Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 990 (TS)

Kamaljit Kaur v. Sonal Choudhary Sonal Dhanturi

2025-09-08

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed to set aside the judgment dated 27.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2024 by the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Hyderabad (for short “appellate Court”), confirming the order dated 25.01.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 in DVC No.94 of 2021 by the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the DVC before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The facts of the petitioner in DVC are that the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 requesting the Court to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to return her Stridhan or any other property or valuable securities, documents, certificates including other belongings pertaining to her and her husband being retained by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the matrimonial house and that they did not allow her to collect the same and that she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 22.01.2021. It is the further case of the petitioner that she went again on 12.02.2021 to her matrimonial home to collect the important belongings but respondent No.1 prevented her and her husband from entering inside and abused using foul language and also attempted to assault her and her husband. Subsequently, respondent No.1 has lodged a false police complaint on 12.02.2021 as a counter blast. It is her case that she got married to one Rohit Saini Choudhary on 26.02.2020 and that it was a love marriage involving inter cultural and inter-caste marriage and after the ceremonies, she joined the company of her husband at her in-laws place. She further submitted that respondent No.1 is her step mother-in-law and respondent No.2 is the father-in-law, respondent No.3 is the sister-in-law and that her natural mother-in- law committed suicide in 1999. She further submitted that respondent No.1 is her step mother-in-law and respondent No.2 is the father-in-law, respondent No.3 is the sister-in-law and that her natural mother-in- law committed suicide in 1999. It is submitted that at the time of marriage her father made it clear to her in-laws that they do not believe in the concept of dowry but heeding to their request, he has spent huge amount for the celebration of marriage and that he has given a diamond bracelet worth of Rs.3 Lakhs to Disha Saini and diamond ring to respondent No.3 and that respondent No.1 entertained evil intention and did not like her to get married with Rohit Saini Choudhary and further made a demand of Rs.50 Lakhs as dowry and thus, his father has paid them Rs.50 Lakhs from the account of Swagath Marriage & Function Hall, a partnership firm run by his father along with others. On learning this, her husband felt very angry with the respondents 1 and 2 for their unjustified demand. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 has reluctantly transferred an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs to the account of Swagath marriage and Function hall through NEFT of Anil Kumar Chowdhary. That her father also gave gold and diamond jewellery worth of Rs.60 Lakhs and also presented BMW car to the bridegroom as per the demands of respondent No.1 and 2. She further submitted that her father and relatives also have presented Rado watch worth Rs.85,000/-, Maserati Watch worth Rs.68,000/-, silver plates for pooja worth Rs.25,000/- to her, then her father and relatives have further presented the following gold and other articles to Rohit Saini Choudhary: a. Watch with brand bearing Breitling worth of Rs.5.50 lakhs. b. Two tulas of Gold chain c. Rado Watch worth of Rs.1.00 Lakh d. Maserati Watch worth of Rs.68,000/- e. Bracelet weighing about 2.5 tulas 4. That all the above said items are in the custody of respondents 1 and 2. b. Two tulas of Gold chain c. Rado Watch worth of Rs.1.00 Lakh d. Maserati Watch worth of Rs.68,000/- e. Bracelet weighing about 2.5 tulas 4. That all the above said items are in the custody of respondents 1 and 2. She further submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have presented a diamond set and the maternal grandmother of Rohit Saini Choudhary, has presented a gold set to her at the time of marriage and that maternal uncle of Rohit Saini Choudhary gave two gold sets and his other relatives also presented Rs.3 Lakhs as shagun to her and that the entire gold and diamond jewellery including the cash presented to her during the marriage are also in the custody of respondent No.1 in the matrimonial home, except the diamond set given by respondents 1 and 2. Thus, she has made a list of wedding gifts and documents lying with the petitioners/accused. Therefore, she requested the Court to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to return all the above said items. 5. The trial Court has allowed the petition in part and passed the following order on 25.01.2023: “In the result, the respondent is directed to return all her documents which are very essential to lead their lives, and those documents shown as documents in 11 th paragraph “a to h” (a). Passport of the petitioner’s husband (b). Aadhar card of the petitioner’s husband (c). Medical files/papers of the petitioner (d). 10 th final certificates of the petitioner’s husband (e). 12 th final certificates of the petitioner’s husband (f). Bachelor’s degree certificate of Aurora College, Hyderabad of the petitioner’s husband (g). Master’s degree certificate of University of Manchester (h). Bank cheque books issued by Vijaya Bank (BOB), ICICI Bank and Axis Bank and articles which were presented to the petitioners and her husband at the time of their marriage, shown as wedding gifts and any valuable articles connected with their title those would be decided with main DVC”. 6. Aggrieved by the said orders, an appeal was preferred before the learned Family Court vide Crl.Appeal No.30 of 2024. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard the submissions of Sri KHaja Aijazuddihn, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 8. