MOHAR SINGH Vs. RAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the judgment dtd. 6/2/2016 [hereafter "impugned judgment"], passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi [hereafter "Sessions Court"] whereby the appeal filed by the wife i.e. respondent herein - seeking setting aside of the order dtd. 28/9/2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, Dwarka, New Delhi [hereafter "Trial Court"] - was allowed, and the husband i.e. petitioner herein was directed to pay sum of Rs.7,000.00 per month to the respondent-wife for her maintenance and residential requirements, from the date of filing of the complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter "PWDV Act"]. The petitioner-husband was also directed to clear the arrears within three months from the date of the impugned judgment, and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as costs to the respondent-wife.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent-wife had filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of PWDV Act before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner-husband, Mohar Singh (arrayed as respondent no. 1 therein), and their elder son, Sham Sunder (arrayed as respondent no. 2). The complainant stated that after her marriage with the petitioner, three sons and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that petitioner was a habitual drunkard who would frequently consume liquor and create nuisance in the house. According to the complainant, she endured repeated acts of cruelty at his hands, including beatings, abuses, dragging, and kicking, in the hope that he would eventually reform. She specifically alleged that on 18/9/2011, at about 2:00 p.m., the petitioner assaulted her severely and even struck her on the head with a danda with the intention to kill her. As a result, she suffered injuries and was taken to DDU Hospital, where she was treated vide MLC No. 19141, which recorded a blood clot in her head. However, being a "devoted wife" and wishing to preserve the marriage, she did not lodge any FIR against respondent no. 1. The complainant further alleged that instead of protecting her, her elder son supported the petitioner's actions. It was alleged that he would join the petitioner in consuming liquor and also subject the complainant to vulgar abuses. She stated that at her age (then about 52 years), she was no longer in a position to resist the physical assaults and humiliations inflicted upon her by them. She also asserted that both of them resided with her at House No. RZ-F- 903/11, Palam Village, New Delhi, and would occasionally visit their native village at Etah, Uttar Pradesh. In her complaint, the respondent-wife further stated that the petitioner owned the aforesaid house at Palam Village and also possessed approximately 15 bighas of agricultural land in his native village. She alleged that the petitioner was engaged in construction-related work and was earning around Rs.50,000.00 per month, in addition to agricultural income of about Rs.3,00,000.00 per annum. On these averments, she sought monetary relief of Rs.25,000.00 per month towards maintenance and household expenses, compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 on account of the mental agony and cruelty allegedly suffered by her, and also claimed a share in her husband's immovable property.

(3.) The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord and that she did not want to take care of him despite his deteriorating health condition.