Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Month: July 2018
Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016
Another sh_t of judgment here. Read this entire Para 9 for the entertainment.
As seen the allegations of the petitioner, she was being demanded by the Respondents for want of additional dowry. But there is no proof for that. This Court feels that demanding additional dowry is not an offence. As far as the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, to deal the said offence, there is a separate legislation is enacted. But the quantum of mental agony which an innocent woman faced when she is not in a position to meet the financial requirements of the husband shall have to be understand in the prospective of legislation. The petitioner stated in her evidence that the Respondents harassed her for want of additional dowry. For asking the proof of Domestic Harassment against a woman, is not feasible in all the circumstances. It is depend upon the circumstances of a party. When the husband demands additional dowry, the demand must be took place inside the wall and no third party will have an opportunity to witness the said demand. Logically no husband demands the dowry or other articles in front of others. Obviously, any demand for want of dowry will be took place within four corners of the wall. For proving that fact, evidence may not require. The victim evidence itself is sufficient to prove her case. It is not a standard proof of believing of a particular fact. It is depend upon the circumstances. When the allegation of harassment was depicted by the petitioner herself, the demeanor of the witness manner which she speaks will play a vital role in deciding the case. Because, no third party will have an opportunity to see the harassment alleged to be happened against the petitioner. Therefore, this court feels that Pw1 evidence is alone sufficient to prove her version. If the respondents really did not commit any offence, they should come to the court and defend the case. But the defendants did not choose to put forth their defence in any manner. They fail to attend before this court in all hearing dates. In view of the no challenging the testimony of witness, this court holds the issue in favor of petitioner.
Ummadi Koteswari Vs Ummadi Koteswara rao on 31 August, 2016
After making huge claims for property from mother-in-law, the Knife did not come forward to discredit the version of RW1 as well she also did not come forward to prove her version as stated in her report. Hence, from the above observation it is apparent that petitioner has no interest to proceed with the case. Accordingly Petition is dismissed.
CrPC 157 – Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; Provided that-
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub- section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub- section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.
CrPC 156 – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
CrPC 155 – Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
(1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non- cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non- cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non- cognizable.
CrPC 154 – Information in cognizable cases
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
Pokuri Chennamma Vs Pokuri Sambaiah on 14 December, 2016
In this order, Hon’ble court has allowed protection order, Residence order and also directed to give 50 cents of agricultural land mentioned under Ex.P2 to the petitioners 2 and 3 and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- as agreed under Ex.P1 to the petitioners
Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January 2016
This is a good judgment affirming some key aspects in dealing with false DV cases.
From Para 15,
Pw1 did not provide any information regarding the houses possessed by the respondent. She simply pleaded that the respondent possessed landed properties and houses at various places. But to prove her contention no piece of document filed. In other side, the respondent contended that, R2 had registered sale deed in favor of the children of petitioner and Ac.3.00 cents of land was transferred to them. In view of the above circumstances this court feels that the petitioner did not file any believable document to show that the respondents possessed houses. In absence of any details this court can not pass any residential orders. Hence, this issue is answered in favor of respondents.
From Para 19,
As seen the evidence on record, PW-1 did not adduce any evidence to show that her parents had given dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, 8 tulas of gold and also household articles to the Respondents at the time of her marriage. Except PW-1 evidence, no other witness stated that the Respondents received the dowry amount. Further more, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Thammineni Bhaskar Rao V/s State of A.P reported in 2007(1) ALT (Crl.) 434 at Paragraph 31 observed that Rule 10 of Andhra Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules 1998 provides that any offence U/sec. 3 and 4 shall be filed before expiry of one year. In respect of Secs. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the same applies to this case since in this case also the same allegations leveled against the respondents.
In the present case, the marriage of P.W1 and the 1st respondent took place 8 years prior to date of filing of this petition. Hence, the allegations with regard to the dowry cannot be considered. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled for return of any such dowry amount or any other reliefs. Hence, this court feels that dowry amount can’t be ordered to return.
Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016
Some interesting points in this DVC order.
From Para 10,
There is no pleading and evidence of the petitioner before this Court that the respondent no.1 was consuming alcohol even prior to their marriage or that he had started to consume alcohol from the first day of their marriage or immediately thereafter. According to the evidence of the petitioner the respondent no.1 developed sudden addiction towards alcohol after the birth of their child. The said version of the petitioner is difficult to believe as a person who is a teetotaler for couple of years of his marriage, all of a sudden he develops chronic addiction towards alcohol and spendthrift without any reason.
From Para 11,
The petitioner has stated during the course of her cross-examination that only she and the respondents no.1 and 2 only were residing together, and the respondent no.3 to 6 were residing separately. When the respondents no.3 to 6 were not residing along with the petitioner in her matrimonial house then the manner and mode of the alleged subjection of the petitioner to domestic violence must be specifically pleaded and proved by the petitioner. There is no averment in the pleading and evidence of the petitioner the respondents no.3 to 6 were instigating the respondent no.1 for performing second marriage with another woman by coming to the matrimonial house of the petitioner or through other mediums like communication etc., in the presence and hearing of the petitioner, and also about the manner in which, and the modes through which, she was beaten by the respondents no.3 to 6. The petitioner also did not aver and depose the exact abusive words that was allegedly uttered by the respondents no.3 to 6 to her and also the nature of threat that was allegedly given to her by the respondents no.3 to 6 in absence of the respondent no.1.
From Para 13,
and that on one occasion without informing the respondent no.1 she got terminated her pregnancy when she conceived for the second time after the birth of their son, and that the petitioner has been voluntarily residing separately from the respondent no.1. The evidence of the respondent shows that after their marriage the petitioner was insisting him to set up separate family at the village of her parents at Konijedu village, that the petitioner did not like her mother-in-law shall reside along with them, and that after the birth of their son when the petitioner had conceived for the second child then with the assistance of her sister by name Haseena, who is residing at Nellore town, she got terminated the pregnancy without informing him, has not been challenged by the petitioner during the course of his cross-examination. Thus, the unrebutted evidence of the respondent discloses that the petitioner has rather victimized the respondent no.1.
From Para 14,
The cross-examination of PW2 indicates that she had not personally observed the parents of the petitioner giving Rs.1,30,000/- cash, 20 sovereigns of gold ornament, household articles as dowry to the respondents, as such, his evidence can be said to be hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. The cross-examination of PW3 discloses that Rs.1,30,000/- dowry, gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns, and household articles were presented in her absence, and that her evidence is also hearsay in nature, and unreliable in that regard. Per contra the cross-examination of PW3 discloses that gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns were presented to the petitioner in her marriage. Thus it can be said that the said gold ornaments were not presented to the respondent as dowry by the parents of the petitioner. The evidence of the parents of the petitioner is the best evidence to prove that the alleged presentation of dowry in the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent no.1 to the respondents. It is not the case of the petitioner that her parents are not more alive. The parents of the petitioner are not examined by the petitioner before this Court. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the petitioner for not examining her parents to establish the alleged presentation of dowry in her marriage by her parents to the respondents.
From Para 15,
The petitioner has claimed maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the respondent for herself and her son. The petitioner did not plead and testify before this Court about her inability to maintain herself and her son, and also about the sufficiency of the means of the respondent no.1 to provide maintenance to her and her son.
