Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 354 (AP)

Anmolu Kishore Banerji v. Anumolu Srilatha

2024-03-14

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to revise the order dtd. 16/2/2017 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama, which was confirmed on 11/9/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District. 2. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband and the 2nd petitioner herein is the mother-in-law and the 3rd petitioner herein is the father-in-law of the 1st respondent herein, who is the petitioner and aggrieved person in D.V.C.No.1 of 2014. The 2nd petitioner herein passed away during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as abated against the 2nd petitioner herein. 3. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as 'petitioner- aggrieved person' and the 'respondent-husband' as arrayed in the D.V.C. 4. The petitioner-aggrieved person filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'DVC Act') through the Protection Officer claiming reliefs under Sec. 18 for grant of protection order, under Sec. 19 for grant of residential order, under Sec. 20 for monetary relief and under Sec. 22 for compensation order, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama, as she was subjected to domestic violence under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act. 5. On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it manifests that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence against the petitioner-aggrieved person and the documents, i.e., Exs.P6 to P11, filed in support of the contentions of the petitioner-aggrieved person also substantiates the same the respondent-husband has committed the domestic violence towards the petitioner-aggrieved person and the documents, i.e., Exs.P12 to P22, also manifest that the respondent-husband has possessed the landed property and they also establish that he is having sufficient source of income. 6. It is the case of the petitioner-aggrieved party that the respondent-husband has caused physical harassment and the injuries apparently found on the body of the petitioner-aggrieved person would show that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence as contemplated under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act. 7. 6. It is the case of the petitioner-aggrieved party that the respondent-husband has caused physical harassment and the injuries apparently found on the body of the petitioner-aggrieved person would show that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence as contemplated under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act. 7. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner-aggrieved person is having illegal contacts with one person by name R.Ravi Shankar, owner of Siri Kalamandir, Nandigama. 8. The contention raised by the respondent-husband was turned down by both the Courts and as the respondent-husband is not able to establish the illegal connection between his wife, who is the petitioner-aggrieved person, and R.Ravi Shankar. 9. The trial Court by relying on the documents relied on by the petitioner-aggrieved person and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the other High Courts, has granted protection order under Sec. 18 of the DVC Act not to cause any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner-aggrieved person and also against her daughter and granted residential order under Sec. 19 of the DVC Act to stay the petitioner-aggrieved person along with her daughter in the house bearing Door No.7-118 of Raithupet, Nandigama, along with respondents and shall be continued and cannot be disturbed except under due process of law. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner-aggrieved person herself chooses to leave the said house either for the purpose of higher studies of her daughter or for any other reason, the respondent- husband has to pay Rs.6, 000.00 per month towards rental accommodation and by granting monetary relief under Sec. 20 of the DVC Act to pay an amount of Rs.10, 000.00 per month towards maintenance of the petitioner-aggrieved person and also granted a relief under Sec. 22 of the DVC Act directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs.5, 00, 000.00 towards compensation. 10. Aggrieved by the order dtd. 16/2/2017 in DVC No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama, the respondent-husband has preferred a Criminal Appeal, vide Crl.A.No.90 of 2017 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, under Sec. 29 of the DVC Act. The learned District and Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides, by judgment dtd. The learned District and Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides, by judgment dtd. 11/9/2019, has allowed the said Criminal Appeal in part by reducing the compensation amount from Rs.5, 00, 000.00 to Rs.2, 00, 000.00 and rejected the other contentions raised by the respondent- husband. 11. Now aggrieved by the order in DVC No.1 of 2014 dtd. 16/2/2017, which was confirmed by judgment dtd. 11/9/2019 in Crl.A.No.90 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed to revise the order in the said DVC on the ground that the reasons recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court are in contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Courts ought not to have been ordered residential order under Sec. 19 of the DVC Act without there being any evidence and the monetary reliefs granted under Ss. 20 and 22 of the DVC Act are high and the respondent-husband is an unemployee and he is not having sufficient income and, therefore, mainly emphasized his argument in granting monetary relief under Ss. 20 and 22 of the DVC Act, he would urge to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned order dtd. 16/2/2017 in DVC No.1 of 2014. 