Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nalajala Poorna Chandra Sekhar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 October, 2024
APHC010227882024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 452/2024
Between:
Nalajala Poorna Chandra Sekhar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENNA KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. -
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
Dr. VRKS, J
Crl.R.C.No.452 of 2024
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.452 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read
with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) impugns the
judgment dated 12.03.2024 of the learned Sessions Judge,
Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2022. By
that judgment, the learned appellate Court affirmed and
confirmed the order dated 11.08.2022 of the learned I Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in D.V.C.No.64 of
2017.
2. Sri Venna Kalyan Chakravarthi, the learned counsel for
revision petitioners submitted arguments. Respondent No.1 is
State, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor made formal
submissions. Respondent No.2 is the aggrieved woman who
filed D.V.C.No.64 of 2017. Petitioners took out notice to her and
the same was served on 29.06.2024 but none entered
appearance.
Dr. VRKS, J
3. On considering the material on record and the grounds
urged in the revision and the forceful submissions made by the
learned counsel for revision petitioners, point falls for
consideration is:
"Whether the learned appellate Court failed to
appreciate the material on record and failed to
afford appropriate reasons in reaching the
conclusions and therefore it is illegal and
irregular requiring interference of this Court?"
POINT:
4. On 21.05.2005 according to Hindu Rites and Customs the
marriage between Nalajala Poorna Chandra Sekhar and Nalajala
Srilatha was solemnized. During their wedlock they were blessed
with a son by name N.Ganesh Sai and a daughter by name
Geetha Sri Madhuri. The children are minors. The matrimonial
life was not peaceful and the rift between the spouses and their
families was such that it resulted in multiple litigations between
them. The woman filed M.C.No.216 of 2016 seeking monthly
maintenance for her and her minor children. The learned Judge,
Family Court, Vijayawada inquired into the matter and after due
contest granted monthly maintenance to the minor children and
Dr. VRKS, J
refused to grant monthly maintenance to the wife. Certified copy
of the said order dated 17.03.2020 is Ex.R.7.
5. The man moved F.C.O.P. (G.W.O.P.) No.416 of 2017
seeking custody of his minor children. The learned Judge,
Additional Family Court, Vijayawada inquired into that and
dismissed the prayer but granted visiting rights to the father.
Ex.R.8 is a certified copy of order dated 11.03.2019 in that
regard.
6. The aggrieved woman complained against her mother-in-
law and lodged a written information upon which F.I.R. in Crime
No.257 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 448,
323 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. was registered at Krishnalanka
Police Station, Vijayawada. Ex.R.12 is the certified copy of the
said F.I.R.
7. From April 2016 the spouses have been living separately.
8. In the context of the above undisputed facts, the aggrieved
woman filed D.V.C.No.64 of 2017 as against her husband
showing him as respondent No.1 and her mother-in-law as
respondent No.2 and sought various prayers. Aggrieved woman
Dr. VRKS, J
testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. Her husband
testified as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.14.
9. Based on the material brought before him and the
contentions raised on both sides, the learned Magistrate granted
protection order. A monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid
by the husband to the wife and an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month to meet the expenses for taking a house on rent. The
learned Magistrate further awarded Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by
the husband to the wife towards damages and granted three
months time for making such payment and stipulated that if
payment was not made within the stipulated period, it would carry
12% interest per annum. The rest of the reliefs sought by the
aggrieved woman were negatived.
10. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents in D.V.C.
preferred Criminal Appeal No.214 of 2022. After due hearing, the
learned appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial Court and
stated that there are no merits in the appeal and dismissed the
appeal.
Dr. VRKS, J
11. Challenging that, the man and his mother have preferred
this revision. Various grounds are alleged in the revision. The
learned counsel made earnest submissions about non-
maintainability of the impugned judgment.
12. This Court has gone through the entire material on record.
One of the main submissions of the revision petitioners pertain to
the damages that were awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by
the appellate Court. In this regard one needs to notice the
mandate in the statute, namely, Section 22 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act,
2005') which reads as below:
"22. Compensation orders:--In addition to other reliefs as
may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an
application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an
order directing the respondent to pay compensation and
damages for the injuries, including mental torture and
emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence
committed by that respondent."
13. A perusal of the above provision permits the Magistrate to
direct the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the
injuries and the mental torture and emotional distress caused by
the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent. How
Dr. VRKS, J
such compensation and damages is to be quantified is a matter of
concern. Whether the compensation to be quantified should co-
relate to the degree of domestic violence suffered by the victim or
is it to be linked to the financial status of the guilty party. The
significance of such question may be grasped by looking at the
principles that govern monetary reliefs which are to be considered
and granted in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 2005. For the
present purpose Sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, 2005
alone needs to be noticed and the said provision reads as below:
"20. Monetary reliefs:--
(1) ................
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the
standard of living to which the aggrieved person is
accustomed."
14. The above provision indicates that the monetary relief is to
be quantified referring to the standard of living to which the
aggrieved person is accustomed. That gives rise to the question
that while Section 20 of the Act, 2005 refers to standard of living
criteria whether the same standard is to be applied for a decision
under Section 22 of the Act, 2005. In his order in D.V.C. in
Dr. VRKS, J
paragraph No.20 the learned Magistrate dealt with the question of
damages and compensation. The claim of the aggrieved woman
was for Rs.25,00,000/- and the order of the learned Magistrate
was Rs.5,00,000/-. The reasoning of the learned Magistrate is
that the conduct of the respondents forced the aggrieved woman
to file one case after another and she suffered trauma in that
process and therefore, if damages are granted, it will be a solace
to her. Thus, the basis for awarding damages is hinged on such
perception. Coming to the quantification of damages, the learned
Magistrate stated that in making an assessment of it, it has to see
the reputation of the parties in the society and the paying capacity
of the respondent and the troubles undergone by the aggrieved
woman. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the reputation of
the parties is a governing factor for quantification of damages and
compensation in a case of matrimonial trouble between spouses.
