Karne Venugopal vs Karne Vishalaxi And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2519 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2489 OF 2015
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under

Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.17

of 2015 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal

wherein the order dated 23.01.2015 passed in DVC No.17 of 2011 by

the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal was

modified.

2. Heard Ms.N.Vanisree, learned counsel representing on

behalf of Sri Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.4. None appeared

for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. DVC No.17 of 2011 was filed under Section 12 of Protection

of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the respondent Nos.1 to

3 seeking maintenance, to provide alternative accommodation,

protection from the petitioner and his family members preventing them

from harassing the respondent Nos.1 to 3, refund of amount paid

towards dowry and for compensation for causing physical, mental and

emotional harassment. The grievance canvassed through the said

application was that the 1st respondent is the legally wedded wife of the

petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are their children, their

marriage was performed by paying substantial amount towards dowry

and other allied gifts and subsequently, the petitioner, his brother, who

is the 2nd respondent in DVC and other family members started

harassing the 1st respondent for additional dowry, the petitioner beat

her in drunken condition, restricted her moments by locking the door

during his absence, doubting her fidelity, started propaganda against

her stating that she has illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad and

ultimately he kidnapped her and confined her in a room and after 20

days, when her parents complained the police, he took her to her

parents' house and left there threatening her not to come to his house

or otherwise he will kill her and children. Vexed with these acts of the

petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 knocked the doors of Court

seeking the reliefs, stated supra.

4. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent in DVC denied the

allegations levelled against them including payment of amounts

towards dowry and other gifts and stated that the 1st respondent is a

maniac person, lenient towards strangers and entertains street labours

upto late nights to sit in the house though he objected the same and

easily gets into compromising position leaving aside her matrimonial

status, she developed illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad, she

eloped with him by taking Rs.50,000/- cash, 4 tulas of gold and 15

tulas of silver, a panchayat was held on 19.06.2008 and that the

petitioner along with his brother rendered his financial assistance to

the father of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed OS No.359 of 2011

on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warnagal for

recovery of money, which was decreed. He also filed OP No.90 of 2011

seeking divorce.

5. The trial Court, upon careful examination of the entire

evidence on record in the form of PWs.1, 2, RWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1, P2

and R.1 to R7 has allowed DVC No.17 of 2011 and granted reliefs as

extracted hereunder :

"(i) Each respondent i.e. R1 & R2 are directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs each to the first petitioner as compensation i.e. total Rs.10 lakhs by both respondents.

(ii) R1 is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to each second and third petitioner towards compensation i.e. total Rs.5,00,000/-.

(iii) The first respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner and Rs.2,500/- per month to each second and third petitioners from the date of petition.

(iv) The first respondent further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioners towards alternative accommodation.

(v) The respondents are directed not to cause any disturbance or threat of any kind either mentally or physically to the petitioners in future.

(vi) The respondents are further directed to pay above compensation within 6 months from the date of this order. The first respondent also directed to pay arrears of above maintenance amount from the date of petition within six months from the date of this order. Further to pay future maintenance amount on or before 10th of every month."

6. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said

findings, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal in

Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015, finding that the amounts awarded by

the trial Court are exorbitant, has modified the said order as extracted

hereunder :

(i) Appellant No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

(ii) Appellant No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards their education.

(iii) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- per month towards alternative accommodation.

              (iv)    The   appellant    No.1         is   directed   to   pay
      Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation                   to the respondent
      Nos.1 to 3.
              (v)     The appellant Nos.1 and 2 are directed not to

interfere with day to day affairs of the respondent Nos.1 to

3.

(vi) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount from the date of DVC petition till the date of this order within three months.

(vii) The appellant No.1 is directed to pay future maintenance amount on or before 10th of every month.

(viii) No costs."

7. Perused the order and judgment of both the Courts below.

The main grievance of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner

is that he harassed the 1st respondent, doubted her chastity, demanded

for additional dowry and left her at her parents' house threatening her

not to come back to his house. The main contention of the petitioner is

that the 1st respondent had illicit intimacy with one Macherla Prasad

and eloped with him by taking gold and cash. Therefore, he filed OP

No.90 of 2011 seeking divorce by making the said Macherla Prasad also

as one of the parties. The petitioner made propaganda against the 1st

respondent and claimed that he is not the father of their children and

he stated that he is going to make request for DNA test to find the

truth. It is a fact to be noted that several panchayats were held on

various occasions between the parties to settle the issues arisen due to

the differences between the parties. The learned Judge Family Court,

Warangal, believing the version of the petitioner that the 1st respondent

had got extra-marital relationship with said Macherla Prasad, granted

divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and 1st

respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred

an appeal before this Court vide FCA No.253 of 2013 and the same is

pending. Another factor, to be considered herein is that the petitioner

is residing in the house constructed with the funds provided by

father/brother of the 1st respondent, as alleged by the 1st respondent.

Further, the father of the 1st respondent complained the police against

the petitioner alleging that the petitioner confined his daughter in a

separate room for twenty days and upon coming to know the said

complaint, the petitioner left his daughter in their house. In view of the

above factual scenario, it cannot be said that the life between the

petitioner and the 1st respondent went on smooth lines without any

disturbance.

8. Undisputedly, as per the evidence on record and the

recitals of documents filed on both sides, it is true that from the year

2011 the petitioner is not supporting the respondent Nos.1 to 3

suspecting the character of 1st respondent and that though he stated

that their children were not born to him and going to request for DNA

test, he has not taken any steps so far and that FCA No.253 of 2013,

filed against the decree granted in OP No.90 of 2011 has not attained

finality, the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to the respondent

Nos.1 to 3, who are his legally wedded wife and biological children apart

from paying compensation.

9. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide

judgment dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2015, while

observing that the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Warangal has exorbitantly awarded huge sums as compensation

and maintenance vide DVC No.17 of 2011, modified the compensation

and maintenance amounts exonerating the liability of the brother of the

petitioner.

10. When the findings of both the Courts below are tested with

the evidence available on record and the circumstances narrated by the

recitals of the documents filed by both the parties, so far as liability of

petitioner to pay maintenance, compensation, etc., is concerned, they

are well reasoned and sustained except the quantum, granted by the

trial Court. The appellate Court had rightly modified the said findings

regarding the quantum of compensation, maintenance etc. Therefore,

the said findings do not warrant any interference by this Court. The

grounds urged by the petitioner do not compel this Court to interfere

with the said findings. Accordingly, the findings of the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, dated 10.09.2015 in Criminal

Appeal No.17 of 2015 are confirmed and sustained.

11. In the result, this criminal revision case is dismissed.

Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J 20-09-2023 abb