IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

TRAFFIC COURT, AT MAYOHALL, BANGALORE

C. Misc. 29/2015

BETWEEN:

Madhumita … Petitioner

AND:

Swaroop and others … Respondents

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

In addition to the oral arguments addressed, the Respondents

humbly submit as follows:-

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - MEANING AND OBJECT:

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, is

beneficiary legislation and is intended to protect the interest of a

woman subjected to domestic violence. In order to claim any relief

under the said Act, the Petitioner must satisfy and prove before

this Court that she is an “aggrieved person” U/s. 2(a) of the said

Act and she has been subjected to domestic violence as defined

under Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act. The basic objective in

enacting the statute is to secure various rights to a woman living

in matrimony or in a relationship akin to matrimony, or any

domestic relationship. The woman exposed to such domestic

violence is given the right to move to Court for any of the reliefs

outlined in Section 12 through either a comprehensive proceeding,

claiming maintenance, right to residence, compensation etc.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting Prevention of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would show that since

subjecting of a woman to cruelty by her husband or his relative

was only a criminal offence and civil law did not address the

phenomenon of domestic violence in its entirety, the Parliament

proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights

guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of

India so as to provide for a remedy under the civil law, in order to

protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to

prevent the occurrence of domestic violence. Thus, the Act provides

civil remedies to the victims so as to give them relief against

domestic violence."

From the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Domestic

Violence Act, it will be evident that domestic violence is a human

right issue and is a serious deterrent to development. After the

Vienna Accord, 1994, followed by Beijing Declaration and the

Platform for Action (1995), and after the United Nations Committee

on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women, the Central Government, having noticed that

domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely

invisible in the public domain where a woman is subjected to

cruelty by her husband or his relatives, except offence u/Sec. 498A

of the I.P.C. no civil law exists, proposed to enact a law keeping in

view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the

Constitution of India to provide for remedy under the civil law,

which is intended to protect the women from being victims of

domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence

in the society. It covers those women who are or have been in

relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together

and shared a household and are related by consanguinity,

marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or

adoption. It provides for right of a women to reside in her

matrimonial house or shared household, irrespective of right or

title in such home or household; it empowers the Magistrate to

pass protection orders in favour of the aggrieved persons to prevent

the respondent from aiding or committing an act of domestic

violence or any other specified act, entering a workplace or any

other place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to

communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the

parties and from causing violence to the aggrieved person.

In order to be entitled for the relief under the provision of PWDV

Act, it is incumbent on the part of the Petitioner to prove that she

is in domestic relationship with the Respondents and that they

have resided together in the shared household and during said

residence the Petitioner was subjected to Domestic Violence as

such she is aggrieved person as per the provisions of the said Act.

Though the proceedings are governed by Cr.P.C, yet the burden is

on the Petitioner to prove her case to the preponderance of the

probability. The burden of proving her contention and to

substantiate her case are to be fully discharged by her. The

Petitioner in this case has filed the petition seeking various reliefs.

It is to be noted that the provisions of the PWDV Act confer right

on the Petitioner to claim relief for her sufferings arising out of

Domestic Violence and proof of such Domestic Violence is a

condition precedent for claiming relief. However to prove her case

of Domestic Violence the Petitioner is expected to make out specific

case against the Respondents and vague or ambiguous pleadings

and evidence does not come to her aid. As per the provisions

of PWDV Act while deciding the aspect of Domestic Violence,

overall facts and circumstances of a given case are to be

examined.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS

The Petitioner has filed the Petition under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stating that

she is the duly married wife of the Respondent No.1 and the

Respondent No.2 is the father-in-law of the Petitioner and the

Respondent No.3 is the mother-in-law of the Petitioner who have

demanded gold and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with one site

in Banaswadi and therefore she has claimed the following reliefs

from/against the Respondents:

a. Committing any act of Domestic Violence against the

Petitioner;

b. Directing the Respondents not to disturb the possession of the

Petitioner in the shared household shown in the cause title by
allowing her to stay in the same or Directing the 1st
Respondent to provide the same level of alternative
accommodation for the Petitioner;

c. Directing the 1st Respondent not to alienate the 250 grams of

gold ornaments of the Petitioner and return the same along
 with household articles given by the Petitioner at time of
marriage to the Respondent;

d. Directing the 1st Respondent to pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.20,000/-;

e. Directing the Respondents to pay Rs.25,00,000/- as

compensation and damages for the injuries including mental
torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of Domestic
Violence by the Respondent.

