Sri. M.Ramakrishna vs Smt. Srirama And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7010 Tel

                                         1
                                                                            Dr.GRR, J
                                                               CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

          THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1480 OF 2019

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner who is the

respondent-husband aggrieved by the judgment passed by the II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.1211 of 2018,

dated 17.10.2019 confirming the judgment passed by the IV Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad in DVC No.204 of 2015 dated 22.10.2018.

2. The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the trial court.

3. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') against

respondent Nos.1 and 2, seeking a protection order under Section 18 of the Act,

residential order under Section 19 of the Act, for return of dowry, gold, silver,

value of sarees, marriage expenses spent by them and amount given towards

Aadapilla Katnam, maintenance order under Section 20 of the Act seeking

maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-

towards mental and physical agony suffered by her in the hands of the

respondents under Section 22 of the Act.

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

4. The respondent No.2 is the mother of the respondent No.1. No relief was

granted against the respondent No.2.

5. The case of the petitioner was that she was married with the respondent

No.1 as per Hindu rites and customs on 15.03.2015 and it was an arranged

marriage. On demand by the respondents, her father had given 30 tulas of gold

ornaments, 10 tulas of silver chembu and silver pooja samagri and some pattu

and fancy sarees, ½ tula of gold ring and Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry to the

respondent No.1 and Rs.25,000/- towards Aadapilla Katnam to the respondent

No.1's cousin sister and he also gave some household articles as per their

demand.

5.1. The respondent No.1 suspected her character and made allegations

against her that she had a boy friend in Bangalore and was having conversation

with him while going to her office daily. He used to smell her body and say that

someone used her. On 08.05.2015, while she was suffering with cough, he

kicked her out of the bedroom and did not allow her to sleep in the room. He

had not allowed her to utilize her salary and used to take the same. He

demanded for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and threatened to give divorce,

if the said demand was not met. He used to force the petitioner to see porn

videos and demand her to co-operate with him as in the said videos. On her

reluctance, he kicked her out of the bed and bet her. He threatened her that if

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

she would not co-operate as in the said videos, he would shoot the intercourse

with her with a spy camera and upload in the website. He made allegations that

she was not a virgin and had experience in pre-marital sex as on the date of

marriage. He used to make publicity of all the bedroom activities to her

colleagues at her workplace and lowered and damaged the reputation of the

petitioner and necked her out of the house on 12.05.2015. Vexed with his

attitude, the petitioner filed a criminal case under Sections 498 (A) and 506 of

IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act before Women Police

Station, Begumpet. Before the CCS Police also, the respondent No.1 abused

her on 30.05.2015.

6. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the petition averments. He

contended that the petitioner was adamant, aggressive and proud, being a

working woman, she never cared about the needs and necessities of respondent

No.1, she never used to cook food and serve to respondent No.1. The

respondent No.1 himself used to do all household work besides his

employment. He had given all comforts and support to her during her short stay

of two months with him. Whenever she complained of medical problems, he

took her to a doctor. He contended that on 12.05.2015, the petitioner without

informing him, left the house by taking all her belongings, after he left to the

office. On his return from office, he tried to call the petitioner and her parents,

but his efforts went in vain. Twenty days later, the petitioner lodged a

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

complaint of dowry harassment with false allegations, which was registered as

Crime No.107 of 2015 by Women Police Station, Begumpet. The Police after

due enquiry, deleted the names of Padmaja Rani and Subba Rao. The High

Court vide orders in Criminal Petition No.8051 of 2015, quashed the

proceedings against his cousin sister Sridevi, and her husband Venkanna Dora,

Bhavani Annapurna and Chitti Dora. The said crime was also pending only

against him. The petitioner several times abused him as "manner-less fellow".

She always used to state that her qualification and job was higher than him and

that he should listen to her. The petitioner was working as an Assistant

Manager in a Scheduled Commercial Bank, Union Bank of India and was

receiving handsome salary. On the other hand, he was receiving a meager

salary and from out of it, he had to maintain his mother and ailing sister and had

to clear debts incurred for the purpose of marriage. The petitioner on her own

left his company.

7. The respondent No.2 failed to file counter. The trial court forfeited the

right of respondent No.2 for filing the counter.

8. The petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and examined her father as

PW.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 on her behalf. The respondent No.1 examined

himself as RW.1. No documents were marked on his behalf.

