THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1562 & 1778 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioners, who are the husband and wife have filed
Criminal Revision Case Nos.1562 of 2017 and 1778 of 2017
respectively under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code
(for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the common judgment dated
14.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal Nos.156 of 2010 and 703 of 2013, both
on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Cyberabad, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District wherein the order dated
01.10.2010 passed in DVC No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District
was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1562 of 2017 and respondent No.2 in Crl.RC
No.1778 of 2017, Sri Polukanti Raghuvaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.RC No.1778 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in Crl.RC No.1562 of 2017 and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State. None appeared for respondent No.2 in Crl.RC No.1562 of 2017 and respondent No.3 in Crl.RC No.1778 of 2017.
Page 2 of 11
3. Since the issue involved in these two matters is interlinked and the parties are one and the same, this Court decided to dispose of these two criminal revision cases through this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties to these two criminal revision cases are hereinafter referred to as husband and wife.
4. DVC No.1 of 2009 was filed by the wife under Section 9(b) and 37(2) (c) of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband alleging that sister and mother of her husband treated her as housemaid by entrusting entire household works in the house of her husband also the sister of her husband and also harassed demanding additional dowry, having not satisfied with the amounts given by her parents, not provided basic necessities including medical requirements even during her pregnancy and ultimately, after delivery, they took away the child leaving her at her parents' house with a view to give the child to brother of her husband at USA, threatened and forced her to give divorce and that her husband and relatives beat her maternal uncle viz. Venkateswar Rao, who went to their house to pacify the issue. Due to the above circumstances, she filed the present petition seeking various reliefs. On the other hand, the husband denied the allegations made against him and his family members mainly contending that his wife is an adamant lady, used to Page 3 of 11 pick up quarrel on every small issue and left his house her own accord without there being fault of any one. Further, having vexed with the attitude and reluctance of his wife to join him, he filed OP No.780 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad seeking divorce. As a counter blast to the said divorce petition, the wife filed present DVC for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act. The husband further contended that all the incidents relating to the present case occurred prior to commencement of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and hence, the provisions of the said Act cannot be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. He further contended that he along with his wife lived in a separate house away from his parents' house. He further contended that he is a jobless person and cannot pay the huge sums as claimed by his wife.
5. The Court below, upon considering the entire evidence available on record in the form of PWs.1 and 2, RWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P29 and D1 to 51 and also Exs.C1 to C3, finding the prima-facie domestic violence against the wife by the husband and his family members, granted the reliefs in favour of the wife as extracted hereunder:
(a) The respondents are hereby restrained from committing any domestic violence against the petitioner under Section 18 of Page 4 of 11 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(b) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to secure the same level of alternative accommodation to the petitioner and her son as enjoyed by her in the share household and if any case he is unable to secure the same, he is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month for the alternative accommodation of the petitioner and her son from the date of this order and the same shall be payable directly to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month by obtaining valid receipt or acknowledgment under Section 19 (f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(c) The respondent No.1 is directed to return an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner with regard to the marriage expenditure and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure spent by her parents and said amount shall be returned to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order by obtaining valid receipt.
(d) The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner and her son from the date of this order and the amount shall be paid directly to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month by obtaining valid receipt or acknowledgment".
6. The appeals filed by both the couple in Criminal Appeal Nos.156 of 2010 and 703 of 2013, against the findings of the Court below, have dismissed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District vide judgment dated 14.03.2017.
Page 5 of 11
7. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the wife and husband have preferred these criminal revision cases mainly contending that the findings therein are not on proper appreciation of evidence and made on erroneous reasoning. The wife contended that findings of the Court below that there is no proof to prove payment of dowry, ornaments, marriage expenses, earning capacity of the husband are erroneous and the Court below failed to consider orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.2131 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.578 of 2009 in DVC No.1 of 2009, her loss of earnings and damages, existing properties in the name of her husband and rents derived thereunder, paid very meagre amount towards alternate accommodation and granted less amounts under various heads without observing the real facts. On the other hand, the husband contended that Domestic Violence Act came into force w.e.f. 26.10.2006 and that his wife left her matrimonial house on 08.06.2006 and hence, the said Act, which has prospective effect, cannot have any effect in this matter, the present case is filed as a counter-blast to OP No.780 of 2008, filed by him seeking divorce, both the Courts below exceeded the power vested with them in granting huge amounts to his wife under various counts, failed to consider his financial and social constraints, forgot the educational qualification and practising as Advocate by his wife, failed to consider the amounts paid by him to his wife under various heads and his promptly complying Page 6 of 11 with the conditions imposed as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2010 in Crl.P.No.156 of 2010.
8. The relationship between the parties and the paternity of the child are not in dispute. For the reason that the husband did not pay interim maintenance, he was sentenced to jail. The contention of the husband that he tried his level best to take her back into his conjugal fold but she refused appears to be ostensibly not correct as he filed an application for divorce but not for restitution of conjugal rights. PWs.1 and 2 have categorically deposed the harassment meted out to the wife. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the husband received several amounts, ornaments etc. Though the wife is stated to be an advocate, there is no evidence adduced to show that she is practicing and earning huge sums to maintain herself and her child.