Along with the main Application, the Petitioner had filed an

Interim Application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act seeking the

relief directing the Respondent No.1 to pay an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, the Petitioner had also filed an

Application under Section 19 of the D.V. Act seeking Residence

Orders. That the Hon’ble MMTC-1 looking into the facts stated by

the Petitioner finding no material for passing any order on the said

applications, issued notice to the Respondents. The Petitioner

thereafter, filed a Criminal Petition before the Hon’ble High Court

of Karnataka in Crl. Petition No. 148/2016 which was allowed and

which has been marked as Exhibit P.27. In this petition, the

Hon’ble High Court directed this Court to consider the IA’s filed by

the Petitioner.

Accordingly, this Hon’ble Court considered the applications and

passed a considered and reasoned order and dismissed both the

applications filed by the Petitioner on 19-03-2016. The Petitioner

then approached the Hon’ble the Hon’ble City Civil and Sessions

Judge Bengaluru (CCH-58) in Criminal Appeal No. 25020/2016

praying to set aside the order dated 19-03-2016 passed by the

Hon’ble I MMTC. That the Hon’ble Sessions Court, without enquiry

was pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs. 3000/- per

month towards maintenance and Rs. 3000/- per month towards

residence from the date of filing the petition. Being aggrieved by

the said order dated 19-04-2017, passed by the Hon’ble CCH- 58,

Bangalore in Crl. Appeal No. 25020/2016, the Respondent No.1

having no other alternative approached the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka in Crl. R.P 637/2017 in which the Hon’ble High Court

without looking into the merits of the case, directed this Hon’ble

Court to conclude the case within 60 days as the Court had not

followed guidelines laid down in Krishnamurthy Nookola’s case.

The order was also kept in abeyance.

The Respondents entered appearance in the above case and filed

their objections to the above petition inter-alia refuting all the

allegations made by the Petitioner and stated that the above

petition has been filed by the Petitioner to put undue pressure on

them to accede to her demands as well as to cause harassment to

the Respondents. The Respondents specifically denied the

allegations made by the Petitioner and claimed that all the basic

necessities of life were provided to the Petitioner when she

remained with the Respondent No.1. The Respondents have hence

prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner as there is no

merit in the petition.

EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER

The Petitioner got herself examined as PW1 and got exhibited 33

documents. The Petitioner also got examined another witness as

PW2 – Mr. Kumar Murthy, who she claimed was the owner of the

house where the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 stayed on

rent after their marriage.

On cross-examination the following points were elicited from

the witness:

PW1 deposed that “1 ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನ 1 ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ”. ನನನನ ನನನನನ 1ನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ 22-05-2012 ನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನ

ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ 9 ನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ.

ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ. The

Respondent No.1 states that he got married to the Petitioner on 22-

05-2013. The Petitioner in her cross-examination accepted the fact

that the Respondent No.1 was not aware about her previous

marriage with the said Manjunath. The PW1 has suppressed the

fact of her being married during the time of her marriage with the

Respondent No.1. On 08-01-2014 the marriage between the

Petitioner and the said Manjunath was dissolved which is marked

as Exhibit R-33.
PW1 further deposed that “ನನನನ 1ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನ : 18-08-12 ನನನನ 05-09-

13 ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ 1ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನ 1ನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನ: 06-09-

13 ನನನನ 14-08-14 ನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನನನ 14-08-14 ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನ ನನನನನ 1ನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನ”. The PW1 herself has

admitted that the Petitioner has not resided with the Respondent

No.2 and 3 after the marriage with the Respondent No.1, and

hence made false allegations against the Respondent No.2 and 3

only to harass them and further cause mental agony. Further the

petition has been filed as a counter blast to the divorce petition

filed by the Respondent No.1 and that she has not been subjected

to any sort of domestic violence at any point in time. Infact the

Petitioner has harassed the Respondents and hence is not eligible

to claim any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005.

