APHC010084872019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 325 OF 2019 Between: 1. P.SALEEM AKRAM, Asst. Professor (Electronics), Rao and Naidu Engineering College, Ongole. 2. Patan Akbar Khan, D/o (Urdu), First Lane, Sujatha Nagar, Ongole. 3. Pathan Oliambi, First Lane, Sujatha Nagar, Ongole. ...Petitioners AND 1. P SONIA BANU, D.No.11-26-7C, Ketireddy Street, Opp. RDO Office, Kavali Town,SPS Nellore Dist. 2. Pathan Asifa Akram, (Being Minor Rep. by her mother 1st Respondent), Pathan Sonia Banu, W/o SAleem Akram, D.No.11-26-7C, Ketireddy Street, Opp. RDO Office, Kavali Town, SPSR Nellore Dist. 3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A P at Amaravathi ...Respondents Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to the judgment passed by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nellore Dist., in Crl.A. No.96/2016 dated 08.01.2019 by allowing the Appeal in part the orders of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali in DVC No.01/2013, dated 22.03.2016. Counsel for the Petitioners: K PALLAVI,LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:SHAIK MD UMAR ABDULLAH Counsel for the Respondents:LEGAL AID 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the Petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2016 passed in Crl.A.No.96 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. 2. The appellants 1 to 3 herein are respondents and respondents 1 and 2 herein are petitioners 1 and 2 in DVC No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the averments made in DVC No.1 of 2013 are as follows: i) The marriage of the Petitioner No.1 herein with respondent No.1 was performed on 27.06.2010 at Kavali as per Muslim caste customs. Immediately after the marriage, respondent No.1/wife joined appellant No.1/husband at her in-laws house to lead conjugal duties. At the instigation of Petitioners 2 and 3, the Petitioner No.1/husband, allegedly harassed the respondent No.1 physically and mentally for bringing additional dowry, and beat her without any fault of her. Due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.1/wife informed her problems to her parents and in the year 2010, her parents put up a separate family at Hyderabad by spending Rs.1.00 lakh for purchase of house hold articles. ii) The Appellant No.1 did not mend his attitude and he brought the respondent No.1/wife to her parents house on the pretext that he is going to 3 attend training in Kerala and left her at her parents’ house. He did not come to take back the respondent No.1/wife. The respondent No.1 gave birth to a baby girl, who is respondent No.2 herein. It is further stated that Petitioner No.1 had an illegal intimacy with one Mutaharjan, who is arrayed as respondent No.5 in the DVC. Before elders, appellant No.1 agreed that he will look after his wife and daughter and he will not continue his illegal relationship with the said Mutaharrjan, for which she also agreed for the same. iii) Even then, Petitioner No.1 did not mend his attitude and continued to harass the respondent No.1 on one pretext or the other and for bringing additional dowry. Having no other go, respondent No.1/wife gave a report to the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.139 of 2012 of Kavali Police Station against the petitioners herein, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent No.1/wife also filed a protection petition vide DVC No.1 of 2013 seeking maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 from the Petitioner No.1/husband. iv) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, having heard both sides and considered the material on record, by Order dated 22.03.2016, allowed DVC No.1 of 2013 granted the following reliefs: a) that all the respondents are hereby prohibited from committing any violence against the petitioners and also to communicate with the petitinrs, without the leave of the Court. b) That the 1st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month towards rental accommodation to the Petitioners from the date of 4 the orders of this Petition on or before 10th of every succeeding under Section 19 of the Act. c) That the 1st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month to the 2nd petitioner towards their maintenance from the date of the petition i.e., 24.07.2013 and shall continue to pay at the same rate on or before 10th of every succeeding month for monitory relief under Section 20 of the Act. d) that the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to return the gold ornaments, which were shown to wear by P.W.1 in Ex.P5 photograph dt.26.03.2012 apart from cash of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to P.W.1 within one month from the date of this Order. e) the respondents 1 to3 are further directed to return the papers relating to house flat in the name of the 1st petitioner and also bridle cloths, wearing cloths of 1st petitioner within one month from the date of this order. f) that the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) towards compensation under Section 21 of the Act to the Petitioner within one month from the date of this Order. g) The costs of the petition is quantified at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to be paid by the respondents. