THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.443 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2019 in Crl.A.No.812 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said appeal filed by respondent No.1-husband was allowed setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 in D.V.C.No.14 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, allowing the DVC filed by the petitioner- wife in part and directing respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance, besides directing to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No1. Perused the material on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 20 (1) (d) read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 2 'the Act') alleging that her marriage with respondent No.1 was held on 15.05.2011 at Rajadani Garden Function Hall, Kothapet, Hyderabad. After marriage, she joined the company of respondent No.1 where her parents-in-laws also reside, as it is a joint family. The petitioner and respondent No.1 lived happily for about 15 days and thereafter she was sent to her parents' house with a demand to bring gold bangles/kankanalu for which she expressed her inability stating that her parents were not in a position to provide the same. The respondents threatened her demanding that gold kankanalu and silver articles Deepam Kundulu etc., shall have to be arranged within 15 days, or else threatened to give divorce. Later, the respondents started harassing her mentally and physically and the petitioner was made to sleep in a separate room as respondent No.1 stated that he was no interested in the conjugal life with her.
4. It is further stated that on 24.11.2011, the respondents picked up a quarrel with the petitioner for not getting gold bangles and necked her out from the house and later she went to her parents' house. Respondent No.1 and her parents did not change her attitude and unable to bear their harassment, she 3 filed a complaint in Cr.No.73 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against respondent No.1 and his family members. The petitioner has no source of income for her livelihood and she is dependant on her old age parents, whereas respondent No.1 has got sufficient income and intentionally neglected her and did not provide any maintenance. Respondent No.1 is working as CEO of Software Company, getting Rs.2 lakhs per month towards salary. Therefore, she filed this petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-, compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards shelter and Rs.2,000/- towards maintenance and cost of legal expenses.
5. Respondent No.1 filed counter inter alia denying all allegations made in the DVC, except admitting the marriage with the petitioner. It is stated that he is drawing a salary of only Rs.39,000/- per month from his company and that he has to look after his parents and maintain household expenditure. 4
6. In support of her case, the complainant got examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R-1 to A-16.
7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the trial court directed respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance besides directing to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal. After hearing both sides and on re-appraisal of the entire material on record, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-wife preferred the present revision.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court below without properly appreciating the judgment passed by the trial court and without assigning any reasons had set aside the same. The appellate court failed to note of the fact that respondent No.1 himself is earning Rs.45,000/- per month and had erroneously 5 set aside the order of trial court. The judgment of the appellate court would show that the appellate court, based on presumptions and assumptions, had set aside the order of the trial court. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the judgment of the appellate court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, and do not suffer from illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. As such, he prayed to dismiss the revision.
10. Thus, after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and upon perusing the material on record, the point that arises for consideration is - whether the judgment of the appellate court needs interference?
11. It is the specific case of P.W.1 that at the time of marriage, Rs.5 lakhs cash was given towards dowry, besides 20 tolas of gold ornaments and one and half kilograms of silver articles. Within 15 days after the marriage, she was sent out from the matrimonial house with a demand to bring gold bangles, but 6 her father (P.W.2) expressed his inability to give the same. The respondents went to the house of the father of the petitioner and threatened that the petitioner would not be taken to the matrimonial house, if they do not give gold bangles. Later, after much persuasion, P.W.2 agreed to arrange the same within 15 days. The respondents in addition to the gold bangles also demanded silver deepam kundulu, if not threatened to give divorce. She also stated that on 27.06.2011, respondent Nos.2 and 3 took her to Vijaya Diagnostic Centre where she was subjected to HIV test and later taken to a nursing home and forcibly got her pregnancy aborted. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that she had undergone operation only on the advise of the doctor and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are no way concerned.
12. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she was sent to her parents' house for Dasara festival and thereafter her husband did not take her back. She made several efforts to join the society of her husband and also approached the caste elders and in their presence also, she was abused. P.W.1 was allowed to stay with respondent in the house but in a separate room and she was never allowed to 7 stay with her husband or to talk till 23.11.2011. Respondent No.1 used to come late in the night and was not interested to lead conjugal life with her. However, R.W.1 pleaded that as the marriage for him with P.W.1 happened to be second one, she was not interested to lead matrimonial life and refused to participate in conjugal life. It appears that both P.W.1 and R.W.1 are not speaking truth on conjugal life, because P.W.1 became pregnant and was aborted due to infection on 05.08.2011.
