In this DV case at Ongole Magistrate Court, Justice Mrs. M Anuradha has held that
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
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.
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.
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,
Velaga Lakshmi Rajeswari Vs V.Siva Sambasiva Rao on 27 April, 2018
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.