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard the submissions of Sri KHaja Aijazuddihn, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dharmesh D.K.Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 8. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the de facto complainant is bent upon harassing these petitioners and that prior to filing this DVC also she has filed a criminal case with all false allegations and that she claimed for return of articles as Stridhan but there is no discussion as to which articles come under Stridhan and were given to her as Stridhan is not clearly mentioned by the petitioner and even the trial Court has failed to appreciate the said fact, the appellate Court also has not gone into the said details. The appellate Court has simply dismissed the appeal without appreciating the evidence let in before the trial Court and the trial Court has not given any reason for allowing the petition. He further argued that the articles listed in the petition are not at all in the possession of the petitioners and thus, question of giving them to the complainant does not arise. He therefore, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, has submitted that the revision is not at all maintainable, that the orders passed in I.A.No.213 of 2021 are interlocutory order, hence, the revision is not permissible. He further argued that the DVC was also allowed by the trial Court vide orders dated 12.01.2024 and that the petitioner was granted the relief of returning her certificates and documents as contemplated in orders dated 25.01.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 and thus, the said orders were passed after a full-fledged trial, after an elaborate enquiry. He further submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner counsel are no more tenable in the eye of law, since already it is held by the trial Court after evaluating the evidence that the documents as well as the articles are very much in the possession of the petitioner and that they are liable to return the same and now they cannot put up any false story against them by not giving the articles. That nothing is pointed out by the counsel for the revision petitioner as to whether any appeal is preferred as against the orders in DVC No.94 of 2021. He therefore, prayed to confirm the orders passed by the Courts below and prayed to dismiss the revision. 10. Perused the record. 11. The trial Court has directed the respondents to return the documents vide Crl.M.P No.213 of 2021 but whereas respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to comply with the orders. Thus, owing to the non- compliance of the said orders, the petitioner has again prayed the Court to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to return the documents i.e. a) Passport of the petitioner’s husband, b) Aadhar Card of the petitioner’s husband, c) Medical files/papers of the petitioner, d) 10 th final certificates of the petitioner’s husband, e) 12 th final certificates of the petitioner’s husband, f) Bachelor’s degree certificate of Aurora College, Hyderabad of the petitioner’s husband, g) Master’s degree certificate of University of Manchester, h) Bank cheque books issued by erstwhile Vijaya Bank, ICICI Bank and Axis Bank. Vide her Crl.M.P.No.407 of 2023, the said petition was allowed after a counter was filed by the respondents directing the petitioners to return all those documents. However, the petitioners failed to comply the same. 12. Thus, the record discloses that in pursuance of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021, the respondents failed to comply the same and subsequently, another Crl.M.P. was also filed by the petitioner vide Crl.M.P.No.407 of 2023, which was also ordered in favour of the de facto complainant. Therefore, time and again the Courts are directing the revision petitioners to return the articles pertaining to the de facto complainant but they are not obliging the said orders. 13. A perusal of the record reveals that DVC No.94 of 2021 was filed by the de facto complainant before III Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Mobile Court), Hyderabad, pending which a Crl.M.P.No.213 of 2021 was filed seeking the return of articles listed therein. The same was allowed by observing that the documents which are required for the petitioner and her husband to lead their lives have to be returned. The said orders were upheld by the appellate Court. 14. Section 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “19. The same was allowed by observing that the documents which are required for the petitioner and her husband to lead their lives have to be returned. The said orders were upheld by the appellate Court. 14. Section 19 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference: “19. Residence orders.—(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order— (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require: Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman. (2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence. (4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly. (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order. (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer in charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order. (6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order. (8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to.” 15. A bare reading of the said provision would envisage that the articles which come under her Stridhan of the victim or any other valuable property or valuable security to which she is entitled to be considered by the Court dealing with the application. Thus, the trial Court has rightly granted the relief of return of documents which include the certificates of both the de facto complainant and her husband and also the valuable items gifted to her at the time of marriage. The said documents are bound to be returned to the petitioners. Hence, there is nothing to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court, therefore, the same are upheld. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate court, they are found to be in accordance with law and hence, there are no merits in the revision. 16. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.