12. Under the DVC Act, the reliefs are monetary in nature and such monetary reliefs cannot be granted unless two conditions are fulfilled. One is suffering from domestic violence by the aggrieved person at the hands of the respondent-husband, as contemplated under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act and the incurring of expenses or suffering of losses by the aggrieved person or any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence. 13. The petitioner-aggrieved person has filed documents in support of her contentions and the said documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22 and the relevant exhibits are extracted hereunder: "Ex.P6 Certified copy of FIR with complainant in Cr.No.430/2013. Ex.P7 Attested copy of Scene Observation Report in Cr.No.508/2013. Ex.P8 Certified copy of FIR and report in Cr.No.508/2013 of Nandigama P.S. Ex.P9 Attested copy of wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P10 Report given by PW.1 to the Protection Officer dt: 2/1/2014. Ex.P11 Domestic Incident report along with Form-I, II, III and V. Ex.P12 Adangal copy in S.No.22-2 in Vipareethapadu village, issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu. Ex.P8 Certified copy of FIR and report in Cr.No.508/2013 of Nandigama P.S. Ex.P9 Attested copy of wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P10 Report given by PW.1 to the Protection Officer dt: 2/1/2014. Ex.P11 Domestic Incident report along with Form-I, II, III and V. Ex.P12 Adangal copy in S.No.22-2 in Vipareethapadu village, issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu. Ex.P13 Adangal copy in S.No.119-1 in Chillakalu Village issued by Tahsildar, Jaggaihpet, dt: 5/1/2014. Ex.P14 Adangal copy in S.No.22-1 in Vipareetapadu Village, issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu dt: 5/1/2014. Ex.P15 Adangal copy in S.No.10-1 in Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu dt: 5/1/2014. Ex.P16 Adangal copy in S.No.32-4 in Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar of Chandarlapadu Mandal, dtd. 8/1/2014. Ex.P17 Adangal copy issued in S.No.25-1 at Eluru Village by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu Mandal, dtd. 5/1/2014. Ex.P18 Adangal copy in S.No.183-2 at Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu Mandal, dtd. 5/1/2014. Ex.P19 Adangal copy in S.No.182-1 at Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar, Chandarlapadu Mandal, dtd. 5/1/2014. Ex, P20 Adangal copy in S.No.185-2 in Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar of Chandarlapadu Mandal dtd. 8/1/2014. Ex.P21 Adangal copy in R.S.No.23-3 in Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar of Chandarlapadu Mandal dtd. 5/1/2014. Ex.P22 Adangal copy in S.No.223-1 in Eluru Village issued by Tahsildar of Chandarlapadu Mandal dtd. 5/11/2014." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another, (2014) 10 SCC 736 . held that if domestic violence had taken place when the wife lived together in shared household with her husband in a relationship in the nature of marriage for all reliefs under Ss. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act and also interim relief under Sec. 23 of the Domestic Violence Act. 15. Sec. 22 - Compensation orders.- In addition to other reliefs as may be granted under this Act, the Magistrate may on an application being made by the aggrieved person, pass an order directing the respondent to pay compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by that respondent. 16. On perusal of order of learned Magistrate, it is evident that the petitioner-aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence and the documents Exs.P11 to P22 establishes the same and in view of Sec. 22 when the aggrieved person receives injuries including mental torture and emotional distress entitled for compensation. 17. 16. On perusal of order of learned Magistrate, it is evident that the petitioner-aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence and the documents Exs.P11 to P22 establishes the same and in view of Sec. 22 when the aggrieved person receives injuries including mental torture and emotional distress entitled for compensation. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed in paragraph 30 thus: "30. An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the Respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief Under Sec. 20, Child Custody Under Sec. 21, Compensation Under Sec. 22 and interim or ex parte order Under Sec. 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005." (emphasis supplied) 18. The documents Exs.P6 to P11 filed by the petitioner- aggrieved person manifestly elucidates that the petitioner- aggrieved person has suffered at the hands of the respondent- husband and the acts which committed by the petitioner- aggrieved person squarely falls under the domestic violence as defined under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act. The documents Exs.P12 to 22 relied on by the petitioner-aggrieved person categorically show that the respondent-husband has possessed agricultural land and having source of income. 19. Under the DVC Act, whenever an aggrieved person suffers from domestic violence, she is entitled for the reliefs under Ss. 18 to 22 of the DVC Act. The documents filed by the petitioner-aggrieved person categorically establish that the petitioner-aggrieved person has suffered domestic violence at the hands of the respondent-husband. 20. It is known law that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction in a case involved the concurring findings of two facts arrived by two Courts, the High Court cannot act as second appellate Court. In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Singh vs. Mukhesh Kumar, AIR 2019 SC 2446 : (2019) 4 SCC 197 . by referring the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Southern Sales and Services and others vs. Sauermilch Design and Handels Gmbh, (2018) 14 SCC 457. it is held that the revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction in the absence of jurisdictional error or unless findings are vitiated by perversity. 21. it is held that the revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction in the absence of jurisdictional error or unless findings are vitiated by perversity. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Duli Chand vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 . observed thus: "The High Court in revision was exercising supervisory jurisdiction of a restriction nature and, therefore, it would have been justified in refusing to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was correct. But even so, the High Court reviewed the evidence presumably for the purpose of satisfying itself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact reached by the two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact was not unreasonable or perverse." 22. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact in the Criminal Revision Case on finding of fact is very limited. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not commit any mistake in finding that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence against the petitioner-aggrieved person. The orders passed by both the Courts below suffer from no patent illegality or infirmity. Therefore, no interference is required by this Court while exercising powers under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this case, shall stand closed.