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,
Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016
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.