In this judgment, the false DV Case is dismissed after trial.
- 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.
Yedluri Aparna Vs Gunde Prasanna Babu on 27 September, 2016