IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT, AT MAYOHALL, BANGALORE C. Misc. 29/2015 BETWEEN: Madhumita
…
Petitioner
…
Respondents
AND: Swaroop and others
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
In addition to the oral arguments addressed, the Respondents humbly submit as follows:-
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - MEANING AND OBJECT: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is beneficiary legislation and is intended to protect the interest of a woman subjected to domestic violence. In order to claim any relief 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 Act and she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act. The basic objective in enacting the statute is to secure various rights to a woman living in matrimony or in a relationship akin to matrimony, or any domestic relationship. The woman exposed to such domestic violence is given the right to move to Court for any of the reliefs outlined in Section in Section 12 through either a comprehensive proceeding, claiming maintenance, right to residence, compensation etc.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting Prevention of Women from Domestic from Domestic Violence Act, Act, 2005 would show that since subjecting of a woman to cruelty by her husband or his relative was only a criminal offence and civil law did not address the phenomenon of domestic violence in its entirety, the Parliament proposed
to
enact
a
law
keeping
in
view
the
rights
guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India so as to provide for a remedy under the civil law, in order to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence. Thus, the Act provides civil remedies to the victims so as to give them relief against domestic violence."
From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Domestic Violence Act, it will be evident that domestic violence is a human right issue and is a serious deterrent to development. After the Vienna Accord, 1994, followed by Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995), and after the United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Central Government, having noticed that domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, except offence u/Sec. 498A of the I.P.C I.P.C.. no civil law exists, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India to provide for remedy under the civil law, which is intended to protect the women from being victims of
domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society. It covers those women who are or have been in relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together and shared a household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. It provides for right of a women to reside in her matrimonial house or shared household, irrespective of right or title in such home or household; it empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in favour of the aggrieved a ggrieved persons to prevent the respondent from aiding or committing an act of domestic violence or any other specified act, entering a workplace or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the parties and from causing violence to the aggrieved person.
In order to be entitled for the relief under the provision of PWDV Act, it Act, it is incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to prove that she is in domestic relationship with the Respondents and that they household and during said have resided together in the shared household residence the Petitioner was subjected to Domestic Violence as such she is aggrieved person as per the provisions of the said Act. Though the proceedings are governed by Cr.P.C, yet Cr.P.C, yet the burden is on the Petitioner to prove her case to the preponderance of the probability.
The
burden
of
proving
her
contention
and
to
substantiate her case are to be fully discharged by her. The Petitioner in this case has filed the petition seeking various reliefs. It is to be noted that the provisions of the PWDV the PWDV Act confer right
on the Petitioner to claim relief for her sufferings arising out of Domestic Violence and proof of such Domestic Violence is a condition precedent for claiming relief. However to prove her case of Domestic Violence the Petitioner is expected to make out specific case against the Respondents and vague or ambiguous pleadings and evidence does not come to her aid. As per the provisions of PWDV of PWDV Act while deciding the aspect of Domestic Violence, overall facts and circumstances of a given case are to be examined.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
The Petitioner has filed the Petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stating that she is the duly married wife of the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2 is the father-in-law of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner who have demanded gold and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with one site in Banaswadi and therefore she has claimed the following reliefs from/against the Respondents: a. Committing Petitioner;
any
act
of
Domestic
Violence
against
the
b. Directing the Respondents not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner in the shared household shown in the cause title by allowing her to stay in the same or Directing the 1 st Respondent to provide the same level of alternative accommodation for the Petitioner; c. Directing the 1 st Respondent not to alienate the 250 grams of gold ornaments of the Petitioner and return the same along
with household articles given by the Petitioner at time of marriage to the Respondent; d. Directing the 1 st Respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-; e. Directing the Respondents to pay Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation and damages for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of Domestic Violence by the Respondent.
Along with the main Application, the Petitioner had filed an Interim Application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act seeking the relief directing the Respondent No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the Petitioner had also filed an Application under Section 19 of the D.V. Act seeking Residence Orders. That Orders. That the Hon’ble MMTC-1 MMTC-1 looking into the facts stated by the Petitioner finding no material for passing any order on the said applications, issued notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner thereafter, filed a Criminal Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No. 148/2016 which was allowed and which has been marked as Exhibit P.27.