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.2016, respondents 1 to 3 (husband and in-laws) preferred Crl.A.No.96 of 2016, on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, partly allowed the Criminal Appeal directing the Appellant No.1 therein (husband) to pay maintenance and rental accommodation to respondents 1 and 2 therein (wife and daughter) as awarded in the reliefs mentioned in (b) and (c) of the impugned order and dismissed the reliefs mentioned in (a)(d)(e) and (f) of the impugned order dated 22.03.2016 passed in DVC No.01 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. Challenging 5 the validity of the order passed in Crl.A.No.96 of 2016, the present criminal revision case has been preferred by the Petitioners herein, who are appellants in the Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard Ms.Sk.Ahamadunnisa Begum, learned counsel for the Petitioners herein, Sri Sk.Md.Omar Abdullah, learned counsel for the respondents herein and Sri Ms.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.3/State. Perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the order of the Appellate Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Further, learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that there are irregularities and misrepresentations in the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 and as also on her behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that the trial Court erred in believing the oral version of P.W.2, father of P.W.1 that he spent a huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that P.W.2 had that much of income by his earnings. Further, respondent No.1(wife) has no interest in marital relationship with petitioner No.1 herein and she had even no faith in marriage. Learned counsel would further submit that in obedience to the order of the Trial Court, Petitioner No.1 has been paying the monthly maintenance to the respondents herein regularly. Further, respondent No.1 lodged criminal cases with an ulterior motive and to wreck vengeance against the Petitioners and his family members with all false and frivolous allegations and one matter in CC No.185 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First 6 Class, Kavali was compromised before Lok Adalat Bench at Kavali vide Award No.107/2018 dated 22.04.2018. Learned counsel would submit that there is no iota of evidence for harassment meted out by the respondent No.1 in the hands of the Petitioners and respondent No.1 always suspected the character of the Petitioner No.1 for which no piece of evidence is placed on record. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioners herein subjected respondent No.1 to cruelty both physical and mental from the date of the marriage for additional dowry from her parents and petitioner No.1 beat her indiscriminately at the instance of his family members for petty issues, within four weeks of the marriage and due to unbearable harassment, respondent No.1 gave criminal complaints against the petitioners. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner No.1 is working in a company and getting good salary at the relevant point of time. Further the respondents 1 and 2 did not file any maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The orders passed by the trial Court and Appellate Court do not require any interference and the criminal revision case is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considering the submissions made, undisputedly, the parties belong to Muslim religion. The marriage of the Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 took place on 27.06.2010 at Kavali and out of their wedlock, respondent No.2 baby girl was born. They lived under one roof till 30.03.2012. Thereafter, dispute arose between the parties, Petitioner No.1 pronounced Talak against respondent No.1 and quazi issued the same on 15.07.2013. 7 9. Respondent No.1 moved criminal proceedings against the petitioners and she also filed protection petition for the alleged domestic violence and harassment meted out in their hands which is the subject matter in DVC No.1 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’). The said DVC was partly allowed and challenging the same, Petitioners herein, preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.96 of 2016 and the appeal was allowed partly. Challenging the findings of the both the trial Court and Appellate Court, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 10. Now it is relevant to examine Section 12 of the DV Act. Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 makes a provision enabling an aggrieved person, a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of an aggrieved person to make an application to the learned Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs provided in Chapter IV. In exercise of the rule-making power under Section 37 of the DV Act, 2005, the DV Rules, 2006 have been framed. Rule 6(1) of the DV Rules, 2006 provides that every application of the aggrieved person made under Section 12 shall be in Form II appended to the Rules. Under the scheme of the DV Act, 2005, the reliefs which are provided in Sections 18 to 23 can be granted on an application made by an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person under Sub-section (1) of Section 12. 