V.D. Rajanna vs T.R. Rashmi

Budihal R.B., J.—Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-husband on admission.

Learned counsel has submitted that the relationship is admitted. After marriage, the respondent-wife stayed with the revision petitioner for five years and at that time absolutely there was no complaint of any sort about the ill-treatment or harassment. The petitioner is working in MICO and respondent is a house wife. He was giving money to the respondent for construction of the house on the site which was brought by the respondent, but later he came to know that the amount given to the respondent was not at all spent for construction of the house and she has used it for her personal gain and ultimately filed false case before the Magistrate Court that there is a domestic violence by the petitioner on her and claimed monthly maintenance. Since the respondent has left the company of the revision petitioner without any valid reasons, he has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and when she has refused to join the petitioner, he withdrew the said petition and filed petition seeking divorce. Hence it is submitted that the matter may be admitted and posted for hearing.

I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below and also the grounds urged in the revision petition.

The brief facts leading to the case filed by the respondent-wife are that the respondent and the revision petitioner are the legally wedded couple. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2005 and after marriage she went to the house of her husband to lead marital life. It is the further allegation that there was a demand at the time of marriage to give gold jewels weighing about 500 gms, but her parents gave 350 gms to their daughter and 100 gms to their son-in-law. Thereafter, again there was demand by the husband to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- dowry and in this regard he has started ill-treating and harassing the respondent both physically and mentally. The respondent-wife also got transferred site in her name from her parents and petitioner was also insisting her to bring more dowry amount from her parental place. There is also allegation that the petitioner was in the habit of consuming alcohol and abusing her in filthy language. He is working in MICO getting salary of Rs. 40,000/- per month and also having agricultural land having annual income of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but he has neglected to maintain the respondent. Hence, she has sought the protection order, interim maintenance as well as compensation from the petitioner-husband. The revision petitioner herein has appeared before the trial Court and filed objection statement denying the allegations made by the wife. He has stated that he never made any demand for more dowry amount nor there was any demand for gold ornaments. He has contended that in fact it is he who gave amount to the tune of Rs. 7,30,000/- to the hands of respondent-wife to use it for construction of the house. But to his surprise, the said amount was not at all utilized for the completion of construction work of building and it is incomplete. It is also his contention that as the respondent-wife refused to give company to him without any valid reasons, he has filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly, he has sought to reject the petition. The trial Court has recorded the evidence of both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the materials on record clearly shows that there was domestic violence by the husband on the wife and also physical and mental ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her. The trial Court after considering the financial capacity of the husband ultimately awarded Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent-wife by allowing the petition and also prohibited him from committing any act of domestic violence upon the wife.

The revision petitioner has challenged the said order of the trial Court by filing Crl.A. before the Fast Track Court No.XVI. The respondent-wife has also filed Crl.A. challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded to her. The appellate Court considered both the appeals together and ultimately dismissed both the appeals and confirmed the order of the trial Court.

I have perused the judgment and order of both the Courts below. It is seen that each and every aspect of the matter has been properly considered by both the Courts. With regard to the vital aspect of alleged physical and mental harassment and also demand of dowry, a concurrent finding has been given by both the Courts that the respondent-wife has established with satisfactory material that there was harassment meted out to her from her husband.

Looking to the materials on record and the concurrent findings of the Courts below, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Courts below nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the said Courts. No valid or justifiable grounds made out by the revision petitioner to admit the revision petition.

Hence, petition is rejected.