SIKAKOLLU CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. SIKAKOLLU SARASWATHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sons/petitioners 1 to 3 question judgment dated 18.05.2010 passed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2007 by which the lower appellate court confirmed order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in D.V.C.No.17 of 2007 granting maintenance of Rs.75,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.25,000/- by each of the sons and compensation of Rs.50,000/- from each of the sons to the 1st respondent/mother.

(2.) The 1st respondent has got three sons (who are the petitioners 1 to 3) and five married daughters. The 1st respondent was aged 76 years by the time she filed Domestic Violence Case before the Magistrate. Her husband Subbarao died in the year 1994. Originally, the parties belonged to Singarayakonda of Prakasam District. Now the 1st respondent is residing at Hyderabad along with her third daughter. It is alleged that the 1st respondent is suffering from several ailments and that her health condition is deteriorating day-by-day. Originally late Subba Rao established Coromandel Cements Limited in which the first respondent was also an Additional Director. Now the petitioners changed the company into Ckoromaandel Cements Limited. Under will dated 10.03.1991 of her husband, the 1st respondent got several properties to the extent of 1/4th share in the estate left by him. It is alleged that the petitioners obtained several signatures of the 1st respondent on several documents on the pretext of managing affairs of the company and also on several blank papers and empty stamp papers. It is also further alleged that the 1st respondent was deprived by the petitioners of her immovable property, cash deposits, shares, 100 tolas of gold jewellery and 10 kgs. of silver. Originally the 1st respondent was residing with the 2nd petitioner at Vijaywada. There is no dispute that in or about May, 2006, the 1st respondent left the 2nd petitioner's house due to alleged ill-treatment, cruelty, negligence etc. and began residing with one or the other daughters.

(3.) Having regard to date of separate living of the 1st respondent since May, 2006, it is contended by the Senior Counsel for the petitioners that since cause of action took place prior to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, the Act) coming into force, D.V.C.No.17 of 2007 does not lie and that the Act is prospective in its operation and not retrospective in operation. Though the Act was passed in the year 2005, it came into force on 26.10.2006 after the rules were framed thereunder.