Partly allowed

Sri Shivamurthappa P v. Smt M Prathima

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2022CRL.RP/725/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal revision petition challenging maintenance, residence, and compensation orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The High Court quashed orders for maintenance and residence due to lack of domestic violence findings but upheld a Rs.2,00,000 compensation for emotional distress while throwing aside the full medical expense award.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance and separate residence order quashed. Compensation of Rs.2,00,000 confirmed. Medical expense order of Rs.7,00,000 set aside.

Sri Shivamurthappa P Vs Smt M Prathima — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.725 OF 2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri. Shivamurthappa P., S/o Puttaswamy, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.2, Mahadeshwara Nilaya, 9^th Cross, Vidyapeeta Road, Kengeri, Bengaluru – 560 060.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Siddarth B. Muchandi, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Smt. M. Prathima, W/o Shivamurthappa P., D/o Sri. Manjunatha, Aged about 23 years, No.32/1, Police Quarters, Magadi Road, Bengaluru – 560 048.

¶12

…Respondent

¶13

(By Sri N.Udayakumar, Advocate)

¶14

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the III M.M.T.C., Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.7/2014 and being confirmed dated 6.7.2015 passed by the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.365/2015.

¶15

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 6.07.2015 passed by Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.365/2015. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.7/2014 instituted under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘Act’). Referring to the parties with respect to their position in the Court of Magistrate, the facts may be briefly stated as follows:

¶19

The complainant before the Magistrate is

¶20

the wife and her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 4.3.2012 at Bengaluru. At the time of marriage, the parents of the complainant gave to the respondent 8 grams of gold ring, 30 grams of chain, 1.5 kgs. of silver articles, Rs.30,000/cash for buying new clothes and Rs.2,00,000/- as

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

dowry. The complainant was also given 30 grams of gold chain, 50 grams of gold long chain, 30 grams of gold necklace, one pair of vole and jumki, two gold rings, silk sarees and other clothes.

¶23

The complainant alleged that she went to her matrimonial home after the marriage and three

¶24

months after her stay there, the respondent, his sister and parents started harassing her. They used to taunt her saying that the marriage was not performed to their expectation and status, and they demanded the complainant to get registered a site and a mango grove situated in her native place in the name of the respondent. She further alleged that she was not allowed to visit her parents’ house and that one day the respondent and his parents made her drink water mixed with acid when she was taking breakfast. As a result she started vomiting blood and then she was taken

¶25

:: 4 ::

¶26

to H.K.Hospital, Kengeri for treatment. When the doctors in the hospital told that they would inform the police, the respondent, his parents, his sister and his brother-in-law threatened not to give statement to the police against them and asked her to give statement that she herself drank the acid in the bathroom and thus she was compelled to give statement in that manner. After the complainant’s parents came to the hospital, the respondent and his parents went away from that place and her father nearly spent Rs.7,00,000/for her treatment.

¶27

Further allegations is that on 8.12.2013,

¶28

when complainant’s parents and relatives took her to the house of the respondent, they were all abused in vulgar language and assaulted with slippers. Therefore the complainant went to Kengeri Police Station for lodging an FIR and accordingly it was registered in Cr.No.402/2013

¶29

:: 5 ::

¶30

for the offences under sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. With this background, the complainant alleged that she was neglected by the respondent, not provided with food, cloth and shelter and thus she had to face a lot of hardship. This led to her approaching the court of Magistrate with a complaint under section 12 of the Act for various reliefs such as protection order under section 18 of the Act, residential order under section 19 of the Act, monetary reliefs under section 20 of the Act and compensation under section 22 of the Act.

¶31

In the statement of objections filed by the respondent, he denied all the allegations made by the complainant and contented very specifically that the complainant found it very difficult to adjust herself in his house. He stated that he was working as a constable in City Armed Reserve Force (CAR) on a net salary of Rs.13,473/- and

¶32

:: 6 ::

¶33

that his father who was also working as a police was due to retire in a short time. He was compelled to raise loan from a bank on the insistence of the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,700/- was being deducted towards the loan. Thus his net income was reduced to Rs.7,773/-. He stated that he would find it very difficult to manage the family after the retirement of his father. But the complainant was a person of high ambition and she used to complain from the beginning that she committed a mistake in marrying him. She used to ridicule and taunt him that he was just a constable and his earning was very insufficient to lead a luxurious life. She had a behavioural problem. Once in the month of June, 2012 she tried to drink phenol in the bathroom and the respondent somehow prevented her from drinking it. In the month of September, 2012, she consumed diabetes tablets to the panic of his family. Denying the specific allegation that

¶34

:: 7 ::