At any rate, such criterion is not seen in Section 20 of the Act,
2005. Coming to the reputation, the learned Magistrate has not
recorded any observations in that regard.
15. The monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- was
granted by the learned Magistrate. He had made specific
Dr. VRKS, J
references to the observations of the learned Family Judge in
M.C.No.216 of 2016 wherein the learned Family Judge found the
aggrieved woman/wife was not entitled for maintenance.
Thereafter without meeting that point the learned Magistrate
granted Rs.5,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the
aggrieved woman. For the husband it was contended that the
aggrieved woman has been an insurance agent and has been
adequately earning and therefore, she was not entitled for
maintenance. A reading of the entire order in D.V.C. does not
disclose any observation of the learned Magistrate stating how
much she was earning and how much she required. Without
adverting to that factual aspect, the learned Magistrate stated that
the aggrieved woman perhaps could earn money only when there
was a client who took insurance policy on which she would get
commission and on other occasions she would not get any
income and therefore he thought granting some maintenance
would benefit her. Coming to the aspect concerning husband, it
stated that he contended before him that he worked as a supplier
in catering works. Then it said that it did not accept his
statement. Then it was obligated for the Court to record an
observation as to whether the husband was doing any work or
Dr. VRKS, J
not. It was also obligatory for the learned Magistrate to record as
to how much his income was. It utterly failed to record any
observations in that regard and states that the husband is
energetic and has capacity to earn money and has financial
resources and the parties to the litigation are middle class family
members. It is on such observations, it granted maintenance.
Thus, without arriving at a decision on basic facts, the learned
Magistrate passed effective orders.
16. Questioning the above-mentioned order, the appeal was
filed. What the learned appellate Judge in her ten pages order
recorded is a matter of great disappointment. It consists of 14
paragraphs. Till paragraph No.12 the learned appellate Judge
referred to the trial Court proceedings. The entire order of the
appellate Judge in reaching to the conclusions is in paragraph
No.13 contained in page No.9 and paragraph No.13 in page
No.10. For benefit they are extracted here:
"13. To prove the claim of both the parties, they did not
choose to adduce neither oral nor documentary evidence
put forth before this Court to support their case and they
failed to establish the same and in the absence of any oral
or documentary evidence adduced by both parties, this court
Dr. VRKS, J
is of the considered opinion that this court do not interfere
with the judgment passed by the lower court and the same
may be confirmed by this court in the appeal.
13. On perusal of the record and judgment of the trial
court, the trial court rightly and elaborately discussed the
evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 and documents marked on
behalf of petitioners Exs.P1 and P2 and documents marked
on behalf of respondents Exs.R1 to R14, the trial court partly
allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and there are no
bona fide grounds or merits in the appeal filed by the
appellants. Hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal
and this court do not interfere with the judgment passed by
the learned I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada in D.V.C.No.64 of 2017 dt. 11.08.2022 and
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Accordingly the
point is answered against the appellants and in favour of the
respondents."
17. Thus, the appellate Judge mentioned that both parties to
the appeal did not adduce evidence in the appellate Court.
Therefore, the appellate Court need not interfere with the
impugned order. In the grounds of revision, it is urged that
althroughout the litigation these revision petitioners have been
contending that the aggrieved woman was not entitled for any of
the reliefs because of her relationship with her paramour and
finally the paramour died in the very house of the aggrieved
Dr. VRKS, J
woman and in that regard F.I.R. in Crime No.105 of 2023 was
also registered and to bring that on record these revision
petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.445 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.446 of
2023 and the learned appellate Judge without considering them
and without considering the material alleged therein dismissed
them unreasonably. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was
no effort on part of the revision petitioners to bring necessary
additional evidence. Referring to the grounds of appeal raised in
the appellate Court, the learned counsel for revision petitioners
submit that the order impugned has not recorded any
observations on any aspect of the matter and that itself is a
ground to set aside the said order.
18. This Court has already noticed how the learned Magistrate
dealt with the matter in D.V.C.No.64 of 2017. The learned
appellate Court was expected to deal with those basic aspects
when it heard the appeal. The learned appellate Judge did not
even choose to advert to any argument and did not choose to
refer to any part of the evidence to say that it accepts particular
finding for such and such reason or it does not accept a finding
for such and such reason. Thus, the judgment of the appellate
Dr. VRKS, J
Court being devoid of any reasons cannot be maintained.
However, considering the travails of the parties to the litigation,
this Court thinks it fit to direct the appellate Judge to formulate
appropriate points for consideration in the appeal and after
affording an opportunity to both sides to hear and dispose of the
appeal. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the appellate Court
has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded.
19. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
impugned judgment dated 12.03.2024 of the learned Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in Criminal Appeal No.214 of
2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded. Criminal Appeal
No.214 of 2022 stands restored. The petitioners are directed to
appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Vijayawada on 19.12.2024. Since respondent No.2 did not make
her appearance, the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Vijayawada has to take steps to serve notice on her. The learned
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada has to grant
opportunity to both sides to argue the appeal afresh and if the
appellate Court feels it fit it may permit the parties to adduce
further evidence in accordance with law. The learned Sessions
Dr. VRKS, J
Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada shall dispose of Criminal Appeal
No.214 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 29.10.2024
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.452 OF 2024
Date: 29.10.2024
Ivd
