Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 863 (KAR)

S. Leelavathi v. M. Bhaskar

2013-07-31

H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

body2013
Judgment : Nagamohan Das, J. 1. Crl. R.P. No. 2/2012 is against the judgment dated 16.12.2011 in Crl.A. No. 653/2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bangalore city. Crl. R.P. No. 96/2012 is against the judgment dated 07.09.2011 in Crl. Mis. No. 178/2011 and the judgment dated 16.12.2011 in Crl.A. No. 653/2011 passed by the lower appellate Court. 2. In this order, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court in Crl. Misc. No. 178/2011. 3. Petitioner is the wife of first respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are the father and mother of first respondent and fourth respondent is the sister of first respondent. On 6.3.2003 petitioner got married to the first respondent. After marriage petitioner and respondents were residing together under one roof in premises No.135/7, 1st Main, 2nd Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore. Out of the wedlock between the petitioner and first respondent a female child is born. During the stay of petitioner in the matrimonial house respondents had beaten her, abused, insulted, tortured, humiliated and caused domestic violence. It is contended that on account of the assault caused by the first respondent on the left ear of the petitioner she became dumb. Further the respondent pressurized the petitioner to bring dowry from her parental house. Finally, on 25.05.2008, petitioner and her daughter were thrown out of her matrimonial house. Against these illegal acts of respondents the petitioner lodged a complaint with jurisdictional police and the same came to be registered in Cr.No.103/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Further the petitioner initiated proceedings against the respondents under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in Crl.Misc.178/2011 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore. First respondent entered appearance before the trial Court and filed objections interalia denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is contended that first respondent is residing separately and he has filed petition for divorce against the petitioner and he has no income, he is mentally not sound and opposed the claim. Respondents 2 to 4 filed separate objections interalia contending that petitioner is residing separately in her own house and as such respondents throwing out the petitioner from the matrimonial house are all false. There are cases and counter cases between the parties. Respondents 2 to 4 filed separate objections interalia contending that petitioner is residing separately in her own house and as such respondents throwing out the petitioner from the matrimonial house are all false. There are cases and counter cases between the parties. In the house at Okalipuram, first respondent has no manner of right. It is further contended that respondents are deriving very meager income from the residential house at Okalipuram. On these grounds, respondents opposed the claim of the petitioner. On the basis of arguments, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: i) Whether petitioner proves that there has been domestic violence upon her by the respondent as alleged ? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for protection order, residence order and for monetary reliefs including the maintenance and for compensation as sought? iii) What order? 5. Before the trial Court petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P79. First respondent was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to R12. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court passed the impugned order on 7.9.2011 partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner directing the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner, Rs.2,000/- to the minor daughter, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/-every year towards educational expenses of minor daughter and to provide a separate accommodation for the petitioner and her child. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal in Crl.A.653/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court, Bangalore city. After hearing arguments the lower appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: I) Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in concluding that the petition is maintainable? II) Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondents have committed domestic violence against the petitioner? III) Whether the learned Trial Judge erred in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record? IV) What order? 6. The lower appellate Court on reappreciation of the entire material on record partly allowed the appeal directing the first respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner, Rs.1,500/- per month to the minor daughter, Rs.50,000/-as compensation, Rs.20,000/- towards the medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- every year towards the educational expenses of the minor daughter and confirming the order of the trial Court in so far as residential accommodation is concerned. Petitioner being not happy with the order of the lower appellate Court is before this court in Crl.RP.No.2/2012 and respondents being aggrieved by the order of both the courts below are before this court in Crl.RP.No.96/2012. 7. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 8. This court vide order dated 10.04.2012 directed Srirampuram Police to file status report with regard to the property bearing No.135/7, 1st Main Okalipuram, Bangalore. Accordingly the police filed report on 16.04.2012. 9. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Both the courts below by appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record concurrently held that respondents have caused domestic violence to the petitioner and her daughter. This finding of both the courts below is in accordance with law and supported by evidence on record. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. 10. Petitioner in her cross-examination admitted that there is a site in her name at Laggere village and khata also stands in her name. First respondent in his cross-examination admitted that he was earning Rs.12,000/-p.m. from his earlier employment and after deduction his home take salary was only Rs.5000/- p.m. RW.1 further contends that he has resigned to his job and he is suffering from illness. PW.1 also admits that she was working and later resigned. As against this oral evidence, there is income from the immovable house property. The police report dated 16.04.2012 specifies that the building in question consist of four floors in a site measuring 14 X 22.5 ft. In the ground floor one portion is mortgaged in favour of one Khanaram Choudary for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and another portion is leased to a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and refundable advance of Rs.40,000/-. In the first floor in one portion petitioner is residing and in another portion respondents are getting monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. In the second floor, there is one house and the same is mortgaged to a person for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-and in the third floor there is a residential house mortgaged to one Murugeshan for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the house property in question the respondents and other daughters are having interest. First respondent is having limited interest. In the second floor, there is one house and the same is mortgaged to a person for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-and in the third floor there is a residential house mortgaged to one Murugeshan for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the house property in question the respondents and other daughters are having interest. First respondent is having limited interest. Having regard to the income of the respondents and the need of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the lower appellate Court is in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference. Accordingly, both the petitions are hereby dismissed.