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

9. The trial court on considering the evidence on record opined that there

was no domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2, as the

respondent No.2 used to reside along with the sister of respondent No.1 at

Ch.Nagapuram in Visakhapatnam District. As the petitioner and respondent

No.1 alone used to reside in a shared household at Sai Nilayam, Begumpet,

Hyderabad, considered that there was domestic relationship between them. As

there was no cross-examination on PW.1 and as the evidence of PW.1 remained

unchallenged, the trial court opined that the evidence of PW.1 established that

she was met with domestic violence in the hands of respondent No.1 and

granted the protection order, the residence order and an order under

Section 19(8) directing the respondent No.1 to return cash of Rs.5,00,000/-,

30 tulas of gold ornaments, 10 tulas of silver ornaments given towards dowry

and Rs.40,000/- towards worth of pattu sarees to the petitioner within six

months from the date of the order and also awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

towards compensation to the petitioner from the respondent No.1 and directed

the respondent No.1 to pay the same within six months from the date of the

order. The trial court rejected the order for maintenance, as the petitioner was

an employee and capable of maintaining herself.

10. Aggrieved by the said order passed in DVC No.204 of 2015 dated

22.10.2018 by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the respondent No.1

- husband preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the II Additional

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide Criminal Appeal No.1211 of

2018 and the learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge on considering

the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming

the order passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in DVC No.204

of 2015 dated 22.10.2018.

11. Aggrieved further, the respondent No.1 - husband preferred this revision

contending that the courts below were carried away with the version of PW.1,

since she was not subjected to cross-examination. Not cross-examining PW1

itself, could not be a ground for allowing the case of the petitioner, as the

petitioner was heavily burdened to prove her case and she miserably failed to

discharge the said burden. No documentary evidence was adduced by the

petitioner to prove the allegations made by her. The courts below failed to take

into consideration the fact that the revision petitioner filed a petition to re-open

the evidence of PW.1 for her cross-examination but the same was dismissed by

the court below vide order in Criminal M.P.No.2239 of 2017 dated 17.01.2018

and deprived the revision petitioner (respondent) to disprove the case of the

petitioner - wife. The courts below erred in observing that since the revision

petitioner had not issued any notice for restitution of conjugal rights, he was at

fault and that the petitioner proved her case. The observation of the court that,

since he had not filed any divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty, he was not

subjected to cruelty by the petitioner was unknown to law. Without there being

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

any oral or documentary evidence with regard to the petitioner giving dowry as

alleged, the courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner had given

dowry and ordered for its return. The courts below failed to observe that the

petitioner left the matrimonial home voluntarily and her allegation that she was

necked-out by the revision petitioner was false. The petitioner while leaving his

company, had taken all her clothes, jewellery and belongings of her and other

articles along with her. The courts below failed to take into consideration the

defence put forward by the revision petitioner and were completely carried

away by the case put forward by the petitioner - wife. None of the documents

filed by the petitioner would prove her case and prayed to set aside the

judgments of the courts below.

12. The respondent No.1 filed counter contending that the revision petitioner

deliberately dragged the matter from 11.05.2017 to 11.09.2017 without cross-

examining the petitioner, though many opportunities were given to him and

vexed with the attitude of the revision petitioner herein, the court below

dismissed the re-call petition on 17.01.2018. Against the dismissal of the re-call

petition, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court. The

same was also dismissed on 21.02.2017. The revision petitioner deliberately

suppressed the said fact and filed the present case and prayed to dismiss the

Criminal Revision Case.

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

13. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (husband) and the

learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (wife).

14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued on the same lines

as raised in the grounds of revision and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Chaturbhuj Pande and others v. Collector, Raigarh1on the

aspect that though the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants, had not

been effectively cross-examined and no evidence was adduced in rebuttal, that

does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence.

15. It was a case under Land Acquisition Act and the Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that:

"As mentioned earlier, the High Court has refused to rely on the oral testimony adduced in support of the appellants' claim as regard the value of the orchard. It is true that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellants have not been effectively cross-examined. It is also true that the Collector had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal; but that does not mean that the court is bound to accept their evidence. The Judges are not computers. In assessing the value to be attached to oral evidence, they are bound to call into aid their experience of life. As Judge of fact it was open to the appellate Judges to test the evidence placed before them on the basis of probabilities."

16. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that,

even though there was no cross-examination on PW.1, the courts ought not to

AIR 1969 SC 255

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

have believed the evidence of PW.1 without there being any support of

documentary evidence to show that any dowry was given at the time of

marriage and that the petitioner was subjected to any domestic violence. When

the courts below considered that the petitioner was not subjected to physical

abuse since there were no physical injuries found on her body, the same analogy

could also be equally applied to the mental agony alleged by her and prayed to

allow the revision.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand, contended

that the scope of revision was very limited and the revisional jurisdiction could

not be invoked unless and until the decisions under challenge were grossly

erroneous and the finding recorded was based on no evidence and judicial

discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely and relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another

in Criminal Appeal No.1407 of 2012, wherein it was held that:

"8. Before examining the merits of the present case, we must advert to the discussion as to the ambit and scope of the power which the courts including the High Court can exercise under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits."

18. She further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amar

Chand Agarwalla v. Shanti Bose and Another2, wherein it was held that:

"Even assuming that the High Court was exercising jurisdiction under Section 439, in our opinion, the present was not a case for interference by the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is to be exercised normally under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, only in exceptional cases, when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error or point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court has not found any of these circumstances to exist in the case before us for quashing the charge and the further proceedings."

19. She also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Taron

Mohan v. State and Another, in Criminal Revision Petition No.646 of 2018

dated 25.01.2021, wherein it was held that:

"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 Cr.P.C. gives the High Courts

1973 AIR 799

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence."

20. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial court, PW.1 was examined in

chief on 11.04.2017 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. There was no cross-

examination on her though several opportunities were provided to the revision

petitioner on 11.05.2017, 27.06.2017, 14.07.2017, 07.08.2017 and 11.09.2017.

Costs of Rs.300/- were also imposed for adjourning the matter to 07.08.2017.

As the revision petitioner failed to pay any costs or to cross-examine PW.1, the

cross of PW.1 was treated as nil.

21, The respondent No.1 (revision petitioner) filed Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2017

on 21.12.2017 for recall of PW.1 for cross examination. The said petition was

dismissed by the trial court observing that despite imposing costs and passing

conditional orders, the petitioner did not choose to comply the said orders and

though he appeared on 15.11.2017, failed to file the re-call application of PW.1

on the said date. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

mandated to dispose the case within sixty (60) days of first hearing, but despite

lapse of two(02) years, due to the absence of the respondent No.1 (revision

petitioner herein) there was no progress in the case, having knowledge about the

conditional orders and imposing of costs, the respondent did not choose to pay

the costs and comply the condition and as there were no valid and justifiable

grounds to allow the petition, dismissed the same.

22. No appeal was preferred against the order in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2017 as

required under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act but the respondent

No.1 (revision petitioner herein) filed Criminal Petition No.1185 of 2018 before

this Court for quashing the order in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2017 dated 17.01.2018.

The said Criminal Petition was dismissed by this Court on 21.02.2018 by

referring to the full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Girish

Kumar Suneja v. C.B.I. holding that, when there was a specific bar to prefer a

revision against the interlocutory order of the Sub-Ordinate Court expressly

under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the inherent powers contained

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were not available to the aggrieved person and the

Criminal Petition was not maintainable on the said ground as well as on merits.

23. Thus, the order in Crl.M.P.No.2239 of 2017 passed by the IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad dismissing the re-call petition of PW.1,

became final.

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

24. Since, there was no cross-examination on PW.1 on the various

allegations made by her against the respondent No.1 in her evidence affidavit,

the trial court believed her evidence and basing on such evidence and as the

same was corroborated by the evidence of her father, PW.2, who was cross-

examined, the trial court granted the various reliefs as stated above.

25. The order of the trial court would disclose that it applied its mind, as

such, had dismissed the case against the respondent No.2, the mother of

respondent No.1 (the revision petitioner herein) and also not awarded the relief

for maintenance as sought by the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein).

26. The lower appellate court also considered the evidence of the witnesses

in detail and observed that the various allegations pleaded and deposed by PW.1

are substantiated by the evidence of PW.2 regarding harassment and cruelty. It

also considered the several inconsistent versions in the defence taken by the

revision petitioner herein. The lower appellate court also observed the status of

the parties and their standard of living, while awarding compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). Hence, considering all

the aspects only, both the trial court and the lower appellate court awarded the

various reliefs to the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein).

27. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the

judgments of the courts below in this Criminal Revision Case. This Court does

Dr.GRR, J CRLRC.No.1480 OF 2019

not find any glaring illegality in the procedure or any manifest error on the

point of law which resulted in any miscarriage of justice to set aside the same in

this revision.

28. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

orders of the courts below in awarding the various reliefs to the petitioner

(respondent No.1 herein).

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J

27th December, 2022 nsk.