Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 949 (KAR)

K. S. Ravi v. Leelavathi

2011-09-23

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2011
ORDER V. JAGANNATHAN, J.—These petitions are heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Crl. R.P. No. 266/2011 is by the respondent in the trial Court following the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking certain relief and the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein, viz., Leelavathi and directed that the respondent herein should be permitted to reside in the house No. 171 situated at Birahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and also permitted the petitioner herein to reside in the shared household along with his mother and that apart, the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay back Rs. 12,80,000/- to the respondent herein. However, the request of the respondent for return of 30 sovereigns of gold was rejected. 3. Both the parties appealed to the lower appellate Court challenging the aforesaid order of the trial Court. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner in part and the order of the trial Court was modified by permitting the petitioner also to stay in the shared household. The other directions given by the trial Court were confirmed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, the respondent is now out on the streets because the shared household is no longer in existence following the petitioner having demolished the same on the ground of the road widening in that area and in the place of the house which was in existence, the petitioner has put up two shops and they have been let out on monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- for both the shops and he had also collected security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner has also not paid the amount ordered by the trial Court, viz., Rs. 12,80,000/-. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that there is pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court. 8,000/- for both the shops and he had also collected security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner has also not paid the amount ordered by the trial Court, viz., Rs. 12,80,000/-. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that there is pendency of the appeal before the appellate Court. The petitioner demolished the existing house and put up two shops and in that connection the respondent had filed the I.A. which was pending, but for the reasons best known to the lower appellate Court, the appeal itself was disposed of without any order being passed on the I.A. However, now the submission made is that, the respondent be given a place for her to reside and she be permitted to put up a temporary structure over the two shops and according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the house which was demolished actually belonged to the respondent in view of the sale deed which existed in her name. Learned counsel also sought for a direction to the petitioner not to harass the respondent. 6. On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as regards the title to the house property is concerned, the petitioner intends to challenge the sale deed that is in favour of the respondent, but it is his submission that, the house was demolished due to road widening in that area and not by the petitioner on his own accord. 7. As far as the security deposit collected is concerned, submission made is that, only Rs. 1 lakh has been collected as security deposit in respect of the two shops which have been let out on rents. 8. 7. As far as the security deposit collected is concerned, submission made is that, only Rs. 1 lakh has been collected as security deposit in respect of the two shops which have been let out on rents. 8. Having thus considered the submission made by both sides and the respondent now being driven out of the place where she was residing earlier and as both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent will have to be permitted to reside in the shared household and the petitioner was allowed to reside in the shared household, as the house itself is no longer in existence, in order to meet the ends of justice and taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, till the title to the property is decided, the respondent can be permitted to put up a temporary structure above the two shops and the amount ordered by the trial Court can be kept in the fixed deposit in the name of the respondent and the interest can be paid to her every month and in addition, out of the rents received by the petitioner, Rs. 5,000/- can be ordered to be paid to the respondent. 9. In the result, the following order is passed: 1. The respondent shall be permitted to put up a temporary structure over the two shops so that the respondent can stay there peacefully and she shall not be subjected to any harassment of any kind by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner shall pay to the respondent every month Rs. 5,000/- without fail from out of the rents collected by him from the two shops. 3. The amount ordered by the trial Court to be given to the respondent, viz., Rs. 12,80,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs eighty thousand only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank in the name of the respondent and the investment shall be for a period of three years. 4. The respondent is entitled to draw the interest from the fixed deposit amount every month. The aforesaid directions shall however not come in the way of the parties fighting out their rights over the title to the property in question if they are advised to do so. The petition therefore stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.