V P ANJALI Vs. V R SRINIVASA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be the daughter-in-law of respondents 1 and 2 and the sister-in-law of respondent no.3. It transpires that she was married to the son of respondents 1 and 2, who is not a party to the proceedings. She had filed an application under Section of 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) before the Court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The same was dismissed while considering the following points namely, whether the petitioner proved that there was domestic violence committed on her by the respondents and whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief of compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the appellate court has granted the relief of right of residence, it is not the complete relief to which the petitioner was entitled. Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were living along with the respondents in the same house and this was by virtue of the fact that her husband was a member of the joint family and it is for this reason that he was provided a monthly allowance of Rs.3,500/- and thee was also an assurance that he would be made a partner in the business run by the family. Neither of these had come about and in addition, the petitioner and her husband were totally neglected by the family to the extent that, though the family had assured the petitioner and her husband that it would bear the medical expenses, when the petitioner was pregnant to a child and on the petitioner having delivered a female child, the respondents failed to bear the medical expenses leaving the petitioner and her husband to the winds. And with great difficulty, the bills were settled, but however, the child died out of sheer want of care and since the petitioner and her husband were not able to provide for the child. It is in this background that the petitioner had sought for monetary relief, which has been unjustly denied by both the courts below and is before this court.