Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
C. Misc. 29/2015
BETWEEN:
Madhumita … Petitioner
AND:
under the said Act, the Petitioner must satisfy and prove before
this Court that she is an “aggrieved person” U/s. 2(a) of the said
violence is given the right to move to Court for any of the reliefs
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would show that since
was only a criminal offence and civil law did not address the
domestic violence."
Platform for Action (1995), and after the United Nations Committee
relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together
such she is aggrieved person as per the provisions of the said Act.
Petitioner in this case has filed the petition seeking various reliefs.
and evidence does not come to her aid. As per the provisions
examined.
she is the duly married wife of the Respondent No.1 and the
demanded gold and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with one site
Orders. That the Hon’ble MMTC-1 looking into the facts stated by
the Petitioner finding no material for passing any order on the said
Hon’ble High Court directed this Court to consider the IA’s filed by
the Petitioner.
then approached the Hon’ble the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions
was pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 3000/- per
the said order dated 19-04-2017, passed by the Hon’ble CCH- 58,
without looking into the merits of the case, directed this Hon’ble
Court to conclude the case within 60 days as the Court had not
allegations made by the Petitioner and claimed that all the basic
PW2 – Mr. Kumar Murthy, who she claimed was the owner of the
that the Respondent No.1 was not aware about her previous
marriage with the said Manjunath. The PW1 has suppressed the
fact of her being married during the time of her marriage with the
as Exhibit R-33.
PW1 further deposed that “ನನನನ 1ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
admitted that the Petitioner has not resided with the Respondent
No.2 and 3 after the marriage with the Respondent No.1, and
only to harass them and further cause mental agony. Further the
filed by the Respondent No.1 and that she has not been subjected
ನನನನ. The Petitioner has further suppressed the fact that the
suppressed the fact that she is getting a salary of Rs. 15,149/- per
Thus it can be seen that the PW2 has filed a false affidavit and filed
the same on the advice of the counsel for the Petitioner. He further
the PW2 has sworn that he himself has admitted her to Vinaya
testify before this Hon’ble Court and admit all the facts and lead
Thus as the PW2 has admitted that it was the counsel who told
also failed to establish that the articles sought for by her are
other things.
and receive financial gains, the Petitioner has filed the above
undergo the entire ordeal of the court proceedings under the D.V.
Act.
AUTHORITIES:
In Anil Kumar Vs. Shashi Bala and others, the High Court of
hence the Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought under the
spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less
efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the
other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the
nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the
spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get
Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 has held that “the wife
question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it
`shared household'”
The Petitioner in the present case has stated that after the
has failed to prove that the Respondent No.2 and 3 resided with
her. Such being the case, the relief sought by the Petitioner
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
own cause title is 28 years and the Respondent No.1 is 23. She
was his lecturer having already finished her post graduation and
working while he was doing his B.Com. One does not have to
stress upon the influence, power and force that can be applied by a
married to her from her position which itself goes to prove the
She did not want the Respondent No.1 to have anything to do with
the Petitioner.
When such being the case, mere filing of petition with vague
Violence is different from normal wear and tear of the family life.
allegations made in the main petition, the Petitioner has failed not
Violence Act.
being heard if this court is prima facie satisfied that the Domestic
place on her. However, the Petitioner has failed to prove that she
precedent for grant of order under Sec.18, which has not been
Petitioner.
That all the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner are only of monetary
"3. Definition of domestic violence- For the purposes of this Act, any
act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall
constitute domestic violence in case it-
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well
being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends
to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal
and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with
a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person
related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b);
or
(d)otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to
the aggrieved person."
CONCLUSION:
The Petitioner has failed to prove that the Petitioner was subjected
Hence on this ground itself the petition filed by the Petitioner may
be dismissed.
many cases have held that the courts should be cautious while
granting reliefs under this statute and also grant only if a proper
case is made out. There is a duty cast on this court therefore to not
allow women, just because they are women to abuse the process of
particular.
Family Court, under Sec 498A of the IPC in addition to the above
reject the claims made by the Petitioner and pass such other
orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts
Bangalore