13. P.W.1 stated that on 24.11.2011 all the respondents picked up a quarrel for not bringing gold bangles and sent her away from the house. She also approached the Women Police Station, Saroornagar with a request to call respondent No.1 for counselling, but respondent No.1 refused to take her back. P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 that in the presence of one of his relatives viz., A.Balaiah, all the abused P.W.1 and she was allowed to live in the matrimonial home but in a separate room and she was not allowed to speak with respondent No.1 till 23.11.2011. 8
14. Coming to the evidence of R.W.1, P.W.1 threw her mangalsutram on respondent No.1 in the presence of one Madhava Rao Sagar and one of their relatives returned the same to the father of petitioner. However, the said Madhava Rao Sagar and the person who handed over mangalasuthram are not examined to prove the said allegation.
15. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner and respondents that the marriage was consummated, they led happy marital life for some time and P.W.1 conceived and due to infection, she underwent abortion on the advise of doctor. It also appears that the disputes arose between them. The trial court had examined the entire evidence meticulously and had given a specific finding that P.W.1 has proved that she was subjected to domestic violence in the hands of respondents and that she is entitled for the releiefs. The specific case of respondent No.1 is that P.W.1 was not interested in continuing the matrimonial relationship and that she herself deserted R.W.1 and filed a false case against him and his family members for the offences under Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.221 of 2012, on the file of the 9 XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar. The said case ended in acquittal of R.W.1.
16. Coming to the findings of the appellate court, the appellate court has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that in cross-examination she admitted that her in-laws have presented gold jewellery like gold long chain, gold black chain, gold necklace, gold vanki, gold ring and gold pusthela thadu and that Ex.R-2 bills show presentation of the above said items. Since the in-laws have presented the above items, it is hard to believe that within 15 days from the date of marriage, the respondents have necked P.W.1 out from the house demanding her to bring gold bangles/kankanalu, if not they are ready to give divorce. The appellate court disbelieved the version of P.W.1 on the said aspect. Similarly, P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the respondents were not all interested in P.W.1 conceiving children and aborted the pregnancy against her will and consent. However, in the cross-examination she stated that on the advise of doctor due infection, her pregnancy was aborted. Therefore, the appellate court held that P.W.1 had made wild allegations against her in-laws 10 which shows the over smart attitude of P.W.1. The appellate also held that P.W.1 and R.W.1 were not speaking truth about their conjugal life. The other aspect considered by the appellate court was that R.W.1 went to USA where his first wife secured job and subsequently he wanted to come back to India to attend his ailing parents for which his wife did not accept for the same and thus obtained a divorce from her and permanently returned to India. It is also alleged by R.W.1 that P.W.1 demanded him to lively separately from his parents for which he has not accepted and later she filed a false case. The appellate court has also considered the said aspect of P.W.1 demanding R.W.1 for separate living and that is the reason between them for the dispute.
17. The trial Court held that respondent No.1 has not allowed P.W.1 to the matrimonial house without any satisfactory reason and thereby she is deprived of her matrimonial life and suffered mentally and there is no evidence from respondents' side that P.W.1 was working and earning anything for her maintenance and as such it can be said that she was also abused economically and it constitutes domestic violence. However, the appellate court has 11 rightly observed that the said finding cannot be appreciated at all for the reason that P.W.1 is a postgraduate and worked as Teacher prior to marriage and even took tuitions in the house for high school students and she is capable to secure a job and lead her own life. However, P.W.1 stated that she is not doing any work because of her ill-health and she failed to substantiate the said contention that she was suffering from any ill-health,
18. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the appellate court on re-appraisal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence against the petitioner in the hands of her husband and in laws. When the aggrieved person fails to prove the domestic violence, she is not entitled to any relief against the respondents. The appellate court has rightly appreciated the evidence in proper perspective after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and, therefore, she was not granted any reliefs against the respondents and, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the trial court.
12
19. It is well settled principle of law that jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial court or the inferior courts, as the case may be. In the instant case, the judgment of the appellate court did not suffer from any illegality and there is no apparent error and the findings are recorded based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on record.
20. For the foregoing reasons, I am the opinion that there are no justifiable grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate court. The revision case is not maintainable and it is liable be dismissed.
21. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.
22. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 07.09.2022 Lrkm