Smt. Shetty Saritha vs Shetty Mruthyunjaya Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 4442 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   CRL.R.C.No.443 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

This criminal revision case under Sections 397 and 401

Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 13.09.2019 in

Crl.A.No.812 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District,

wherein the said appeal filed by respondent No.1-husband

was allowed setting aside the order dated 19.09.2016 in

D.V.C.No.14 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, allowing the DVC filed by the petitioner-

wife in part and directing respondent No.1 to pay a sum of

Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance, besides directing to

pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for respondent No1. Perused the material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

petition under Section 20 (1) (d) read with Section 23 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short

'the Act') alleging that her marriage with respondent No.1 was

held on 15.05.2011 at Rajadani Garden Function Hall, Kothapet,

Hyderabad. After marriage, she joined the company of respondent

No.1 where her parents-in-laws also reside, as it is a joint family.

The petitioner and respondent No.1 lived happily for about 15 days

and thereafter she was sent to her parents' house with a demand to

bring gold bangles/kankanalu for which she expressed her inability

stating that her parents were not in a position to provide the same.

The respondents threatened her demanding that gold kankanalu

and silver articles Deepam Kundulu etc., shall have to be arranged

within 15 days, or else threatened to give divorce. Later, the

respondents started harassing her mentally and physically and the

petitioner was made to sleep in a separate room as respondent No.1

stated that he was no interested in the conjugal life with her.

4. It is further stated that on 24.11.2011, the respondents

picked up a quarrel with the petitioner for not getting gold

bangles and necked her out from the house and later she went to

her parents' house. Respondent No.1 and her parents did not

change her attitude and unable to bear their harassment, she

filed a complaint in Cr.No.73 of 2012 for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A IPC against respondent No.1 and his

family members. The petitioner has no source of income for

her livelihood and she is dependant on her old age parents,

whereas respondent No.1 has got sufficient income and

intentionally neglected her and did not provide any maintenance.

Respondent No.1 is working as CEO of Software Company,

getting Rs.2 lakhs per month towards salary. Therefore, she filed

this petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking monthly

maintenance of Rs.30,000/-, compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards

suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards shelter and Rs.2,000/- towards

maintenance and cost of legal expenses.

5. Respondent No.1 filed counter inter alia denying all

allegations made in the DVC, except admitting the marriage with

the petitioner. It is stated that he is drawing a salary of only

Rs.39,000/- per month from his company and that he has to look

after his parents and maintain household expenditure.

6. In support of her case, the complainant got examined herself

as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to

P-8. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and marked

Exs.R-1 to A-16.

7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

trial court directed respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/-

per month towards maintenance besides directing to pay

compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000/-. Feeling

aggrieved, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal. After hearing

both sides and on re-appraisal of the entire material on record, the

appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the

trial court. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner-wife preferred

the present revision.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the court

below without properly appreciating the judgment passed by the

trial court and without assigning any reasons had set aside the

same. The appellate court failed to note of the fact that respondent

No.1 himself is earning Rs.45,000/- per month and had erroneously

set aside the order of trial court. The judgment of the appellate

court would show that the appellate court, based on presumptions

and assumptions, had set aside the order of the trial court.

He, therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that

the judgment of the appellate court is based on proper appreciation

of evidence, both oral and documentary, and do not suffer from

illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court.

As such, he prayed to dismiss the revision.

10. Thus, after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for

both sides and upon perusing the material on record, the point that

arises for consideration is - whether the judgment of the appellate

court needs interference?

11. It is the specific case of P.W.1 that at the time of marriage,

Rs.5 lakhs cash was given towards dowry, besides 20 tolas of

gold ornaments and one and half kilograms of silver articles.

Within 15 days after the marriage, she was sent out from the

matrimonial house with a demand to bring gold bangles, but

her father (P.W.2) expressed his inability to give the same.

The respondents went to the house of the father of the petitioner

and threatened that the petitioner would not be taken to the

matrimonial house, if they do not give gold bangles. Later, after

much persuasion, P.W.2 agreed to arrange the same within 15 days.

The respondents in addition to the gold bangles also demanded

silver deepam kundulu, if not threatened to give divorce. She also

stated that on 27.06.2011, respondent Nos.2 and 3 took her to

Vijaya Diagnostic Centre where she was subjected to HIV test

and later taken to a nursing home and forcibly got her pregnancy

aborted. However, in the cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted

that she had undergone operation only on the advise of the doctor

and that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are no way concerned.

12. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she was sent to her parents'

house for Dasara festival and thereafter her husband did not take

her back. She made several efforts to join the society of her

husband and also approached the caste elders and in their presence

also, she was abused. P.W.1 was allowed to stay with respondent

in the house but in a separate room and she was never allowed to

stay with her husband or to talk till 23.11.2011. Respondent No.1

used to come late in the night and was not interested to lead

conjugal life with her. However, R.W.1 pleaded that as the

marriage for him with P.W.1 happened to be second one, she was

not interested to lead matrimonial life and refused to participate

in conjugal life. It appears that both P.W.1 and R.W.1 are not

speaking truth on conjugal life, because P.W.1 became pregnant

and was aborted due to infection on 05.08.2011.