9. RW4, who worked as a maidservant in the house of the husband clearly disclosed that she attended all the household works. As per the law laid down in Mohit Yadam and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 Domestic Violence Act has retrospective effect in operation and hence, the contention of the husband that the said Act has no effect to the facts of the case on hand. It is the contention of the wife that her husband and his relatives used to blame 1 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 105 (AP) Page 7 of 11 her brother naming him as a vagabond and that their parents are not living together. The way of suggestions put to PW1 on behalf of the husband shows their insulting nature of wife by commenting on her family members without any basis.
10. Perusal of orders dated 01.10.2010 passed in Crl.MP No.2131 of 2010 in Crl.MP No.578 of 2009 in DVC No.1 of 2009, a petition filed by the wife and child under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. to punish the husband for wilful disobedience of orders dated 18.08.2009 in Crl.MP No.578 of 2009, shows that the husband failed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to his wife and child in compliance of the said order. Record shows that during the course of arguments in Crl.MP No.2131 of 2010, learned counsel for the husband contended that sending husband to the jail will not serve the purpose as the wife and child are not in a position to maintain them. It is also borne out of the record that the wife has requested the concerned Branch Manager of the bank to remit the amount to her account from the account of her husband.
11. The evidence adduced by the wife in the form of PWs.1 and 2 clearly demonstrated that the husband and his family members harassed her for additional dowry and forced her to do all household works in their house and also in the house of sister of her husband and Page 8 of 11 that they did not allow her to join her husband without bringing additional dowry amount. Further, they insulted her brother naming him as a vagabond and that their parents are not living together. They also pointed out the wife stating that till she attaining the age of 32 years, her parents could not able to get her a marriage alliance. It is also borne out of the record that when the wife agreed to join him, during the reconciliation proceedings, he refused her. Though the husband examined RW4, stating that she worked as a maid in their house, her evidence contained lot of contradictions making her evidence not trustworthy. Further, they did not make a whisper regarding her role or evidence anywhere either in counter or chief affidavits. Though the husband contended that he along with RW5 went to the house of the wife to request her to join him, in view of deposition of RW1 that he never visited the house of his wife at any point of time to bring back her, evidence of RW5 cannot be believed. Though RW6 deposed that he made gold ornaments at the request of RW2, it cannot be presumed that they were given to the wife and moreover it is the evidence of RW2 that ornaments of the wife were with RW2. In view of the above discussion, both the Courts below have rightly found the prima-facie domestic violence and negligence towards his wife and child though he is capable of maintaining them and hence, Page 9 of 11 having no source, the wife and child are entitled to get maintenance from her husband to protect them from starving.
12. So far as the protection and residence orders are concerned, though the husband contended that his wife lived in their house, which is admittedly an ancestral property, for few days and deserted her own, it is pertinent to note that the husband filed divorce petition and did not make any efforts to bring back her to his house and on the other hand, he refused his wife when she expressed her willingness to join him during the course of reconciliation proceedings. It is also a fact that the couple except in the said house, did not reside together elsewhere. Further, in view of pendency of case on the allegations of domestic violence, filed by wife and divorce petition, filed by the husband, residing both parties under the same roof may result further complications. In these circumstances, the wife is entitled for protection order.
13. So far as other reliefs of return of dowry amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, gold, home appliances, amounts given on various occasions to her husband etc., are concerned, both the Courts below, due to lack of sufficient corroborating evidence, refused the same. It is true that tough the marriage between the parties was settled through marriage bureau, no person from the said bureau or elder who Page 10 of 11 mediated the marriage was examined on behalf of the wife to depose in support of her claim in this regard.
14. Return of marriage expenses is concerned, as per the rites and rituals, both the parties will share the expenses and hence, the Court below has rightly awarded a reasonable amount under this head.
15. Relief of depositing Rs.20,00,000/- for future needs of their child and damages of Rs.15,00,000/- towards loss of her earnings are concerned, the version of the wife is that she lived with her husband for a limited period and that she did not explain the circumstances entitling her for damages/loss of earnings and that the Court below has awarded monthly maintenance to the wife and child and hence, depositing huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is also appears to be unreasonable as though the husband is having earnings, depositing such a huge amount may not be possible. Further, the child is at the tendering age and if the maintenance amount awarded is not sufficient, the wife is having every opportunity to seek enhancement of the maintenance amount.
16. Granting medical expenses is concerned, the Court below has rightly awarded the amount relying upon Exs.P15 to P25 and D3 to D31 bills holding that both the parties have spent monies for medical needs of wife and child. The relief of restraining the husband from Page 11 of 11 marrying another woman is concerned, the husband cannot marry other woman during pendency of the divorce petition.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence available on record in a right perspective and gave reasonable findings, which cannot be interfered with by this Court as this Court sees no fault in those findings. Accordingly, both the criminal revisions petitions deserve to be dismissed.
18. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1562 of 2017 and 1778 of 2017 are dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :19-10-2023 abb