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry
19
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
Prohibition Act, as well as Sections 498A, 323, 341, 426, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After
completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge
sheet against the respondents before the Hon’ble 6 th ACMM,
Bengaluru, as evidenced by Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6.
16. Upon examining Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6, it is evident that
the charge sheet has been submitted against the respondents,
initiating legal proceedings. However, there is no
documentation available to indicate whether the case has
been resolved or disposed of. As it stands, the criminal case is
still pending and under consideration concerning the
allegations of dowry demands and cruelty.
17. Given that this criminal matter remains
unresolved, it would be inappropriate for this Court to make
any conclusive determinations regarding the allegations of
dowry demands and cruelty at this stage. It is well established
in law that when a separate criminal proceeding is ongoing,
the Court handling a related case should refrain from
20
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
rendering findings on the same allegations, particularly those
related to dowry demands and cruelty as defined under the
provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of
the IPC. This Court is of the opinion that, until the conclusion
of the aforementioned criminal case, the allegations should
not be prejudged. To do so would risk violating the principles
of fairness and due process that are central to ensuring justice
for all parties involved.
18. The petitioner alleged that the respondent No.1
subjected her to physical and emotional abuse, claiming that
her pregnancy was undesirable as neither he nor his parents
wanted a child. She further asserted that the respondents
No.1 and 2 exerted continuous pressure on her to terminate
the pregnancy. The petitioner claimed that the respondent
No.1 coerced her into consuming substances, including
papaya juice, purportedly to harm the pregnancy. She stated
that her health significantly deteriorated as a result of the
relentless physical and mental harassment. Additionally, she
alleged that the respondent No.1 took her to a hospital in the
21
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
USA without disclosing the purpose of the visit, and she later
discovered that her pregnancy had been terminated without
her consent.
19. The respondents, however, categorically denied
these allegations. They contended that the respondent No.1
had no role in the termination of the pregnancy and further
asserted that the petitioner’s claims were baseless. When such
serious allegations are contested, the burden of proof lies on
the petitioner to substantiate her claims with credible and
reliable evidence.
20. During the cross-examination of PW.1 (the
petitioner) on 05.04.2023, she admitted that she did not know
the name of the hospital where the termination of her
pregnancy occurred. Nevertheless, she claimed that she could
produce relevant documents before the Court to prove that the
respondent No.1 played an active role in facilitating the
termination. Despite this assurance, a detailed examination of
the materials on record reveals that the petitioner failed to
22
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
provide any supporting documentation or evidence to
corroborate her claims.
21. The absence of key evidence, such as medical
records, hospital discharge summaries, or any other
documentation showing the involvement of the respondent
No.1, significantly weakens the petitioner’s case. Additionally,
her admission of being unaware of the hospital’s name raises
doubts about the credibility of her assertions. These omissions
are critical, given the severity of the allegations and the
requirement for the petitioner to establish her claims beyond
mere statements.
22. Furthermore, the petitioner has not presented any
independent witness testimony, expert opinion, or
corroborative medical evidence to substantiate her allegation
that the pregnancy was terminated due to the respondent
No.1’s coercion or involvement. In cases involving such
serious accusations, clear, consistent, and verifiable evidence
is paramount to support the allegations made.
23
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
23. Therefore, in the absence of reliable documentary
evidence or corroborative proof, this Court cannot accept the
petitioner’s contention that her pregnancy was terminated due
to the harassment and active involvement of the respondent
No.1. The petitioner’s failure to discharge her burden of proof
on this crucial issue leads to the conclusion that her
allegations in this regard remain unsubstantiated.
24. The petitioner has asserted that upon returning to
Bengaluru on 03-01-2015, she was informed that her father
had been admitted to the hospital. In response, she
immediately traveled to Chennai to visit him. However, she
claims that when she attempted to return to the matrimonial
home after her visit, the respondents allegedly told her not to
return. The petitioner further states that it was only after her
father transferred an amount of Rs. 51,000/- to the
respondent No.1 that she was allowed to return to the
matrimonial home.
24
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
25. The respondents, however, strongly denied the
petitioner’s version of events. They contended that the
Rs.51,000/- transferred by the petitioner’s father to the
respondent No.1 was not, as the petitioner claimed, a payment
made for her return to the matrimonial home. Instead, they
specifically stated that the Rs. 51,000/- was for the cost of a
mobile phone purchased by the respondent No.1 from the
USA. This mobile phone was intended for one Mr.
Raghavendra Iyer, who is a family friend of the petitioner.
Raghavendra Iyer had requested the petitioner to arrange for a
mobile phone to be brought from the USA. The respondent
No.1 purchased the mobile phone using his own funds, and
the petitioner’s father later reimbursed him by transferring Rs.
51,000/- to the respondent No.1’s account. The respondents
maintained that the transaction was entirely related to the
mobile phone and had nothing to do with the petitioner’s
return to the matrimonial home.
