Magistrate Court at Ongole, Prakasam dismissed the DV Case based on Markapuram Sivarao case here, as the 498A IPC case was dismissed earlier which had same/similar allegations.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Result of not following the legal procedure dutifully can be seen in this DVC.
Another one of those ex parte DVC dole outs to Knife.
This DVC is dismissed due to this.
Coming to the aspect of dowry harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent, as the very performance of marriage between P.w.1 and respondent is not proved by P.w.1 and further even P.w.1 failed to prove that both of them lived together under one roof, I am of the opinion that there is no need to discuss anything more with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent.
Read Para 10 to know the arbitrary way Protection order is granted solely by the deposition of Knife, wherein husband is long dead to challenge it.
Now coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is pertaining to maintenance and residential
orders, the allegation against the respondent as per P.W1 is that the respondent started harassing P.W1. On this aspect P.w1 elaborately deposed that about the harassment of R1 to R3 in her evidence. At one instance she and her child also confined in a room and not provided with food. After seven or eight days her parents came and saved their life. Subsequently she was treated by the parents now she is depending upon her parents mercy. Further coming to the aspect of Protection orders in view of above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for Protection order.
One nice point raised by the Hon’ble judge in this order
Further it is admitted by P.w.1 and P.w.3 that R.2 who is a retired court employee has deposited Rs.2,25,000/- jointly in the name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 and also Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of younger brother of R.1, if that is so, where is the need for R.2 to harass P.w.1 to bring additional dowry along with R.1, R.3 to R.5, if really R.1 to R.5 harassed P.w.1 demanding P.w.1 to bring additional dowry, there is no need and necessity for R.2 to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- in the joint name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 from out of his retired benefits.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Maintenance is allowed in this judgment.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This DVC is dismissed as there is earlier IPC 498A which was dismissed based on Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
The index page is here.
Nothing to write about. Maintenance granted in this DVC.
9 respondents in this DVC.
Bad Behavior has blocked 298 access attempts in the last 7 days.
