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.
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
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.
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.
The Knife eyed share in houses and in lands of In Laws via this DV Case. Since maintenance was already granted in CrPC 125 case, no maintenance was granted in DVC. As there are no specific allegations of DV on respondent and also incidentally they got acquittal from the 498A case, no protection order was also issued.
Classic case of Knife falsifying in court to grab monies from her mother-in-law. Hon’ble court held that no Shared household proved so no DV and hence dismissed the false petition.
From Para 11,
Now the point that is to be determined, whether the petitioner being daughter-in-law of respondent suffered violence as mentioned under the act by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner though stated rivalry stating that the respondent and her daughter harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry, coming to her chief examination itself it is admitted by her that on 30.03.2010 her husband died due to ill-health, after the death of her husband when she went to her in-law’s house along with her children, the respondent did not allow her into the house, which means, it is clear that she has been residing separately along with her husband away from the house of respondent. Moreover coming to the cross-examination of P.w.2, it is admitted by him that his daughter and son-in-law used to reside separately in a separate house on rent basis and the intimation about the death of his son-in-law was informed to his mother by the owner of the house in which his daughter and her husband resided. So, from the above admissions itself it is clear that the petitioner and her husband resided separately from the respondent. So, the concept of shared house hold does not arise as it is admitted by petitioner that the petitioner resided separately from the respondent. Moreover on this aspect this Court inclined to rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Another V. Smt. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 S.C. 1118 and 1119), in Neetu Mittal V. Kanta Mittal and Others (AIR 2009 DELHI 72 and 72) and in Umesh Sharma V. State (AIR 2010 (NOC) 515 (DEL.).
Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.
The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.
Interesting points in this case of DV.
PW1 has deposed in her chief examination that at the time of her marriage her parents have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns to the respondent no.1. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that the said cash and gold ornaments were handed over to the respondents at their(petitioner) house about 10 days prior to her marriage. PW2 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that the parents of PW1 have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns to RW1 and his parents at the time performing marriage of PW1 and RW1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 itself and also in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the time and occasion of presentation of alleged dowry to RW1 and his parents by her parents.
There is no evidence of PW1 before this Court that any cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the respondents for purchasing cloths.
PW1 has also stated during the course of her cross-examination that there are bills to show that the gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns that were presented to the respondents were purchased by her parents. The alleged bills are not produced before this Court to show that that the alleged gold ornaments were purchased by the parents of PW1 immediately, prior to or at the time of marriage of PW1 with RW1. The parents of PW1 are not even examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the alleged presentation of dowry of cash and gold ornaments to RW1 and
his parents. The evidence of PW2 also do not reveal that the alleged dowry was presented by the parents of PW1 to RW1 and his parents in his presence. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her contention that the alleged dowry was presented by her parents to RW1 and his parents in her marriage.
In this case, Knife obtained reliefs of Protection order, Residence order and return of cash and gold ornaments from the mother-in-law.
From Para 13,
However, in the instant case it has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of the respondent that the said two portioned house was constructed with the earnings of the husband of the respondent. PW2 is the only son of her parents. When the said two portioned house has been constructed out of the earnings of the husband of the respondent and father of PW2 then certainly the said house cannot be said to a self acquired property of the respondent, and that the said house acquires the status of the joint family property in which PW2 is a member. The said admission by the respondent regarding the nature of the said house is the best evidence to conclude that the said house is a joint family property and it a shared house holds. The readiness expressed by RW1 during the course of her cross-examination to give one of the portions of the house to PW1 and PW2 for their residence implies that the respondent is also acknowledgment the right of residence of PW1 in the said house.
This is another ex parte order in the DV Case. Since there is no challenge to the averments of the Knife in the petition, Judge liberally allows reliefs.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1450 access attempts in the last 7 days.