26. Respondent No. 1 categorically denied receiving the
Rs. 51,000/- with the intention of facilitating the petitioner’s
25
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
return. Instead, he reiterated that the amount was a
repayment for the mobile phone purchase made for Mr.
Raghavendra Iyer. Importantly, the petitioner did not dispute
or challenge this explanation in her rejoinder to the
respondents’ objections, nor did she specifically deny it in her
evidence affidavit. This suggests that the petitioner failed to
offer any convincing rebuttal to the respondents’ account of
the transaction.
27. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of RW1
(the husband), there was no question or suggestion put
forward by the petitioner’s counsel regarding the Rs. 51,000/-
or the purchase of the mobile phone for Raghavendra Iyer.
This is a significant point because the absence of such
questions or suggestions indicates that the petitioner did not
challenge the respondents’ version of the events during the
trial, despite having the opportunity to do so.
28. Respondent No. 1 specifically mentioned the name
of Raghavendra Iyer as the person for whom the mobile phone
26
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
was purchased. The petitioner had every opportunity to
challenge this claim by adducing evidence from Raghavendra
Iyer himself. As Raghavendra Iyer is a relative of the
petitioner’s family, he could have been called to testify on the
matter. Had the petitioner wished to prove that the
Rs.51,000/- was transferred to facilitate her return to the
matrimonial home, she could have relied on Raghavendra
Iyer’s testimony to challenge the respondents’ assertions.
However, the petitioner chose not to examine Raghavendra
Iyer, which is a critical omission.
29. It is well-established law that a party who asserts a
new fact must prove that fact through credible and reliable
evidence. In this case, the petitioner was in a position to
produce the evidence of Raghavendra Iyer, especially since he
was a relative and family friend who could have corroborated
her version of events. The fact that the petitioner failed to
present this key piece of evidence undermines her claim.
27
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
30. The non-examination of Raghavendra Iyer is a fatal
flaw in the petitioner’s case. If the petitioner had been able to
substantiate her claim that the Rs. 51,000/- was transferred
solely to bring her back to the matrimonial home, she would
have done so by examining Raghavendra Iyer or presenting
other compelling evidence. The absence of such evidence leads
to the conclusion that the petitioner’s claim cannot be
accepted as truthful.
31. Therefore, the petitioner’s assertion that the Rs.
51,000/- was transferred as a condition for her return to the
matrimonial home must be rejected. The failure to examine
Raghavendra Iyer, who was a potential key witness, is a
crucial factor that weakens the petitioner’s case. Based on the
available evidence, it is clear that the Rs. 51,000/- was related
to the mobile phone transaction for Raghavendra Iyer, and not
the alleged condition for the petitioner’s return. As a result,
the claim of the petitioner that the respondents permitted her
return only after the transfer of Rs. 51,000/- cannot be
accepted.
28
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
32. The petitioner asserted that she was unable to
endure further harassment from the respondents and, as a
result, approached the Mico Layout Police Station on
16.01.2016 to lodge a written complaint against them. She
claimed that the police registered the matter as NCR
No.46/2016 and recorded the statements of the respondents
No.1 and 2. According to the petitioner, in their statements,
the respondents No.1 and 2 undertook not to harass or
trouble her further. The respondents, however, have denied
these allegations. They refuted the petitioner’s claim of having
filed a written complaint, the registration of NCR No.46/2016,
and any such undertaking by the respondents No.1 and 2
before the police.
33. Upon a detailed examination of the materials on
record, it is observed that the petitioner has not provided any
documentary evidence to substantiate her claims. Specifically,
the petitioner has failed to produce a copy of the written
complaint allegedly filed on 16.01.2016, any records of the
29
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
registration of NCR No.46/2016, or the statements
purportedly given by the respondents No.1 and 2 containing
their undertaking not to trouble her. These omissions are
critical, as the absence of such documents undermines the
verifiability of the petitioner’s contentions.
34. Given the lack of supporting evidence, the
petitioner’s assertion that she filed a written complaint with
the police, that an NCR was registered, and that the
respondents No.1 and 2 provided an undertaking cannot be
accepted. In matters of this nature, where allegations are
contested, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to provide
credible evidence to substantiate her claims. The absence of
the aforementioned records renders the petitioner’s claims
unsubstantiated and raises questions regarding the accuracy
and reliability of her averments.
35. Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3, Ex.R.8, and Ex.R.9 are certified
documents, including the copy of the divorce petition, the
certified copy of the statement of objections filed in response,
30
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
the evidence of the respondent in M.C.No.577/2016, the
certified copy of the appeal memo filed before the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in MFA No.6746/2023, and the certified
copy of the interim application filed in the same appeal.
36. Upon a detailed examination of these documents, it
is clear that the respondent (husband) filed a divorce petition
against the petitioner (wife) on 01.06.2016. This petition was
submitted before the Hon’ble 4th Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking the dissolution of their
marriage. Subsequently, the petitioner (wife) contested the
divorce petition by filing her statement of objections on
14.07.2017, wherein she opposed the dissolution of the
marriage.
