MANOHAR SINGH Vs. DROPTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays challenge to judgment dated 20.2.2020, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 32-S/10 of 2018, modifying the order dated 21.07.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Cr. Petition No.97-3 of 2017/2015, titled as Smt. Dropti Devi versus Manohar Singh , whereby an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, having been filed by the respondent-wife, came to be partly allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short 'Act') against the petitioner-husband alleging therein that she is legally wedded wife of petitioner-husband and marriage interse her and petitioner-husband was solemnized about 30 years back as per Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock, two children were born. Though, initially relations interse respondent-wife and petitioner-husband remained cordial, but since after some time certain differences cropped up interse them, respondent-wife left the matrimonial house and started residing at Village Karchoali, District Shimla, H.P. Besides above, respondentwife also alleged that in the year 1992-93, petitioner-husband contracted second marriage with Smt. Anita Devi from whom, he is having two daughters and one son. Respondent-wife further claimed before the Court below that on account of the maltreatment given to her by the petitioner-husband, she was compelled to take shelter in the neighbour's house for some days and thereafter she with the assistance of relatives constructed a Kaccha one room shed and presently residing there alongwith her son. Respondent-wife claimed before the Court below that since she has been deprived from all economic and financial resources, she is finding it difficult to maintain herself as well as her children. Respondent-wife averred in the complaint made by her before the court below that petitioner-husband is owner in possession of 50 bighas of land situate at Mauja Shanal and Shaisear, from which at present he is earning more than 5 lakh. Besides above, respondentwife also alleged that besides aforesaid property, petitioner also have two commercial vehicles, from which he is earning Rs.15, 000/- per month. Respondent-wife further alleged that petitioner-husband has constructed three storied house and is getting Rs.10,000/- per month as rent from the tenants. Respondent-wife also claimed that the total income of the petitioner-husband from all the sources is more than Rs. 50,000/- per month, as such, be directed to provide adequate maintenance to her as well as her children. Respondent-wife prayed that protection under Section 18(e)(g) of the Act may be provided to her by prohibiting the petitioner from causing any act of Domestic Violence and she may also be held entitled to separate residence under section 19(f) of the Act as she has been ousted from her residential house. Besides above, respondent-wife prayed that petitioner-husband may also be directed to pay monetary relief under section 20(2) of the Act. She also claimed that since petitioner-husband caused physical abuse, mental abuse, emotional abuse and economic use, he may be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the Act.

(3.) Aforesaid claim put forth by the respondent-wife came to be resisted on behalf of the petitioner-husband, who categorically stated before the court below that at no point of time respondent-wife was subjected to any kind of domestic violence, rather she of her own volition and without there being any sufficient reasons left her matrimonial house and started living separately. Petitioner-husband claimed that marriage interse him and the respondent-wife was solemnized 40 years back and during this period, respondent-wife never made any effort to reconcile. He also alleged that respondent-wife and his son Om Prakash alongwith his wife are enjoying and cultivating the land given by him in village Karochail. He also claimed before the court below that both respondent-wife and her son Om Prakash are residing separately in the house constructed by him for the last 14 years and at present are occupying about 8.10 bighas of land and as such, she is not entitled to any kind of compensation.