NTHE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2019 of 2014
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners- appellants-respondent Nos.1 to 4 challenging the Judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed in Crl.A. No.377 of 2012 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad.
2. The respondent No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.1. She filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DVC Act') seeking to pass a protection order, separate residence order to her and to her child and to pass maintenance of Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- to her and Rs.5,000/- to her son and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent No.1 contended that her marriage was performed with the petitioner No.1 on 16.06.2002 as per Muslim rites and customs, and a daughter and two sons were born out of the wedlock. At the time of marriage, on demand by the petitioners, the father of the respondent No.1 gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 15 tulas of gold, 60 tulas of silver, a CBZ Hero Honda Motor Cycle and electronic goods and furniture worth of Rs.2,50,000/- as dowry. The petitioner No.1 was working as Marketing Manager in Prasad Imax at the said time. He intended to go to UK and for that purpose, demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from the parents of the respondent No.1 and when she failed to comply with the demand of additional dowry, petitioners No.2 to 4 instigated the petitioner No.1 to beat the respondent No.1. The petitioner No.1 beat the respondent No.1 and Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014 threatened to throw Acid on her face. With great difficulty, the parents of the respondent No.1 arranged money, but the petitioner No.1 went to Kenya instead of UK and within a short period, he returned from Kenya. He once again intended to go to UK and started harassing the respondent No.1 to arrange money from her parents for going to UK. The respondent No.1 expressed her inability since her father expired. The petitioner No.1 used to beat her with belt. The petitioner No.1 sold away the silver ornaments and some of the furniture. The petitioner No.1 took the respondent No.1 to UK by leaving their two children i.e. daughter and son with their grand parents. After going to UK, the petitioner No.1 forced the respondent No.1 to work as a maid servant to clear his debts. He snatched away all her earnings and tortured her physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment, the respondent No.1 intended to go back to India. The petitioner No.1 gave fist blows on the forehead of respondent No.1 and bite her, due to which she lost her eye sight. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 became pregnant with the third child at UK. The petitioner No.1 did not provide her proper food and medicines during her pregnancy. In July 2010, he sent her back to India and advised to stay with his parents at Barkathpura. But, her in-laws harassed her stating that she should have stayed in UK and should have cleared all the debts of the petitioner No.1. Petitioners No.2 to 4 poured kerosene on her and threatened to lit her in the month of August 2010. They bet her and necked her out along with the third child stating that they would perform the marriage of the petitioner No.1 for second time for more dowry. Having no other go, the Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014 respondent No.1 was residing with her widowed mother. The respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner No.1 was working as a salesman in a Supermarket in UK and was earning 1,000 pounds at that time which was equivalent to approximately Rs.47,000/- of Indian currency and claimed the above reliefs.
3. The petitioners No.1 to 4 filed a common counter disputing the said allegations. They contended that the respondent No.1 had not cooperated with the petitioner No.1 to lead a happy married life and used to harass him. He took her to UK even without having any permanent job or residence in UK, but on constant instigation of her parents, the respondent No.1 came back to India and without visiting her in-laws house she went to her parents' house directly from the Airport and started living with her mother. Petitioner No.1 denied that he was doing any job and was earning Rs.47,000/- per month. He contended that he was not having any regular job.
4. During the course of enquiry, the respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and got examined her maternal grandfather and her maternal uncle as PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Petitioner No.3 was examined as RW.1 and the petitioner No.1 was examined as RW.2. No documents are marked on their behalf.
5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the First Special Magistrate, Hyderabad passed protection order under Section 18 of DVC Act, residence order under Section 19 of the DVC Act and granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to her son, who was residing Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014 with her, total Rs.5,500/- per month towards maintenance under Section 20 of the DVC Act and awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation under Section 22 of the DVC Act.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents therein i.e. petitioners herein preferred an appeal and the same was heard by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad and after re-appreciating the evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court passed in DVC 11/2012.
7. Aggrieved further, the petitioners preferred this revision contending that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact and came to a wrong conclusion without any sufficient material evidence to show that the petitioners harassed the respondent No.1. It was admitted that after the marriage of the respondent No.1 with the petitioner No.1 and till they left to UK, there was no complaint of harassment made by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 did not produce any evidence about any harassment. She foisted a false complaint as an after thought on 08.10.2010 after returning back to India on 01.07.2010. Both the Courts below failed to consider the evidence on record and came to a wrong conclusion. The trial Court observed in the judgment that when the two children i.e. the daughter and son of the respondent No.1, who were in the custody of the petitioners were produced in the Court, the respondent No.1 failed to even see her own children and refused to meet them or to speak with them. It would show her indifferent behaviour. The birth of the third child in UK would clearly show that they led a cordial happy married life. Both the Courts below Dr.GRR,J 5 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014 failed to consider the same and awarded separate residence orders, compensation and maintenance though the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were taking care of the children of the respondent No.1 and educating them in the most reputed schools in Hyderabad city. The petitioner No.1 was presently unemployed. He came back to India. He was not having any savings since he spent his earnings towards maternity charges of the respondent No.1 in UK and arranging for her return ticket which was beyond his financial capacity and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the judgment passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.
9. Now the point for consideration is whether there is any illegality or impropriety committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments under revision, which need to be corrected by this Court?
10. Section 397 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order - recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court"
11. It is well settled that while considering the legality or propriety or correctness of finding or conclusion normally the revising Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. The purpose of revision is only to rectify miscarriage of justice.
Dr.GRR,J 6 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014
12. On perusal of the record, it would disclose that the First Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, on considering the evidence on record and after directing both the parties to bring the children before the Court noted that the elder children could not even recognize their mother and stated her as their 'babi' and the respondent No.1, the natural mother of the two elder children, was not ready to see them. Learned Judge observed that there might be some unexplained incidents between the respondent No.1 and the petitioners and could not know why the respondent No.1 had taken such a decision of not even to see her children, who were aged 7 and 8 years. He also specifically noted that the respondent No.1 was not ready to go to her in-laws house to lead marital life and to be with her children as there was a danger to her life as per her evidence and the learned Judge also observed that the same would speak about the harassment meted out by the respondent No.1 in the hands of the petitioners and granted reliefs.
13. The appellate Court also on observing the oral and documentary evidence on record and the photos marked as exhibits which disclose the injuries sustained by the respondent No.1 on her face, due to which she lost her eye sight also, found that the respondent No.1 was harassed by the petitioner No.1 and there was truth in her allegations, which established her case and found that the maintenance, compensation and other reliefs awarded by the trial Court, as proper.
14. On considering the judgments of the Courts below, this Court is satisfied that the decisions of both the Courts are in accordance with law and the same do not suffer from any procedural irregularity or Dr.GRR,J 7 CrlRC.No.2019 of 2014 illegality. This Court while exercising revisional power is not supposed to reconsider all the questions of fact as a Court of first appeal. As the impugned orders would not disclose any illegality or impropriety to interfere with, it is considered that the revision case fails and there is no necessity to set aside the well reasoned orders of the Courts below.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the Judgment dated 07.07.2014 passed in Crl.A. No.377 of 2012 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Hyderabad confirming the Judgment dated 20.04.2012 passed in DVC No.11 of 2012 by the First Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, is confirmed. The interim stay granted earlier on 11.12.2014 stands vacated and the petitioners are directed to pay the monthly maintenance to the respondent No.1 and her child on or before 5th of every month and to deposit the entire arrears and the compensation awarded to the respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 09, 2021 KTL