C.Murali Kriashna, Hyderabad., vs Smt.C.Lajvanthi, Hyd And 2 Otrs, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3307 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.1562 & 1778 OF 2017

COMMON ORDER :

       The petitioners, who are the husband and wife have filed

Criminal Revision Case Nos.1562 of 2017 and 1778 of 2017

respectively under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code

(for   short   'Cr.P.C.')   aggrieved   by   the   common judgment   dated

14.03.2017 in Criminal Appeal Nos.156 of 2010 and 703 of 2013, both

on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District wherein the order dated

01.10.2010 passed in DVC No.1 of 2009 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

was confirmed.


       2.      Heard Sri T.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1562 of 2017 and respondent No.2 in Crl.RC

No.1778 of 2017, Sri Polukanti Raghuvaran, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.RC No.1778 of 2017 and respondent No.1 in Crl.RC

No.1562 of 2017 and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State. None

appeared for respondent No.2 in Crl.RC No.1562 of 2017 and

respondent No.3 in Crl.RC No.1778 of 2017.

3. Since the issue involved in these two matters is interlinked

and the parties are one and the same, this Court decided to dispose of

these two criminal revision cases through this common order. For the

sake of brevity and convenience, the parties to these two criminal

revision cases are hereinafter referred to as husband and wife.

4. DVC No.1 of 2009 was filed by the wife under Section 9(b)

and 37(2) (c) of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 against her husband alleging that sister and mother of her

husband treated her as housemaid by entrusting entire household

works in the house of her husband also the sister of her husband and

also harassed demanding additional dowry, having not satisfied with

the amounts given by her parents, not provided basic necessities

including medical requirements even during her pregnancy and

ultimately, after delivery, they took away the child leaving her at her

parents' house with a view to give the child to brother of her husband

at USA, threatened and forced her to give divorce and that her husband

and relatives beat her maternal uncle viz. Venkateswar Rao, who went

to their house to pacify the issue. Due to the above circumstances, she

filed the present petition seeking various reliefs. On the other hand,

the husband denied the allegations made against him and his family

members mainly contending that his wife is an adamant lady, used to

pick up quarrel on every small issue and left his house her own accord

without there being fault of any one. Further, having vexed with the

attitude and reluctance of his wife to join him, he filed OP No.780 of

2008 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad seeking

divorce. As a counter blast to the said divorce petition, the wife filed

present DVC for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC

and Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act. The husband further contended that

all the incidents relating to the present case occurred prior to

commencement of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and

hence, the provisions of the said Act cannot be applicable to the facts of

the case on hand. He further contended that he along with his wife

lived in a separate house away from his parents' house. He further

contended that he is a jobless person and cannot pay the huge sums as

claimed by his wife.

5. The Court below, upon considering the entire evidence

available on record in the form of PWs.1 and 2, RWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1

to P29 and D1 to 51 and also Exs.C1 to C3, finding the prima-facie

domestic violence against the wife by the husband and his family

members, granted the reliefs in favour of the wife as extracted

hereunder:

(a) The respondents are hereby restrained from committing any domestic violence against the petitioner under Section 18 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(b) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to secure the same level of alternative accommodation to the petitioner and her son as enjoyed by her in the share household and if any case he is unable to secure the same, he is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month for the alternative accommodation of the petitioner and her son from the date of this order and the same shall be payable directly to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month by obtaining valid receipt or acknowledgment under Section 19 (f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(c) The respondent No.1 is directed to return an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner with regard to the marriage expenditure and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenditure spent by her parents and said amount shall be returned to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order by obtaining valid receipt.

(d) The respondent No.1 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month towards maintenance of the petitioner and her son from the date of this order and the amount shall be paid directly to the petitioner on or before 10th day of every succeeding month by obtaining valid receipt or acknowledgment".

6. The appeals filed by both the couple in Criminal Appeal

Nos.156 of 2010 and 703 of 2013, against the findings of the Court

below, have dismissed by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District vide judgment dated

14.03.2017.

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

and husband have preferred these criminal revision cases mainly

contending that the findings therein are not on proper appreciation of

evidence and made on erroneous reasoning. The wife contended that

findings of the Court below that there is no proof to prove payment of

dowry, ornaments, marriage expenses, earning capacity of the husband

are erroneous and the Court below failed to consider orders passed in

Crl.M.P.No.2131 of 2010 in Crl.M.P.No.578 of 2009 in DVC No.1 of

2009, her loss of earnings and damages, existing properties in the

name of her husband and rents derived thereunder, paid very meagre

amount towards alternate accommodation and granted less amounts

under various heads without observing the real facts. On the other

hand, the husband contended that Domestic Violence Act came into

force w.e.f. 26.10.2006 and that his wife left her matrimonial house on

08.06.2006 and hence, the said Act, which has prospective effect,

cannot have any effect in this matter, the present case is filed as a

counter-blast to OP No.780 of 2008, filed by him seeking divorce, both

the Courts below exceeded the power vested with them in granting huge

amounts to his wife under various counts, failed to consider his

financial and social constraints, forgot the educational qualification and

practising as Advocate by his wife, failed to consider the amounts paid

by him to his wife under various heads and his promptly complying

with the conditions imposed as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.313 of 2010 in

Crl.P.No.156 of 2010.

8. The relationship between the parties and the paternity of

the child are not in dispute. For the reason that the husband did not

pay interim maintenance, he was sentenced to jail. The contention of

the husband that he tried his level best to take her back into his

conjugal fold but she refused appears to be ostensibly not correct as he

filed an application for divorce but not for restitution of conjugal rights.

