SHETTY SARITHA Vs. SHETTY MRUTHYUNJAYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case under Ss. 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dtd. 13/9/2019 in Crl.A.No.812 of 2016, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said appeal filed by respondent No.1-husband was allowed setting aside the order dtd. 19/9/2016 in D.V.C.No.14 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, allowing the DVC filed by the petitionerwife in part and directing respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.12,000.00 per month towards maintenance, besides directing to pay compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs and costs of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No1. Perused the material on record.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 20 (1) (d) read with Sec. 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') alleging that her marriage with respondent No.1 was held on 15/5/2011 at Rajadani Garden Function Hall, Kothapet, Hyderabad. After marriage, she joined the company of respondent No.1 where her parents-in-laws also reside, as it is a joint family. The petitioner and respondent No.1 lived happily for about 15 days and thereafter she was sent to her parents' house with a demand to bring gold bangles/kankanalu for which she expressed her inability stating that her parents were not in a position to provide the same. The respondents threatened her demanding that gold kankanalu and silver articles Deepam Kundulu etc., shall have to be arranged within 15 days, or else threatened to give divorce. Later, the respondents started harassing her mentally and physically and the petitioner was made to sleep in a separate room as respondent No.1 stated that he was no interested in the conjugal life with her.