¶35

he and his parents made her drink water mixed with acid, he stated that on 20.02.2013 around 9.00 a.m., she went to clean the toilet and immediately came out screaming and shouting. At that time he was on his duty at D.G. Office. His mother informed him that the complainant was taken to hospital by his brother-in-law viz., Ravi. Immediately he came to H.K.Hospital, Kengeri and spent about Rs.20,000/- for her treatment and thus saved her life. Later on when she was asked as to what happened, she herself revealed that she mixed the acid with water in a jug and as the smell was too pungent, she left that water in the jug for 15 minutes. Later on forgetting that she had mixed the acid in the water, she gargled her mouth with the same water. When a few drops went inside her stomach she started screaming. This was the actual incident, but she gave a twist to it for blaming them. He spent a lot of money for her treatment. She could have taken treatment in

¶36

:: 8 ::

¶37

one of the hospitals listed under ‘Arogya Bhagya Scheme’. Being wife of a police constable, she was entitled to be treated in any one of the listed hospitals where better treatment facility was available. He was never informed at all by the complainant’s parents that she need to undergo surgery.

¶38

5.1. He contended further that the

¶39

complainant was a spend thrift. She knew very well his financial position, yet she wanted to live in a bigger house and she used to say that she would not care as to how he would arrange for money and unless she was provided with the facilities that she wanted, she would not live with him and saying so she left his company. She was ill advised by her parents and even when she was staying in her parents’ house, she would telephone him and speak rudely with abusive language. Because of her abnormal behaviour, he suffered

¶40

:: 9 ::

¶41

mental agony and disturbance. Having found it impossible to tolerate the cruelty and harassment on him, he had no option but to dissolve the marriage and therefore he issued a legal notice on 24.9.2013. After receiving the notice, on 8.10.2013 at 1.10 p.m., the complainant’s father telephoned and threatened him to get civil and criminal cases instituted against him. Therefore he had to report this threat call to the Kengeri Police Station and obtain NCR acknowledgment. Then he applied for divorce by filing a petition in the Family Court, Bengaluru on 16.11.2013. On 8.12.2013, when his mother was alone in the house, the complainant’s father, mother and uncle suddenly came to his house, picked up quarrel with the mother for issuing legal notice and caused injuries to her. In this connection, FIR was registered in Cr.No.395/2013 at Kengeri Police Station for the offences under sections 506, 341, 504, 448, 323 r/w 149 IPC. After all these

¶42

:: 10 ::

¶43

events, as a counter blast, the complainant

¶44

ventured to get a false FIR registered against him, his parents, sister and sister-in-law on 16.12.2013 alleging dowry harassment and criminal intimidation. At last she approached the court of Magistrate with a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This delay itself would indicate that the said complaint was as a result of after thought and outcome of due deliberation.

¶45

The learned Magistrate after holding an

¶46

inquiry by examining the parties and perusing the documents that they produced, partly allowed the complaint under section 12 of the Act. The learned Magistrate directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- every month towards maintenance till life time of the complainant, to provide a separate house and bear medical expenses of Rs.7,00,000/-, to further pay Rs.2,00,000/- as

¶47

:: 11 ::

¶48

compensation for mental and emotional cruelty and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the litigation expenses. In the appeal preferred against this order by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the findings and the order of the learned Magistrate.

¶49

I have heard the arguments of Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi and Sri. Uday Kumar,

¶50

learned counsel for the parties respectively.

¶51

Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi argued that the

¶52

courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly. He submitted that the trial court would come to conclusion that the complainant/wife failed to provide cogent evidence before the court that she was subjected to domestic violence by the husband. The trial court disbelieved the evidence of the complainant that she was made to drink the acid. This was the main reason for the complainant to say that she was subjected to

¶53

:: 12 ::

¶54

physical cruelty. The trial court also came to conclusion that the evidence of complainant was difficult to be believed that she was ill-treated in connection with dowry demand as she approached the court ten months after the actual incident of consuming acid with an allegation of domestic violence. In spite of that if the trial court would direct the respondent to pay maintenance, bear the medical expenses and compensation for emotional violence, such a finding is nothing but perverse application of mind.

¶55

8.1. Sri. Siddarth B. Muchandi submitted that

¶56

on 28.01.2022 he filed a memo in this revision petition to produce copy of the judgment and decree in M.C.No.4655/2013, order in Crl.P.No.2001/2015, copy of complaint dated 16.12.2013 and a copy of government order dated 23.7.2012. Referring to these documents he argued that the respondent sought divorce on the

¶57

:: 13 ::

¶58

ground of cruelty and in the same divorce petition, the complainant set up a counter claim seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent’s petition for divorce was allowed and the counter claim was dismissed. This was a subsequent development which the court can consider and the fact of granting divorce fortifies the respondent’s case that there is no truth in the allegations made against him. The complainant did not challenge the decree of granting divorce and it has attained finality. The complainant herself chose to live away from the company of the respondent and in this view he cannot be fastened with the liability of providing maintenance.