In this petition, the
Hon’ble High Court directed this Court to consider the IA’s filed by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, this Hon’ble Court considered the applications and passed a considered and reasoned order and dismissed both both the applications filed by the Petitioner on 19-03-2016. The Petitioner then approached the Hon’ble the Hon’ble Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru (CCH-58) in Criminal Appeal No. 25020/2016 praying to set aside the order dated 19-03-2016 passed by the
Hon’ble I MMTC. That the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Court, without enquiry was pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 3000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 3000/- per month towards residence from the date of filing the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 19-04-2017, 19-04-2017, passed by the Hon’ble CCHCCH- 58, Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 25020/2016, the Respondent No.1 having no other alternative approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. R.P 637/2017 in which the Hon’ble High Court 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 followed guidelines laid down in Krishnamurthy Nookola’s case. The order was also kept in abeyance.
The Respondents entered appearance in the above case and filed their objections to the above petition inter-alia refuting all the allegations made by the Petitioner and stated that the above petition has been filed by the Petitioner to put undue pressure on them to accede to her demands as well as to cause harassment to the
Respondents.
The
Respondents
specifically
denied
the
allegations made by the Petitioner and claimed that all the basic necessities of life were provided to the Petitioner when she remained with the Respondent No.1. The Respondents have hence prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner as there is no merit in the petition.
EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER
The Petitioner got herself examined as PW1 and got exhibited 33 documents. The Petitioner also got examined another witness as PW2 – PW2 – Mr. Mr. Kumar Murthy, who she claimed was the owner of the house where the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 stayed on rent after their marriage.
On cross-examination the following points were elicited from the witness:
PW1 PW1
deposed
that
“1
ನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ”.
1
ನನನ
ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನ
1ನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ 22-05-2012 ನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನ
9
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ.
The
Respondent No.1 states that he got married to the Petitioner on 2205-2013. The Petitioner in her cross-examination accepted the fact 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 Respondent No.1. On 08-01-2014 the marriage between the Petitioner and the said Manjunath was dissolved which is marked as Exhibit R-33.
PW1 PW1 further deposed that
“ನನನನ
1ನನ
ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನ :
13
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನ.
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನ
13
ನನನನನ
1ನನ
ನನನನ
1ನನ
ನನನನನ
14-08-14
ನನನನನ
ನನನನನ
1ನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ 05-09-
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ
ನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನ:
06-09-
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ
18-08-12
ನನನನ
ನನನನನ.
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
14-08-14
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನ”. The
PW1 herself has
admitted that the Petitioner has not resided with the Respondent No.2 and 3 after the marriage with the Respondent No.1, and hence made false allegations against the Respondent No.2 and 3 only to harass them and further cause mental agony. Further the petition has been filed as a counter blast to the divorce petition filed by the Respondent No.1 and that she has not been subjected to any sort of domestic violence at any point in time. Infact the Petitioner has harassed the Respondents and hence is not eligible to claim any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
PW1 further deposed that “ನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನ 17-08-2011 ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನ.15,146/-
ನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನ.
ನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ . ನನನನ ನನನನ SBI ನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ.
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
The Petitioner has further suppressed the fact that the
salary of the Petitioner is Rs.15,149/-. The Petitioner is earning a salary of Rs.15,149/- per month. The Petitioner has not produced any account statements to show her financial capacity and has suppressed the fact that she is getting a salary of Rs. 15,149/- per month. The Petitioner has produced her account statements only from 17-08-2011 and not her previous statements in order to hide the same and claim monetary reliefs from the Respondents.
The PW2 deposed
–
who claimed to be the OWNER OF THE HOUSE
that
“ನನನನ
ನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ . ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ.
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 deposed that ನನನನನನ
“ನನನನ
2014
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ.
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ . But
ನನನನನನನನ
in his affidavit dated 03-01-2018
the PW2 has sworn that he himself has admitted her to Vinaya Nursing
Home,
“ನನನನನನನನ
Bengaluru.
ನನನನನ
ನನನನ
Further
the
PW2
ನನನನನನನನನನ
deposed
ನನನನ
that
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನ
ನನ
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ”.
ನನನನ
ನನನನನನನನನ
ನನನನನನ ನನನನ
ನನನನನ ನನನನನನ
The Petitioner has forced the PW2 to
testify before this Hon’ble Court and admit admit all the facts and lead evidence on her behalf. Thus as the PW2 has admitted admitted that it was the counsel who told him about the contents of the affidavit, it is not on his instructions that the affidavit was prepared. Hence he is not a trustworthy witness and his evidence has to be disregarded in toto.
