Imitiaz Mohd Khan, Hyd 3 Otrs., vs Smt.Tarannum Sultana, Hyd Arn, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3298 Tel

        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

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

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

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

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

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

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