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.
Tag: PWDV Act Sec 19 – Residential Order (Rent) Granted
Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018
In this case, there was mischief played by husband together with his mother to usurp the portion of home which is in the name in wife.
From Para 9,
Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to reside her own house as she is the absolute rightful owner of the house sanctioned to her by the government under DK Patta for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the Sy.No.214 of Maddipadu village.
From Para 10,
In exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Central Government makes rules under Rules 6 :- Application to the Magistrate:- (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. Hence, from the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that it is not imperative for the court to file Form-II.
Further see section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:- An applicant/complainant can be filed before the Court either by an aggrieved person or by a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person. In this way section 12(1) does not contemplated that such application should invariably be accompanied by a report from a protection officer. On perusal of proviso appended to the provision, it appears that before passing any order on the application, it is obligatory on the Court to take into consideration any report received by it from the protection officer or the service provider. Neither it is obligatory to the Court to call such report nor it is necessary that before issuance of the notice to the respondents it was obligatory for the court to consider the report. However, if any report from the protection officer is available before the Court that shall taken into consideration, but the law does not impose pre-condition for the Court to call for a report from the protection officer.
Domestic Violence, is, perse, not a criminal offence, but is defined extensively and comprehensively to include various conditions.
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
Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015
Hon’ble court in this judgment ordered monthly maintenance, protection order, residence order, compensation and also litigation costs.
From Para 10,
The respondents dispute the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 and the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1. No doubt the petitioner did not produce any marriage certificate issued by the authorities of Poleramma temple, Nalgonda, and admittedly PW2 did not attend their marriage, however, the petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable even if a woman has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the man, provided she shows a domestic relationship existed between them, and that she had lived together along with the man in the shared house hold. Such evidence is given by PW1 before this Court, and that there is no evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of PW1 regarding domestic relationship with respondent no.1 in the shared household and her subjection to domestic violence by the respondents is also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, her paternal grandfather, and the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is also not destroyed in material particulars by the respondents during the course of their cross-examination except giving suggestions that were denied by them. When the respondents denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against them for the proof of domestic violence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 prove that the petitioner was neglected by the respondents and subjected to domestic violence for dowry. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
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
Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015
In this case, the Husband has not filed a Counter in response to DV Case on him by his Knife but did a namesake cross-examination. Hon’ble Court has granted Maintenance, Residential and Compensation reliefs as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.
Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017
In this case, Domestic Violence on Knife by husband is proved hence all reliefs requested are granted by Hon’ble Court.
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.
