Dismissed

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Nizamabad., v. Mundra Krishna, Hyd and 2 Otrs., Rep Pp.

Telangana HC2 Aug 2023CRLRC/572/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal revision cases involving a dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court rejected the husband's and in-laws' challenge to an order granting the wife maintenance, protection, and compensation. While noting the lack of residence order, the Court upheld the lower courts' findings and dismissed the revisions as no interference was w

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Cases No. 636 and 572 of 2017 dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Nizamabad., Vs Mundra Krishna, Hyd… — Domestic Violence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.:636 &572 OF 2017

¶6

Crl.R.C.No. 636 of 2017 :

¶7

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 20-01-2017 in Crl.A.No. 70 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad confirming the order daled 20-04-2015 in DVC No. 5 of 2012 on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad Dist.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Mundra Krishna, S/o Ananth Ramaiah, Aged about 32yrs, R/o Plot No.B9/90, Balaji Enclave, Nizampet, Hyderabad.

¶10

2 Mundra Rani, Wo Ananth Ramaiah, Aged about 56yrs, R/o Plot No.89/90, Balaji Enclave, Nizampet, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETlTlON ERS/ Appellants

¶12

AND

¶13

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Wo Krishna, Aged about 28yrs, R/o LK Faram Village of Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at HyderaQad For the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/ Complainant

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. SHARAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI VANAM VISHWANATHAM

¶18

Counsel for the RespondentNo.2 : SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

CRIMINAL REVISION ASE NO: 572 OF 20'17

¶20

Crl.Revision Case Under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 20-01-2017 in Crl.A.No. 72 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Family Court cum Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad confirming the order dated 2O-04-2015 in DVC No. 5 of 201',>- on the file of the ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad Dist.

¶21

Between:

¶22

SMT.MUNDRA SANGEETHA, W/o Krishna, aged about 27 yearc, Hcusewife, Ri/o LK Faram Village, Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶23

PETITIONER

¶24

AND

¶25

MUNDRA KRISHNA, S/o Ananth Ramaiah, aged about 29 years, R/o Plot No.89/90, Ealaji Enclave, Nizampet, Hyderabad, presently '/vorking at Net Cracker Technology Solutions (lndia) Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5 and 43, Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶26

Mundra Rani, Wo Ananth Ramaiah, aged about 52 yearc, R/o Pkrt No,89/90, Balaji Enclave, Nizampet, Hyderabad.

¶27

The State of Telangana, rep- by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶28

FIESPONDENTS

¶29

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(CRLRCMP. NO: 939 OF 2017)

¶30

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the crrcuntstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pl,3ased to permit the^petitioner to stay at Flat No. G4, KNR Balaji Enclave, Bandari Lay Out, Nizampet Village, Range Reddy District or any other place as required under seotion 19 of DVC Act by providing alternative accommodation pending disposal of Crl RC

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VANAM VISHWANATHAM

¶32

Counsel forthe Respondents Nos. 1 &2: SRI C. SHARAN REDDY

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI VIZARATH ALl, ASSISTAN1' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶36

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.636 & 572 OF 2017

¶37

COMMON ORDER:

¶38

1 Since the^parties to both the criminal revision cases are same and since both the criminal revision cases are originated from D.V.C.No.5 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, both these criminal revision cases are being disposed of by this common order.

¶39

2 For the sake of convenience, hereinafter I refer to the status of the parties as they were arrayed before the trial Court to avoid confusion and repetition.

¶40

3 One Smt. Mudra Sangeetha being the petitioner instituted DVC No.5 of 2012 against her husband and in-laws seeking the reliefs of protection order, maintenance and compensation under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act). The averments of the petition are that the petitioner is wife of the first respondent and their marriage was performed on 02.06.2010. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.10.00 lakhs of case,45 tulas of gold and house-hold articles worth of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the first respondent and his farnily members. After a six months period, which the [letitioner and the fir'st respondent spent happy, all the respondents

\ \

. e-ti:r

started harassing the petitioner for additional dowry,. The other respondents threatened that if the petitioner fails to bring additional dowry, they would perform second marriage to the first rerspondent and have driven out the petitioner from the matrimonial house on 06.11.2011 from which period she is living with her parents. The petitioner lodged a complaint under Section 498-4 IPC. The first respondent is working as software engineer and earning Rs.7.00 lakhs and odd per annum. Therefore, she sought the reliefs under the Act to grant maintenance of Rs.30,000/- p.m. and also Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compens31l6p un6 Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards legal expenses along with protection orders.

¶46

4 During the course of trial, the petitioner got examine{l P.Ws.1to 3 on her behalf. However, she got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 through R.W.1. On behalf of the respondents R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R,17 were marked.