¶59

8.2. The complainant was aware of ‘Arogya Bhagya Scheme’. Her father was working in the Police Department. She could have taken treatment in any one of the hospitals included in the list providing treatment to the police personnel

¶60

:: 14 ::

¶61

and their dependants under the Arogya Bhagya Scheme. The respondent initially paid the hospital expenses when the complainant was admitted to H.K. Hospital. She was there in this hospital only for four days. After about one and a half months, if she was admitted to other hospitals without informing the respondent, he was not responsible for not bearing the hospital expenses. He was not informed at all that the complainant was admitted to Chord Road Hospital and Victoria Hospital. He has clearly given evidence that he was not informed at all. His net salary is very meager and if is asked to pay Rs.7,00,000/- towards hospital expenses, certainly it is a big amount for him which he cannot arrange.

¶62

8.3. Even the appellate court has failed to appreciate all these aspects. In this view it was his argument that the judgment of the courts below should be set aside.

¶63

:: 15 ::

¶64

Sri. Uday Kumar argued that the evidence

¶65

of the complainant clearly discloses that she was subjected to domestic violence. She was made to drink acid by the respondent and his family members. It was not accidental consumption.

¶66

She was made to give a statement in the hospital forcibly that she unknowingly drank the water mixed with acid. The respondent did not care to come to hospital to see the complainant, even he did not bear the hospital expenses. Every expense was met by complainant’s father. Being the husband, he neglected his responsibility and therefore the trial court is justified in directing him to bear the hospital expenses to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-.

¶67

9.1. Though it is true that the respondent

¶68

issued a notice for seeking divorce, she could not reply to the notice because she was hospitalized at that time. There is no proof for service of notice

¶69

:: 16 ::

¶70

on her. She did not challenge the divorce decree because the respondent assured of settling the case. It was his argument that the two courts below consistently have come to conclusion on facts that the complainant was subjected to domestic violence and in the revision petition those findings cannot be upset. He argued for dismissing the revision petition.

¶71

If the findings given by the learned Magistrate are seen, it is held that the Magistrate has not believed the evidence of the complainant that she was subjected to ill-treatment in connection with dowry demand after the marriage, that she was made to drink the acid forcibly. The Magistrate has believed the evidence of the respondent that on 20.2.2013, the day when the complainant consumed water mixed with acid, the respondent attended to his duty and that he was not in the house at that time. It is also held that

¶72

:: 17 ::

¶73

the respondent applied for leave on 21^st and 22^nd March, 2013. The Magistrate has come to conclusion that the complainant gave statement before a doctor viz., Gururaj that she accidentally drank water mixed with acid and this statement was believable. The Magistrate also noticed the conduct of the complainant in giving a complaint after ten months. Having held that the evidence of the complainant about ill-treatment as unbelievable, the Magistrate proceeded to hold that the respondent neglected his duty to take care of his wife by bearing the hospital expenses. His answer that he was not aware of the actual expenses incurred by complainant’s father cannot be accepted and his conduct would show that he neglected to take care of his wife and this would amount to subjecting the wife to mental and emotional domestic violence.

¶74

:: 18 ::

¶75

The appellate court has not actually

¶76

appreciated the evidence and has simply endorsed the findings of the Magistrate.

¶77

Keeping in mind the arguments put forward by the learned counsel, if the judgment of the trial court is examined, it appears that its conclusions that there is no proof for complainant being subjected to domestic violence in the background of demand for dowry are correct. Her main allegation is that she was made to drink acid which had been mixed with water, and it is rightly held that it is a false allegation; rather the evidence discloses she herself drank it and it is evident by her admission statement as per Ex.R.14. There is no proof for accepting the argument of Sri. Udaykumar that Ex.R.14 was obtained by force. Ex.R.14 shows that the complainant gave the statement in the presence of a doctor. There is another document which the

¶78

:: 19 ::

¶79

trial court has not considered. Ex.R.21 shows that

¶80

Dr. Ravikumar of H.K.Hospital replied to a letter written to him seeking some clarifications regarding consumption of acid by the complainant. In Ex.R.21, it is written very clearly that it was not a case of forcible administration of acid into the mouth of the complainant.

¶81

The respondent’s counsel Sri. Siddarth Muchandi has produced four documents along with a memo, one of the documents is copy of the judgment in M.C.No.4655/2013, which was a proceeding for dissolving the marriage of the complainant and the respondent. But divorce petition was filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty on him by the petitioner, and in the said proceeding, the complainant sought counter claim against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights.