ATTITUDE OF THE PETITIONER: a. The Petitioner in the above petition states that “the “the Petitioner’s family forcibly married her to Manjunatha but but the marriage was not consummated and the Petitioner and the said Manjunatha were not stayed as husband and wife ” wife ” whereas in her petition in M.C. No. 2584/2013, filed under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, the Petitioner states in para 4 of the petition that “after “after the marriage the married couple have started their wedded life in Bangalore at the bridegroom’s house and only for 1 or 2 months the couple are
lived happily which is a contradictory statement made statement made by ” ”
the Petitioner and is a clear misrepresentation of facts. facts. The
Petitioner
has
not
come
with
clean
hands
and
fraudulently misrepresented this Hon’ble Court. Court.
b. The Petitioner made bald claims without adducing any evidence or proof. No specific and ascertainable allegations are made by the Petitioner against the Respondent. She has also failed to establish that the articles sought for by her are in the custody of the Respondents. She has not produced any document or witness or adduced any evidence that she was capable of earning the amount for purchase of the gold she claims to have left at the Respondent's house. She had not produced any receipt for having purchased the gold ornaments or other articles. The Petitioner has failed miserably to prove the same and the burden of proof of squarely on the Petitioner to prove the same. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for against the Respondents for returning of jewels, house hold articles and other things.
c. The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Hon’ble Court with unclean hands and thus she is not entitled to any reliefs under the PWDVA, 2005. That the Petitioner has suppressed the fact that the Ist Hon’ble Family Judge, Judge, Bengaluru in M.C.
No.
2722/14
has
passed
an
order
of
interim
maintenance. That itself is a suppression of material facts which disentitles the Petitioner to any reliefs. There is a duty
cast upon the Petitioner to inform the court about all litigation pending between the parties as also any order passed by any court which will have a bearing on the reliefs sought in this court. The Petitioner has tried to mislead the court by suppressing material facts.
d. The Petitioner has made vague and bald allegations against the Respondent No.3 in her petition alleging that “on 11-0611-062014 the 3rd Respondent abused the Petitioner as go and die why you are behind my son ”. The Petitioner has further stated that “the “the Respondents abused and thrown the Petitioner out from the house by demanding money, site etc ” etc ” The Petitioner has not been able to produce a single document or witness or bring on record any facts or circumstance which may suggest that the Respondent No.3 abused
the
Petitioner
or
that
the
Respondents
have
demanded dowry and thrown the Petitioner out of the house. Infact, the Petitioner herself deserted the Respondent and left the matrimonial house at her own will.
e. That on 02-08-2017, 02-08-2017, the Hon’ble 1st Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru in M.C. No. 2722/2014 has passed an order of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Petitioner has suppressed this fact and to mislead this Hon’ble Court and get additional monetary reliefs. Further it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has filed a case before the Hon’ble Principal Judge, Family Court in Crl. Misc. 371/2016 to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay a monthly
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus the intention of the Petitioner is only to get monetary reliefs from the Respondent No.1. As the Family Court has already passed an order of maintenance, there is no need for this Court to delve further into the issue. The Petitioner is not eligible to claim any monetary relief under the Protection. Of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the Respondents have not subjected her to any kind of violence.
f. The Petitioner is well qualified, in fact more qualified than the Respondent and only in order to harass the Respondents and receive financial gains, the Petitioner has filed the above case making false allegations. The Respondent No.1 further submits that the Petitioner is a MBA graduate and is presently working as a lecturer and just to spite the Respondent No.1 and knowing fully well that the Respondent No.1 does not have the means to pander to her huge demands, has filed this petition just to harass him.
g. Even if the Petitioner is not employed as claimed by her, she has not produced even a scrap of paper to show that she is applying for jobs anywhere.
h. It is impossible to believe that the Petitioner is suffering from depression when there is no certificate or diagnosis from a qualified physician to flag effect. The medicines prescribed like sibelium is prescribed for long term cure of migraine headache, which is common.
It is pertinent to mention that all the allegations made by the Petitioner are vague, general and omnibus in nature. They fail to make out any sort of violence, harassment or mental torture against the Petitioner. There are absolutely no allegations of, either the domestic violence or harassment or cruelty. Therefore, it is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court to call upon the Respondents and specifically for the Respondent No.2 and 3 to undergo the entire ordeal of the court proceedings under the D.V. the D.V. Act.
AUTHORITIES:
In Anil Kumar Vs. Shashi Bala Bala and others, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 2nd May, 2017 in CrMMO No.30 of 2011 observed that “Since “Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought not have granted any amount on account of maintenance.” That in the present case also, no evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate violence, if any, by the Respondents and hence the Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 24th March, 2000 has observed that :
“Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting
himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A 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 increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose ” .