¶47

5 The evidence of the petitioner goes to show about tlre amount of dowry said to have been given by her parents to the respoLrdents at the time of marriage and the subsequent harassment metec out by the respondents for want of additional dowry and how she was necked out of the matrimonial home. On the other hand the first respcndent while denying the stand taken by the petitioner stated that tne petitioner herself left the conjugal life of the first respondent on her volition.

However, the first i'espondent has not put forth any evidence to bring back the petitioner to the matrimonial home even if his version is believed to be true that the petitioner on her own accord left the matrimonial home.

¶52

6 The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, after appraising the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, held that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for and accordingly prohibited the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to cause any domestic violence against the petitioner in any manner as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act; first respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the petitioner towards her maintenance; further directed the first respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation besides an amount of Rs.5,000/towards legal expenses.

¶53

7 Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.04.2015, passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, the petitioner filed crl.A.No.72 of 2015 on the file of the Judge, Famity Courtcum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Whereas, aggrieved by the very same^judgment passed by the learned trial Court, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred criminar Appear No.70 of 2015 on the file of the Judge,.Family -t Court-cum-Additional Sessions .Judge, Nizamabad. The \

¶54

¶55

¶56

learned Additional Sessions Judge, after re-appraising the entire material available on record, while concurring with the findings given by the learned trial Court, dismissed both the criminal appeals. Aggrieved thereby, the^petitioner flled Criminal Revision Case No.57.2 of 2017 and the respondents filed Criminal Revision Case No.636 of 20117.

¶57

8 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶58

9 During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner filed M.C.No.6 of 2072 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, wherein, the learned trial Court, by order dated 1L.09.20t7 awarded an amount of Rs.7,500,t-^p.m. to the petitioner and directed the first respondent to pay the same to the petitioner from the date of petition. The learned counsel further relled on the order dated 30.04.2013 of the erstwhile composite High Court^passed in Crl.P.No.12970 of 2010.

¶59

10 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the^petitioner, submitted that both the courts failed to^{give plausible} reason for disallowing residence order to the^petitioner under Section 19 of the Act, therefore, the petitioner is constrained to live with her^paretrts.

¶60

)

¶61

11 A perusal of the entire evidence available on record would go to show that the^petitioner was subjected to harassment by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 within the four walls of the house, which undoubtedly comes within the purview of the Act. Considering all the aspects, both the courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief of protection and maintenance from the respondents. No inteference is warranted from this Court on the said aspect. However, coming to the award of maintenance to the petitioner is concerned, both the courts have also given cogent and convincing reasons for granting Rs.10,000/- p.m towards maintenance and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses, keeping in view the financial status and other necessities of the first respondent. Moreover, as seen from the order passed in M.C.No.6 of 20t2 on the file of the Court of the II Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, wherein, the learned trial Court, by order dated 11.09.2017 awarded an amount of Rs.7,500/- p.m. to the petitioner and directed the first respondent to pay the same to the petitioner from the date of petition. Therefore, I am of the considered view that interference does not call for on this aspect also. Hence both the criminal revision cases are liable to be dismissed.

(;

ri'- +
''..

../2.

12 In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.636 and 57)- OF 2017 are

¶66

dismissed. Miscellaneous petltions if any pending in tlese criminal

¶67

revision cases shall also stand dismissed.

¶68

Sd/- I, NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sEcTtoN oFFtcER

T.he Judge, Family Court cum Additionat Sessions Judge at Nizamabad

¶73

The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad.

¶74

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of _^{Telanganaat Hyderabad. (OUT)}

¶75

One CC to SRt. C. SHARAN REOOV, Aavocate [OpUC]

¶76

One CC to SRl. VANAM VTSHWANATHAM, Advocate [OpUC]

¶77

Two CD Copies

?rnc..

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210812023

COMMON ORDER

CRLRG.No.636 & 572 of 2017

¶85

'-' -\E -:1^ rF --'<br>,/-// t
1')
'.'\r_ <br>ia 1E SEP 2[23 , ]
-i: i;)
. -).
.-/
n-
, -- '.;'

¶86

DISMISSING THE BOTI{ CRL.REVISION CASES

¶87

RtD-&

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Nizamabad., v. Mundra Krishna, Hyd and 2 Otrs., Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Mundra Sangeetha, Nizamabad., v. Mundra Krishna, Hyd and 2 Otrs., Rep Pp.

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

Kolipaka Raju, Warangal Dt., Vs the State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

N.Rajender Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Roopa Volety and Another Vs State of Ap., and Another

Korepu Lingareddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Kunchala Ravinder Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Others

G. Shanmukha Chary, Nakrekal Vs Dr. Kalakotla Vijay Mohan, Nalgonda and Ano