13. P.W.1 stated that on 24.11.2011 all the respondents picked

up a quarrel for not bringing gold bangles and sent her away from

the house. She also approached the Women Police Station,

Saroornagar with a request to call respondent No.1 for counselling,

but respondent No.1 refused to take her back. P.W.2 corroborated

the evidence of P.W.1 that in the presence of one of his relatives

viz., A.Balaiah, all the abused P.W.1 and she was allowed to live in

the matrimonial home but in a separate room and she was not

allowed to speak with respondent No.1 till 23.11.2011.

14. Coming to the evidence of R.W.1, P.W.1 threw her

mangalsutram on respondent No.1 in the presence of one Madhava

Rao Sagar and one of their relatives returned the same to the father

of petitioner. However, the said Madhava Rao Sagar and the

person who handed over mangalasuthram are not examined to

prove the said allegation.

15. It appears from the evidence of the petitioner and

respondents that the marriage was consummated, they led happy

marital life for some time and P.W.1 conceived and due to

infection, she underwent abortion on the advise of doctor.

It also appears that the disputes arose between them. The trial court

had examined the entire evidence meticulously and had given a

specific finding that P.W.1 has proved that she was subjected to

domestic violence in the hands of respondents and that she is

entitled for the releiefs. The specific case of respondent No.1 is

that P.W.1 was not interested in continuing the matrimonial

relationship and that she herself deserted R.W.1 and filed a false

case against him and his family members for the offences under

Section 498-A IPC in C.C.No.221 of 2012, on the file of the

XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar. The said

case ended in acquittal of R.W.1.

16. Coming to the findings of the appellate court, the appellate

court has disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground

that in cross-examination she admitted that her in-laws have

presented gold jewellery like gold long chain, gold black chain,

gold necklace, gold vanki, gold ring and gold pusthela

thadu and that Ex.R-2 bills show presentation of the above said

items. Since the in-laws have presented the above items, it is hard

to believe that within 15 days from the date of marriage, the

respondents have necked P.W.1 out from the house demanding her

to bring gold bangles/kankanalu, if not they are ready to give

divorce. The appellate court disbelieved the version of P.W.1 on

the said aspect. Similarly, P.W.1 in her evidence stated that the

respondents were not all interested in P.W.1 conceiving children

and aborted the pregnancy against her will and consent. However,

in the cross-examination she stated that on the advise of doctor due

infection, her pregnancy was aborted. Therefore, the appellate

court held that P.W.1 had made wild allegations against her in-laws

which shows the over smart attitude of P.W.1. The appellate also

held that P.W.1 and R.W.1 were not speaking truth about their

conjugal life. The other aspect considered by the appellate court

was that R.W.1 went to USA where his first wife secured job and

subsequently he wanted to come back to India to attend his ailing

parents for which his wife did not accept for the same and thus

obtained a divorce from her and permanently returned to India.

It is also alleged by R.W.1 that P.W.1 demanded him to lively

separately from his parents for which he has not accepted and later

she filed a false case. The appellate court has also considered the

said aspect of P.W.1 demanding R.W.1 for separate living and that

is the reason between them for the dispute.

17. The trial Court held that respondent No.1 has not allowed

P.W.1 to the matrimonial house without any satisfactory reason

and thereby she is deprived of her matrimonial life and suffered

mentally and there is no evidence from respondents' side that

P.W.1 was working and earning anything for her maintenance and

as such it can be said that she was also abused economically and it

constitutes domestic violence. However, the appellate court has

rightly observed that the said finding cannot be appreciated at all

for the reason that P.W.1 is a postgraduate and worked as Teacher

prior to marriage and even took tuitions in the house for high

school students and she is capable to secure a job and lead her own

life. However, P.W.1 stated that she is not doing any work because

of her ill-health and she failed to substantiate the said contention

that she was suffering from any ill-health,

18. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, I am of the

opinion that the appellate court on re-appraisal of the evidence,

both oral and documentary, has rightly come to the conclusion that

there is no domestic violence against the petitioner in the hands of

her husband and in laws. When the aggrieved person fails to prove

the domestic violence, she is not entitled to any relief against the

respondents. The appellate court has rightly appreciated the

evidence in proper perspective after taking into consideration the

facts and circumstances and, therefore, she was not granted any

reliefs against the respondents and, accordingly, set aside the

judgment of the trial court.

19. It is well settled principle of law that jurisdiction of the court

under Section 397 Cr.P.C., can be exercised so as to examine the

correctness, legality or propriety of the order passed by the trial

court or the inferior courts, as the case may be. In the instant case,

the judgment of the appellate court did not suffer from any

illegality and there is no apparent error and the findings are

recorded based on proper appreciation of the material evidence on

record.

20. For the foregoing reasons, I am the opinion that there are no

justifiable grounds to interfere with the judgment of the appellate

court. The revision case is not maintainable and it is liable be

dismissed.

21. The criminal revision case is, accordingly, dismissed.

22. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 07.09.2022 Lrkm