PWs.1 and 2 have categorically deposed the harassment meted out to

the wife. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the

husband received several amounts, ornaments etc. Though the wife is

stated to be an advocate, there is no evidence adduced to show that she

is practicing and earning huge sums to maintain herself and her child.

9. RW4, who worked as a maidservant in the house of the

husband clearly disclosed that she attended all the household works.

As per the law laid down in Mohit Yadam and another Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others 1 Domestic Violence Act has retrospective

effect in operation and hence, the contention of the husband that the

said Act has no effect to the facts of the case on hand. It is the

contention of the wife that her husband and his relatives used to blame

2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 105 (AP)

her brother naming him as a vagabond and that their parents are not

living together. The way of suggestions put to PW1 on behalf of the

husband shows their insulting nature of wife by commenting on her

family members without any basis.

10. Perusal of orders dated 01.10.2010 passed in Crl.MP

No.2131 of 2010 in Crl.MP No.578 of 2009 in DVC No.1 of 2009, a

petition filed by the wife and child under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. to

punish the husband for wilful disobedience of orders dated 18.08.2009

in Crl.MP No.578 of 2009, shows that the husband failed to pay

monthly maintenance of Rs.9,000/- to his wife and child in compliance

of the said order. Record shows that during the course of arguments in

Crl.MP No.2131 of 2010, learned counsel for the husband contended

that sending husband to the jail will not serve the purpose as the wife

and child are not in a position to maintain them. It is also borne out of

the record that the wife has requested the concerned Branch Manager

of the bank to remit the amount to her account from the account of her

husband.

11. The evidence adduced by the wife in the form of PWs.1 and

2 clearly demonstrated that the husband and his family members

harassed her for additional dowry and forced her to do all household

works in their house and also in the house of sister of her husband and

that they did not allow her to join her husband without bringing

additional dowry amount. Further, they insulted her brother naming

him as a vagabond and that their parents are not living together. They

also pointed out the wife stating that till she attaining the age of 32

years, her parents could not able to get her a marriage alliance. It is

also borne out of the record that when the wife agreed to join him,

during the reconciliation proceedings, he refused her. Though the

husband examined RW4, stating that she worked as a maid in their

house, her evidence contained lot of contradictions making her

evidence not trustworthy. Further, they did not make a whisper

regarding her role or evidence anywhere either in counter or chief

affidavits. Though the husband contended that he along with RW5

went to the house of the wife to request her to join him, in view of

deposition of RW1 that he never visited the house of his wife at any

point of time to bring back her, evidence of RW5 cannot be believed.

Though RW6 deposed that he made gold ornaments at the request of

RW2, it cannot be presumed that they were given to the wife and

moreover it is the evidence of RW2 that ornaments of the wife were with

RW2. In view of the above discussion, both the Courts below have

rightly found the prima-facie domestic violence and negligence towards

his wife and child though he is capable of maintaining them and hence,

having no source, the wife and child are entitled to get maintenance

from her husband to protect them from starving.

12. So far as the protection and residence orders are

concerned, though the husband contended that his wife lived in their

house, which is admittedly an ancestral property, for few days and

deserted her own, it is pertinent to note that the husband filed divorce

petition and did not make any efforts to bring back her to his house

and on the other hand, he refused his wife when she expressed her

willingness to join him during the course of reconciliation proceedings.

It is also a fact that the couple except in the said house, did not reside

together elsewhere. Further, in view of pendency of case on the

allegations of domestic violence, filed by wife and divorce petition, filed

by the husband, residing both parties under the same roof may result

further complications. In these circumstances, the wife is entitled for

protection order.

13. So far as other reliefs of return of dowry amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-, gold, home appliances, amounts given on various

occasions to her husband etc., are concerned, both the Courts below,

due to lack of sufficient corroborating evidence, refused the same. It is

true that tough the marriage between the parties was settled through

marriage bureau, no person from the said bureau or elder who

mediated the marriage was examined on behalf of the wife to depose in

support of her claim in this regard.

14. Return of marriage expenses is concerned, as per the rites

and rituals, both the parties will share the expenses and hence, the

Court below has rightly awarded a reasonable amount under this head.

15. Relief of depositing Rs.20,00,000/- for future needs of their

child and damages of Rs.15,00,000/- towards loss of her earnings are

concerned, the version of the wife is that she lived with her husband for

a limited period and that she did not explain the circumstances

entitling her for damages/loss of earnings and that the Court below has

awarded monthly maintenance to the wife and child and hence,

depositing huge sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is also appears to be

unreasonable as though the husband is having earnings, depositing

such a huge amount may not be possible. Further, the child is at the

tendering age and if the maintenance amount awarded is not sufficient,

the wife is having every opportunity to seek enhancement of the

maintenance amount.

16. Granting medical expenses is concerned, the Court below

has rightly awarded the amount relying upon Exs.P15 to P25 and D3 to

D31 bills holding that both the parties have spent monies for medical

needs of wife and child. The relief of restraining the husband from

marrying another woman is concerned, the husband cannot marry

other woman during pendency of the divorce petition.

17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that both the Courts below have appreciated the

evidence available on record in a right perspective and gave reasonable

findings, which cannot be interfered with by this Court as this Court

sees no fault in those findings. Accordingly, both the criminal revisions

petitions deserve to be dismissed.

18. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1562 of 2017 and

1778 of 2017 are dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall also stand dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :19-10-2023 abb