¶82

:: 20 ::

¶83

The said judgment can be looked into in this revision, as section 401 Cr.P.C. provides that the High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can exercise power under section 391 Cr.P.C. which provides for receiving additional evidence. The complainant contested in the divorce petition and it is an undisputed document. Therefore, it can be straight away considered here. The Family Court has clearly held that it was the complainant who caused cruelty, and while giving such a finding, one of the circumstances considered is making false allegation against the respondent and his family members that the complainant was made to drink acid. Therefore it may be concluded that there is no probability in the case as the complainant was subjected to domestic violence when she lived in her matrimonial home for a few months.

¶84

:: 21 ::

¶85

The next question is whether the

¶86

Magistrate could have granted various reliefs

¶87

claimed by the complainant despite holding against the complainant.

¶88

Any relief under the provisions of the Act can be ordered only if domestic violence has taken place, otherwise not. The judgment of the Magistrate shows that the respondent derelicted his responsibility to provide treatment to the complainant. This was the reason for directing him to pay Rs.7,00,000/- which was spent for treatment. In this regard, the respondent’s firm stand was that when the complainant was admitted to H.K. Hospital for treatment in connection with drinking acid, he made payment of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant was inpatient for about four days. After discharge from hospital, she went to her parents’ house, and was again admitted to Chord Road Hospital after about a month, which he did

¶89

:: 22 ::

¶90

not know as he was not informed at all. If complainant has stated in her evidence that her parents informed the respondent over phone about her hospitalization, the petitioner has denied any information being given to him. It is quite natural for them to take contrary stand, but another important aspect is about not taking treatment in one of the hospitals where the police personnel and their dependents can take treatment under ‘Arogya Bhagya Scheme’ provided by the Government. The complainant was aware of this facility as her father was also a police. The respondent has contended that if he had been informed, he would have arranged for treatment in one of the hospitals listed in Government notification under ‘Arogya Bhagya Scheme’. He has also stated that even without informing him, the complainant herself could have claimed that benefit being his wife. It is not the case of the complainant that either she or her father made an

¶91

:: 23 ::

¶92

effort for availing ‘Arogya Bhagya Scheme’ facility. Looked in this view, his specific contention that he was not informed when the complainant was again hospitalized appears to be probable. For this reason, though it is possible to state that he cannot be asked to bear medical expenses of Rs.7,00,000/-, but it can also be stated that in spite of difference between them, the complainant being the wife might have felt the presence of her husband during hospitalization period and to this extent she might have emotionally distressed. And atleast for this reason, the respondent has to compensate the complainant, and a reasonable sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is sufficient. The learned Magistrate as also the appellate judge should have applied their minds in this way.

¶93

The learned Magistrate has ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and also provide a separate residence to the complainant. As the

¶94

:: 24 ::

¶95

circumstances indicate that the respondent did not subject the complainant to domestic violence in any manner and that the complainant herself chose to live away from the company of the respondent, the question would definitely arise whether she can claim these reliefs. Moreover, the Family Court, for rejecting the counter claim of the complainant has given a finding against her, in the sense that the respondent is not responsible for the complainant leaving the matrimonial home. There is no evidence that the respondent intentionally neglected to maintain the complainant. The learned Magistrate having given a finding that there was no domestic violence, ought not to have ordered for providing maintenance and a separate residence for the complainant. These releifs that the magistrate has given and that the appellate court has confirmed are totally against the findings on facts. In this view the order concerning providing maintenance

¶96

:: 25 ::

¶97

and providing separate residence cannot be

¶98

sustained.

¶99

In the result, this revision petition partially succeeds. The order of the Magistrate and the judgment of the appellate court are modified as below:

¶100

i. The order of the Magistrate directing the respondent husband to pay Rs.7,00,000/towards medical expenses is set aside.

¶101

ii. The order of the Magistrate directing the respondent husband to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/every month to the complainant wife and provide a separate residence for her is also set aside.

¶102

iii. The order of the Magistrate directing the respondent husband to pay Rs.2,00,000/towards emotional abuse is confirmed.

¶103

:: 26 ::

¶104

iv. No amount is granted towards litigation expenses noticing the conduct of the complainant wife.

¶105

Sd/JUDGE

¶106

Sri Shivamurthappa P v. Smt M Prathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shivamurthappa P v. Smt M Prathima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Siddagangamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bbmp

Sri.Venkatesh K v Vs Vijayanagar Club

Sri T G Babu Vs Sri a Bhaskar

Sri Dakshinamurthy H T Vs Smt. Ambika M N @ Parvathamma

Smt K R Sujatha Vs Sri B v Ravikumar

Smt. Hamsalekha N Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.