In this interesting case of Domestic Violence by a son on his mother, the Hon’ble court has allowed maintenance to the mother.
Category: Prakasam DV Cases
Yedluri Aparna Vs Gunde Prasanna Babu on 27 September, 2016
In this judgment, the false DV Case is dismissed after trial.
Highlights
- The petitioner suppressed the filing of Criminal case against the Respondents.
- Evidence of PW.1 that immediately after the marriage they put up family at Chirala and led happy marital life for one month is false.
- Evidence of PW.1 that the disputes arose between herself and the 1st Respondent in the 3rd month after the marriage is not believable.
- PW.2 has improvised the evidence of PW.1 and stated that the elders of the Respondent informed to the father of the petitioner to take back the petitioner as 1st Respondent necked out of the house and she waited the out side of the house, which is not stated by PW.1 in her evidence or in her petition.
- PW.2 did not state what PW.1 has stated in her evidence. On the other hand, PW.2 stated what PW.1 has not stated in her evidence, which is a serious allegation made against the 1st Respondent.
- In his cross-examination PW.2 stated that he does not know the family affairs of the Respondent after the marriage. This itself shows that PW.2 is speaking false hood.
- PW.2 further stated in his cross-examination that he does not know at the time of marriage whether the petitioner has been continuing her studies or not and he does not know further studies of the petitioner after the marriage
- The evidence of PW.3 that he visited the house of the 1st Respondent in the month of September, 2015 along with Lama Suresh and found PW.1 out side the house, as she was necked out during midnight by the 1st Respondent is not at all believable.
- If really, the petitioner was necked out during midnight, the petitioner is not an illiterate woman, she is educated and she might have went to the Police Station and ought to have lodged a report at least with the help of PW.3. But PW.1 did not do so.
- If really any domestic violence has occurred as stated by the petitioner and if really the 1st Respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and used to beat her in a drunken state, then how can the 1st Respondent visit his in-laws house at B. Nidamanuru Village.
- This lends support to the contention of the 1st Respondent that the 1st Respondent might have married the petitioner withoutreceiving any dowry, since the 1st Respondent is an employee. Added to that PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that her father is an agriculturist and he was not having any agricultural land. When the father of the petitioner herself is not owning any land and he is an agriculturist then how can he give a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- besides Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses and also 6 sovereigns of gold to the 1st Respondent at the time of marriage.
Final nail in the coffin of the knife
From Para 22,
However, PW.1 categorically stated in her evidence that she is ready and willing to join the 1st Respondent, if he changes his attitude. If really PW.1 was subjected to domestic violence, certainly PW.1 will not express her willingness to join with to Respondent No.1. PW.1 did not state that she will join 1st Respondent, if he withdraw his demand of additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. This itself shows that there is no demand of additional dowry by 1st Respondent.
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
Nagisetti Madhavi Vs Nagisetti Anil Kumar on 28 December, 2017
This is a DV case wherein the husband never joined the case proceedings and hence was set as ex parte. And then the requested reliefs are granted to knife.
Kamani Chandana Sai Vs Kamani Chennapa Naidu on 5 January, 2018
A compromised/settled case outside court resulted in the DV case being dismissed as withdrawn.
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
Velaga Lakshmi Rajeswari Vs V.Siva Sambasiva Rao on 27 April, 2018
In this DV case at Ongole Magistrate Court, Justice Mrs. M Anuradha has held that
Para 7,
The learned defence counsel further submits that PW1 filed M.C. No.2/2015 claiming maintenance and it was dismissed as not pressed by the aggrieved person and even R1 has been sending Rs.8,600/- per month to PW1 and thereby the complaint is devoid of merits
Para 10,
PW1 claims that her parents gave Rs.1,50,000/- cash, Ac,0-02 ½ Cents of site at Ongole and gold articles to R1 towards dowry during her marriage. However, except her self-serving statement, PW1 not produced either oral or documentary evidence to prove the alleged payments to R1.
Para 12,
In the present case on hand, except the self-serving statement of PW1 nothing discloses from the case facts that any such list of the alleged presented things were prepared.
A key point to note here:
The evidence of PW1 discloses that due to unbearable torture of R1 to R3, PW1 was forced to stay at her parents house and that she also gave report against the respondents at Ongole Taluq Police station for the offences U/Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
If such declaration was not done in a case, that would amount to willful concealment of material information resulting in Perjury.
Para 15,
In the absence of the proof of stay of R4 with RW1 and PW1 and R4 being a house wife, PW1 cannot claim any relief against R4.
Notwithstanding the Para 16, in Para 17,
On the other hand, except the bald statement of RW1 that PW1 refused to join him, there is no supportive oral or documentary evidence.
You have to have an evidence that conclusively proves that the Knife has deserted the husband without any cause and husband made efforts to bring her back to matrimonial home.
In Para 22,
As the aggrieved person failed to prove to her stay with R4 under one roof, the aggrieved person can not claim any relief against R4 (Sister of Husband).
Under Para 23,
The aggrieved person also claims rental accommodation. Considering the facts and circumstances and the status of the parties, the petition is allowed partly, directing R1 to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner towards her rental accommodation U/Sec.19 of the Act.
In Para 24,
By considering the means of R1 and necessities of the aggrieved person and her minor child and also considering the quantum of maintenance already receiving by PW1 at Rs.8,600/- per month, it is just and necessary to grant an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the aggrieved person towards maintenance U/Sec.20 of the Act.
And in Para 25,
Further, for the mental agony of depriving her access to the conjugal life, the aggrieved person is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.50,000/- from R1.
Konda Ruthu Vs Konda Narasimha Rao on 19 March 2018
In this DVC at Ongole Magistrate Court, Hon’ble judge has held that since husband (accused) had expired during the case proceedings, no maintenance was granted even though the R1 having properties the same was proved by the petitioner.
Coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is shelter to prove this aspect the petitioner failed to produce the documents to show that the respondent is having a properties in his name. So that the relief sought by the petitioner is dismissed.