37. Following the trial, the Hon’ble Family Court, after
evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by both
sides, delivered its Judgment and Decree dated 02.08.2023,
dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the
31
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
respondent. The Judgment and Decree effectively severed the
marital relationship under the applicable provisions of law.
38. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner (wife)
chose to challenge the decision of the Family Court by filing
an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA
No.6746/2023. The appeal memorandum and an
accompanying interim application were submitted, indicating
the petitioner’s intention to seek a reversal or modification of
the Family Court’s decision. However, based on the materials
available on record, there is no evidence to suggest that the
Hon’ble High Court has disposed of this appeal. In the
absence of such confirmation, the Judgment and Decree
passed by the Hon’ble Family Court, dissolving the marriage,
remain valid and legally binding as of today.
39. It is further observed that the present petition
under consideration was filed by the petitioner (wife) on
23.02.2018, notably after the respondent (husband) had
initiated divorce proceedings on 01.06.2016. This sequence of
events raises pertinent questions regarding the intent behind
32
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
the filing of the present petition. The timing and
circumstances suggest that the present petition may have
been filed as a counterblast to the divorce petition initiated by
the respondent (husband).
40. Regarding economic violence or abuse, it is well
established that as a husband, Respondent No. 1 is legally
and morally obligated to provide maintenance for the
petitioner. It is important to note that the cessation of
maintenance support is often a natural consequence when a
marital relationship deteriorates.
41. Upon careful consideration of all the material on
record, it is evident that the petitioner has not made any
specific allegations of domestic violence against her husband
during their time in the shared household or matrimonial
home. Although she has raised claims regarding dowry
demands and cruelty against her husband and his relatives, it
is crucial to note that a criminal case related to these
allegations is currently pending for consideration.
33
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
42. Given that the petitioner has not presented any
specific allegations of domestic violence against her husband
and his relatives during their time in the shared household,
her petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act is not maintainable. In light of
these considerations, the Court finds that the petitioner’s
assertions regarding domestic violence are not substantiated
and, therefore, cannot be accepted. This Court is of the
considered opinion that, the petitioner has failed to prove that,
petitioner has been subjected to domestic violence by the
respondents. With these observations, this Court answers the
point No.1 is in the NEGATIVE.
43. Point No.2: – As noted above, the petitioner is
seeking monetary relief under the provisions of the Act.
However, the key issue that arises is whether such relief can
be granted in the absence of proof of domestic violence
committed by the respondents. To address this question, it is
necessary to refer to a judgment by the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in Vijayanand Dattanand Naik v. Vishranthi
34
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
Vijayanand Naik, reported in 2019 SCC Online Bom 314. In
this case, the Hon’ble High Court held that when there is no
evidence to support allegations of domestic violence against
the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
under the Act. Therefore, in the present case, it becomes
evident that since the petitioner has failed to establish Point
No.1–namely, the proof of domestic violence–she is not
entitled to any monetary or other reliefs as sought in her
petition. The failure to prove these essential elements of her
claim results in the denial of the reliefs she has requested
under the Act. With these observations, this Court answers
the point No.2 in the NEGATIVE.
44. Point No.3:- In view of discussion held above, this
Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 12 of Protection of Woman from
Domestic Violence Act., is hereby dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the petition, all
pending interim applications are hereby
disposed off.
35
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected by me, and then pronounced in the Open court on this
21st day of December 2024)VISHWANATH SAVADI
J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT – V),
BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
P.W.1 Smt.Shalini.Μ.Ρ.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.P.1 Marriage Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Panchanama. Ex.P.4 Certified copy of order sheet. Ex.P.5 Certified copy of FIR. Ex.P.6 Certified copy of photos. Ex.P.7 to 10 Photos.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT
R.W.1 Sri.Vinay Prasad.B.R.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 Certified copy of petition in
M.C.No.577/2016.
36
Crl.Misc.No.33/2018
JUDGMENT
Ex.R.2 Certified copy of Objections to main petition
filed by the respondent in M.C.No.577/2016.
Ex.R.3 Certified copy of chief-examination in
M.C.No.577/2016.
Ex.R.4 Certified copy of memorandum of private
complaint in PCR.No.11670/2016.
Ex.R.5 Certified copy of petition in
Crl.Misc.No.3602/2017.
Ex.R.6 Certified copy of order in
Crl.Misc.No.3602/2017.
Ex.R.7 Certified copy of Absolute Sale deed.
Ex.R.8 Certified copy of MFA.No.6746/2023.
Ex.R.9 Certified copy of application under Section 5
of Limitation Act in MFA.No.6746/2023.
Ex.R.10 Certified copy of Affidavit in
MFA.No.6746/2023.
Ex.R.11 Photo.
Ex.R.12 Medical Report.
Ex.R.13 Medical Report.
VISHWANATH SAVADI
J U D I C I A L MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT – V),
BENGALURU.
[ad_1]
Source link