THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2489 OF 2015
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal wherein the order dated 23.01.2015 passed in DVC No.17 of 2011 by the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal was modified.
2. Heard Ms.N.Vanisree, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.4. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. DVC No.17 of 2011 was filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking maintenance, to provide alternative accommodation, protection from the petitioner and his family members preventing them from harassing the respondent Nos.1 to 3, refund of amount paid towards dowry and for compensation for causing physical, mental and emotional harassment. The grievance canvassed through the said application was that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the Page 2 of 7 petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are their children, their marriage was performed by paying substantial amount towards dowry and other allied gifts and subsequently, the petitioner, his brother, who is the 2nd respondent in DVC and other family members started harassing the 1st respondent for additional dowry, the petitioner beat her in drunken condition, restricted her moments by locking the door during his absence, doubting her fidelity, started propaganda against her stating that she has illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad and ultimately he kidnapped her and confined her in a room and after 20 days, when her parents complained the police, he took her to her parents' house and left there threatening her not to come to his house or otherwise he will kill her and children. Vexed with these acts of the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 knocked the doors of Court seeking the reliefs, stated supra.
4. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent in DVC denied the allegations levelled against them including payment of amounts towards dowry and other gifts and stated that the 1st respondent is a maniac person, lenient towards strangers and entertains street labours upto late nights to sit in the house though he objected the same and easily gets into compromising position leaving aside her matrimonial status, she developed illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad, she eloped with him by taking Rs.50,000/- cash, 4 tulas of gold and 15 Page 3 of 7 tulas of silver, a panchayat was held on 19.06.2008 and that the petitioner along with his brother rendered his financial assistance to the father of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed OS No.359 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warnagal for recovery of money, which was decreed. He also filed OP No.90 of 2011 seeking divorce.
5. The trial Court, upon careful examination of the entire evidence on record in the form of PWs.1, 2, RWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1, P2 and R.1 to R7 has allowed DVC No.17 of 2011 and granted reliefs as extracted hereunder :
"(i) Each respondent i.e. R1 & R2 are directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs each to the first petitioner as compensation i.e. total Rs.10 lakhs by both respondents.
(ii) R1 is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to each second and third petitioner towards compensation i.e. total Rs.5,00,000/-.
(iii) The first respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2,500/- per month to each second and third petitioners from the date of petition.
(iv) The first respondent further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioners towards alternative accommodation.
(v) The respondents are directed not to cause any disturbance or threat of any kind either mentally or physically to the petitioners in future.Page 4 of 7
(vi) The respondents are further directed to pay above compensation within 6 months from the date of this order. The first respondent also directed to pay arrears of above maintenance amount from the date of petition within six months from the date of this order. Further to pay future maintenance amount on or before 10th of every month."
6. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said findings, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015, finding that the amounts awarded by the trial Court are exorbitant, has modified the said order as extracted hereunder :
(i) Appellant No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
(ii) Appellant No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards their education.
(iii) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards alternative accommodation.
(iv) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay
Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation to the respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
(v) The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are directed not to
interfere with day to day affairs of the respondent Nos.1 to
3.
(vi) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount from the date of DVC petition till the date of this order within three months.Page 5 of 7
(vii) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay future maintenance amount on or before 10th of every month.
(viii) No costs."
7. Perused the order and judgment of both the Courts below.
The main grievance of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner is that he harassed the 1st respondent, doubted her chastity, demanded for additional dowry and left her at her parents' house threatening her not to come back to his house. The main contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad and eloped with him by taking gold and cash. Therefore, he filed OP No.90 of 2011 seeking divorce by making the said Macherla Prasad also as one of the parties. The petitioner made propaganda against the 1st respondent and claimed that he is not the father of their children and he stated that he is going to make request for DNA test to find the truth. It is a fact to be noted that several panchayats were held on various occasions between the parties to settle the issues arisen due to the differences between the parties. The learned Judge Family Court, Warangal, believing the version of the petitioner that the 1st respondent had got extra-marital relationship with said Macherla Prasad, granted divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before this Court vide FCA No.253 of 2013 and the same is pending. Another factor, to be considered herein is that the petitioner Page 6 of 7 is residing in the house constructed with the funds provided by father/brother of the 1st respondent, as alleged by the 1st respondent. Further, the father of the 1st respondent complained the police against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner confined his daughter in a separate room for twenty days and upon coming to know the said complaint, the petitioner left his daughter in their house. In view of the above factual scenario, it cannot be said that the life between the petitioner and the 1st respondent went on smooth lines without any disturbance.
8. Undisputedly, as per the evidence on record and the recitals of documents filed on both sides, it is true that from the year 2011 the petitioner is not supporting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 suspecting the character of 1st respondent and that though he stated that their children were not born to him and going to request for DNA test, he has not taken any steps so far and that FCA No.253 of 2013, filed against the decree granted in OP No.90 of 2011 has not attained finality, the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are his legally wedded wife and biological children apart from paying compensation.
9. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide judgment dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015, while observing that the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Page 7 of 7 Class, Warangal has exorbitantly awarded huge sums as compensation and maintenance vide DVC No.17 of 2011, modified the compensation and maintenance amounts exonerating the liability of the brother of the petitioner.
10. When the findings of both the Courts below are tested with the evidence available on record and the circumstances narrated by the recitals of the documents filed by both the parties, so far as liability of petitioner to pay maintenance, compensation, etc., is concerned, they are well reasoned and sustained except the quantum, granted by the trial Court. The appellate Court had rightly modified the said findings regarding the quantum of compensation, maintenance etc. Therefore, the said findings do not warrant any interference by this Court. The grounds urged by the petitioner do not compel this Court to interfere with the said findings. Accordingly, the findings of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015 are confirmed and sustained.
11. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J 20-09-2023 abb