N.Sridhar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3769 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
                         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE
                         Nos.1236 & 1395 OF 2012

COMMON ORDER :

      Criminal Revision Case No.1236 of 2012 is filed by the petitioners/

accused Nos.1 to 3 and Criminal Revision Case No.1395 of 2012 is filed by

the petitioner/complainant/wife both under Sections 397 and 401 of

Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the common

judgment dated 30.04.2012 in Criminal Appeal Nos.75 of 2010 and 78 of

2010 wherein the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad dated

19.05.2010 in DVC No.8 of 2009 were confirmed.


      2.    Heard Sri M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners

in Crl.RC No.1236 of 2012 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Crl.RC No.1395 of

2012, Sri SAV Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.RC

No.1395 of 2012 and respondent in Crl.RC No.1236 of 2012 and also Sri

Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned

Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. Since, the parties to these two matters are one and the same

and the issues involved are interlinked, these two matters are disposed of

through this common order. The parties to these matters are referred to as

wife, husband and his relatives for the sake of brevity and convenience.

4. DVC No.8 of 2009 was filed by the wife against her husband

and his relatives alleging that having not satisfied with the dowry and other

perks received, her husband and relatives harassed her both mentally and

physically demanding additional dowry, threatened and pressurized her to

give divorce if she does not agree to alienate the property gifted by her

father. It is also alleged that due to such ill-treatment, she is compelled to

stay at her parents' residence along with her infant child. Further, her

husband ignored and neglected them without paying maintenance and

filed OP No.15 of 2008 seeking divorce. On the other hand, the husband

denied all the averments made therein mainly contending that his wife

misrepresented him regarding her age and when he questioned the said

fact, the same resulted in a quarrel due to which the husband was

constrained to file OP No.15 of 2008 seeking divorce. Further, as a

counter blast to the same, wife filed DVC case. Further, the wife, with the

help of her vested interests, physically attacked the husband and his

relatives. She filed OS No.17 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge,

Family Court seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner. The

learned trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, RWs.1

and 2 and Exs.P1 to P23 and also Exs.D1 to D5, has allowed the DVC in

part granting the following reliefs :

"(a) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby restrained from commuting any domestic violence

against the petitioner (wife) by way of granting protection orders under Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(b) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are hereby restrained from alienating the house bearing No.a- 48/1, Prabhatha Nagar, Chaitanyapuri through any mode without obtaining permission from competent Court under Section 19(d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

                (c)    The respondent No.1 is hereby directed
          to   secure    the   same    level  of   alternative

accommodation for the petitioner and her son within a period of one month from the date of this order or otherwise he is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner towards rent commencing from the month of first May, 2010 payable on or before 10th day of every succeeding month directly to her under Section 19(f) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(d) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner and her son towards their maintenance commencing from 1st May, 2010 as per Section 20(1)(d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the said amount shall be paid to the petitioner directly by obtaining a valid acknowledgment from her on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.

(e) further, the respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards medical expenditure of the petitioner within one month from the date of present petition under Section 20(1)(d) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(f) The Protection Officer is directed to take steps to implement these orders with the help of concerned police if necessary."

The remaining reliefs prayed by the wife were rejected. The

appeals preferred by both the parties vide Criminal Appeal Nos.75 of 2010

and 78 of 2010 were dismissed by the learned District Judge of the

appellate Court vide common judgment dated 30.04.2012.

5. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the wife

and husband have preferred these two criminal revision cases contending

that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence available on

record in a proper perspective. The wife contended that the trial Court

granted very meagre amount as maintenance, refusal of awarding

compensation on the pretext that proceedings under Section 498-A are

pending is bad since DVC Act is a special enactment and there is no bar in

this regard. As per terms of Ex.P1 memorandum of terms of marriage, the

wife is entitled for refund of money, articles, property documents etc., given

at the time of marriage, to the concerned party. Both the Courts below

failed to consider Exs.D6 to D23, which clearly demonstrate the withdrawal

of amounts given towards dowry. On the other hand, the husband

contended that he never refuted from his responsibility to maintain his wife

and child and expressed his ready and willingness to maintain them. Both

the Courts below failed to consider his present employment status and

meagre earning sources, which were affected due to the series of litigations

filed by his wife and also failed to take into consideration the previous work

history and educational qualification of his wife and that house bearing

No.1-48/1, Prabhatha Nagar, Chaitanyapuri does not belong to them.

6. This Court perused the entire material available on record

including the judgments of both the Courts below and the grounds urged

by both the parties. The evidence on record shows that the marital life of

wife and husband was not a sweet song due to the involvement of relatives

of the husband and that too the wife is living separately away from the

husband making allegation of harassment and series litigations are

pending between the parties. In this regard, the learned Judge of the trial

Court had rightly passed protection orders in her favour under Section 18

of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 holding that

permitting the wife to enter into the subject property, where the husband

and his relatives are living, will lead to aggravating the disputes. The wife

is depending upon the mercy of her parents along with her child. Being a

legally wedded wife, she is entitled for maintenance from her husband as

she is neglected and necked out by her husband and that he is not

providing any maintenance to them.

7. Further, the evidence of PW1, RWs.1 and 2 clearly shows that

the subject house is a joint family property and hence, the same cannot be

alienated depriving the rights of the wife and her child leading to

multiplicity of litigation. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned

Judge of the trial Court in restraining the husband and his relatives from

alienating the subject property cannot be found fault with. There is no

evidence on record to show that the wife is gainfully employed. Evidence

on record, especially PWs.1 and 2 as well as RWs.1 and 2 clearly proves

that the husband and his family members are having substantial

properties in their names. Taking the said factum into consideration, the

learned Judge of the trial Court had rightly ordered the husband either to

provide alternative accommodation to the wife and her son or to pay an

amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards rent under Section 19(f) of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

8. The learned Judge of the trial Court, by taking into

consideration the earning capacity of the husband and also the needs of

the wife and child had awarded a suitable sum as maintenance and hence,

the same cannot be find fault with when compared with the present

escalated prices, standards of living and day to day necessities of the

tendering aged child. Apart from that, taking into consideration the health

condition of the wife, the learned Judge of the trial Court also had granted

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.

9. So far as the payment of compensation to the wife is

concerned, the learned Judge of the trial Court had refused the same

disbelieving the version of wife and also her reliance placed on Ex.P1

holding that there is no evidence adduced to prove payment of dowry or

other things to her husband or his parents. It is true that though the wife

contended that her mother and sister withdrew considerable amounts from

their bank accounts, prior to the marriage, there is no evidence to prove

that the said amounts were paid to the husband or his relatives and also to

prove that the items stated by the wife and mentioned in Ex.P1 were

received by the husband or his relatives. No independent witness was

examined in this regard.

10. Having regard to the above referred facts and circumstances as

well as the evidence adduced on both sides, this Court is of the considered

view that there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of both the Courts

below warranting interference of this Court. Furthermore, the grounds

urged by both the parties do not have any force to disturb the well

considered findings of both the Courts below. Accordingly, both the

criminal revision cases are liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1236 of 2012 and

1395 of 2012 are dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall also stand dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated : 09-11-2023 abb