11. The basic object of the DV Act, 2005, is to protect women from being victims of domestic violence and also to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in society. It seeks to protect the right of women to reside in their 8 matrimonial home or shared household. Therefore, there is a provision for passing a Residence Order under Section 19. Section 18 provides for granting Protection Orders, which are essentially to prevent the commission of acts of domestic violence against women. The orders which can be passed under Section 20 are with the object of compensating a woman for loss caused due to domestic violence. The custody orders regarding children are also essentially to prevent domestic violence. Even Section 22 provides for passing compensation orders for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by acts of domestic violence. 12. As can be seen from the material on record, as per the provisions of the DV Act, there is a domestic relationship between the parties and respondent No.1 was subjected to domestic violence. 13. The evidence of the respondent No.1 as P.W.1 before the Magistrate Court clearly established that Petitioner No.1 had an extra marital relationship with one women, who is arrayed as respondent No.5 in DVC and several mediations took place between them and agreements were executed between the parties restraining respondent No.5 therein from interfering with the affairs of the couple. She also deposed that her in-laws gave false complaints against her parents and other family members for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. P.W.1 also gave complaints against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is registered by Kavali Police Station. As far as petitioner herein (respondent No.1-husband) version is concerned on this subject, he did not 9 adduce either oral or documentary evidence rebutting the contentions of the P.W.1(wife). 14. So far as the aspect of presentation of the dowry and other ornaments and articles are concerned, P.W.2 father of P.w.1 corroborated the version of P.W.1 in all aspects and the photographs/Ex.P11 was marked through him which shows the presentation of gold ornaments and other articles to the in- laws at the time of marriage. Admittedly, P.W.2 father of P.W.1 is a retired Government employee and he is an income tax payer and he could present and spend that much of amounts towards dowry and marriage expenses of his daughter /P.W.1. The income of the Petitioner No.1/husband is concerned, he was examined as R.w.1 and he deposed that at the relevant point of time, he worked in an Engineering College and used to get income. Thereafter, he was not in service and doing no job. Ex.R5 set of photographs which were taken on the eve of Annaprasana of his daughter. Ex.R9 and R.13 also marked through him showing that he pronounced Talak to P.W.1. His version is that when the couple are living separately since 30.03.2012 and talaknama was pronounced by him, as per Muslim customs, he is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent No.1(wife). The version of R.W.1 is that respondent No.5 in DVC is his childhood friend and there is no illegal relationship between them as alleged by respondent No.1(wife). Respondent No.1 /wife could able to establish the said aspect by producing the internet conversation between them, which is marked as Ex.P4. 10 15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no domestic violence as alleged by the respondent/wife, the respondent herself left the matrimonial home, living separately and the Trial Court allowed the DVC and granted reliefs as per the DV Act. It is to be noted that both the Courts below found that there is domestic violence against the respondent and she is now living separately. The wife is entitled for maintenance only when she is unable to maintain herself and if the husband despite having sufficient means, neglected or refused to maintain her wife. However, the revision petitioner/husband has not produced any document to show that his wife was getting sufficient income to maintain her. The fact remains that the respondent No.1 did not file any maintenance case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 16. It is settled legal principles that an act of domestic violence once committed, the liability of the petitioner/husband from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not sit in the armchair of the appellate Court and re-appreciate the entire evidence and while deciding revision case, this Court has to see whether any perversity is found in appreciating the evidence, whereas in this case, this Court does not find any perversity in the decision made by the appellate Court, modifying the order passed by the lower Court. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no merit in the revision, and there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. For the foregoing discussion, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 11 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 27.01.2026 12 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Criminal Revision Case No. 325 of 2019 27.01.2026 Mjl /*