In the present case, the Petitioner is a well qualified woman possessing MBA qualification. Even if we accept that she was employed till 17-08-2011 she was working as a lecturer in Bangalore City College which implies that she was possessing sufficient experience. The Petitioner also failed to prove that in spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get service and hence she is unable to support herself.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on Batra on 15 December, 2006 has held that “the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a `shared household' ” ”
The Petitioner in the present case has stated that after the marriage the Petitioner and Respondent were residing in the rental house in Lingarajapuram which is marked as Exhibit P-12. The rental agreement was entered into by the Petitioner which again goes to prove that the Petitioner is financially sound. Further she has failed to prove that the Respondent No.2 and 3 resided with her. Such being the case, the relief sought by the Petitioner directing the Respondents not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner in the shared household has to be rejected.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Petitioner has in fact subjected the Respondents to immense harassment and acute domestic violence. The Petitioner as per her 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 lecturer or a student. The Petitioner forced the Respondent to get married to her from her position which itself goes to prove the ulterior motive with which she has embarked on this relationship. She did not want the Respondent No.1 to have anything to do with the Petitioner. That the burden of proof would be on the Petitioner to prove her case of Domestic Violence against the Respondents. On perusal of the petition or the deposition of the Petitioner, it is clear that no specific and ascertainable allegations are made by the Petitioner against
the
Respondents.
As
mentioned
above
though
the
petitioner has to prove her case to the preponderance of the probability yet the initial burden of proving that the Respondents have inflicted Domestic Violence on her lies on the Petitioner. When such being the case, mere filing of petition with vague allegations which are replicated in the evidence in chief through affidavit does not stands the test of proving Domestic Violence against the Respondents. It is to be noted that the Act of Domestic Violence is different from normal wear and tear of the family life. On analysis of the entire deposition of the petitioner as well as the allegations made in the main petition, the Petitioner has failed not only to plead specifically the aspect of Domestic Violence but also failed in proving the same.
Mere proving Domestic Relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 would not suffice to grant relief's under the provision of the Domestic the Domestic Violence Act. In Act. In order to grant relief's under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Act the petitioner is required to prove that the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 subjected the Petitioner to Domestic Violence as defined U/s 3 of the Domestic the Domestic Violence Act.
The petitioner has failed f ailed to prove that she is an "aggrieved person" who has suffered "Domestic Violence" at the hands of the Respondents. Though the relationship between the parties is admitted. Merely because there is a domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents, it does not prove or provide presumption that the Petitioner is subjected to Domestic Violence.
The Petitioner has sought for a Protection Orders under Sec.18. Sec.18 provides that after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard if this court is prima facie satisfied satisfied that the Domestic Violence has taken place or is likely to take place then a Protection Order can be passed in favour of the aggrieved person. Hence, the Petitioner is expected to prove that Domestic Violence has taken place on her. However, the Petitioner has failed to prove that she has
been
subjected
to Domestic
Violence.
Hence,
grant
of
Protection Order is subject to a condition that the court must be satisfied of commission of Domestic Violence. The petitioner has failed to prove such Domestic Violence the fact which is condition precedent for grant of order under Sec.18, which has not been fulfilled. Therefore, protection order is liable to be declined to the Petitioner.
It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was working even after marriage. That in Exhibit P-14 that P-14 that is a Trust Deed the Petitioner is Author of the Trust. Hence it could be said that the Petitioner is financially
independent
and
sound.
Under
these
facts
and
circumstances, it is opined that the Respondents have not subjected the Petitioner to economic abuse also.
That all the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner are only of monetary nature. She is either claiming to restrain the Respondents from not disturbing the possession of the Petitioner in the shared household or she is claiming the relief of maintenance and compensation which are again in the nature of monetary claims. Thus it is clearly
an attempt to extract exorbitant monies from the Respondents and blatant abuse of the process of law.
Section 3 of the Act defines “domestic
violence ”
as follows:follows:-
"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."
It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of Domestic Violence against the Respondents. Hence no relief can be claimed under the PWDVA as the alleged incidence of violence have not taken place and there is no ill-treatment or harassment given to the Petitioner.
CONCLUSION: The Petitioner has failed to prove that the Petitioner was subjected su bjected to any domestic violence as defined u/s. 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the Respondents. Hence on this ground itself the petition filed by the Petitioner may be dismissed. That this is a sheer misuse of the welfare statute which is a boon to women subjected to domestic violence. It is due to such misuse
and abuse that the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in 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 law to the detriment of the society in general and men in particular. In the instant case it can be seen from the multiple proceedings initiated by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the Hon'ble Family Court, under Sec 498A of the IPC in addition to the above case, just to harass the Respondents and make the Respondent No.1 to agree to her demands.
WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to reject the claims made by the Petitioner and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore Dated: 09-02-2018
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