PW1 further deposed that “ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನ 17-08-2011 ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನ.15,146/- ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ

ನನನನ ನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ ನನನನ SBI ನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನ. The Petitioner has further suppressed the fact that the

salary of the Petitioner is Rs.15,149/-. The Petitioner is earning a

salary of Rs.15,149/- per month. The Petitioner has not produced

any account statements to show her financial capacity and has

suppressed the fact that she is getting a salary of Rs. 15,149/- per

month. The Petitioner has produced her account statements only

from 17-08-2011 and not her previous statements in order to hide

the same and claim monetary reliefs from the Respondents.

The PW2 – who claimed to be the OWNER OF THE HOUSE

deposed that “ನನನನ ನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ.

Thus it can be seen that the PW2 has filed a false affidavit and filed

the same on the advice of the counsel for the Petitioner. He further

deposed that “ನನನನ 2014 ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ. But in his affidavit dated 03-01-2018

the PW2 has sworn that he himself has admitted her to Vinaya

Nursing Home, Bengaluru. Further the PW2 deposed that

“ನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನನನನ. ನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ ನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ ನನನನ ನನನನನನ

ನನನನನನನನನನನನನನ”. The Petitioner has forced the PW2 to

testify before this Hon’ble Court and admit all the facts and lead

evidence on her behalf.

Thus as the PW2 has admitted that it was the counsel who told

him about the contents of the affidavit, it is not on his instructions

that the affidavit was prepared. Hence he is not a trustworthy

witness and his evidence has to be disregarded in toto.

ATTITUDE OF THE PETITIONER:

a. The Petitioner in the above petition states that “the

Petitioner’s family forcibly married her to Manjunatha but the

marriage was not consummated and the Petitioner and the

said Manjunatha were not stayed as husband and wife”

whereas in her petition in M.C. No. 2584/2013, filed under

Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, the Petitioner states in

para 4 of the petition that “after the marriage the married

couple have started their wedded life in Bangalore at the

bridegroom’s house and only for 1 or 2 months the couple are

 lived happily” which is a contradictory statement made by

the Petitioner and is a clear misrepresentation of facts.

The Petitioner has not come with clean hands and

fraudulently misrepresented this Hon’ble Court.

b. The Petitioner made bald claims without adducing any

evidence or proof. No specific and ascertainable allegations

are made by the Petitioner against the Respondent. She has

also failed to establish that the articles sought for by her are

in the custody of the Respondents. She has not produced

any document or witness or adduced any evidence that she

was capable of earning the amount for purchase of the gold

she claims to have left at the Respondent's house. She had

not produced any receipt for having purchased the gold

ornaments or other articles. The Petitioner has failed

miserably to prove the same and the burden of proof of

squarely on the Petitioner to prove the same. Therefore, the

Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for against the

Respondents for returning of jewels, house hold articles and

other things.

c. The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court with

unclean hands and thus she is not entitled to any reliefs

under the PWDVA, 2005. That the Petitioner has suppressed

the fact that the Ist Hon’ble Family Judge, Bengaluru in

M.C. No. 2722/14 has passed an order of interim

maintenance. That itself is a suppression of material facts

which disentitles the Petitioner to any reliefs. There is a duty

 cast upon the Petitioner to inform the court about all

litigation pending between the parties as also any order

passed by any court which will have a bearing on the reliefs

sought in this court. The Petitioner has tried to mislead the

court by suppressing material facts.

d. The Petitioner has made vague and bald allegations against

the Respondent No.3 in her petition alleging that “on 11-06-

2014 the 3rd Respondent abused the Petitioner as go and die

why you are behind my son”. The Petitioner has further

stated that “the Respondents abused and thrown the

Petitioner out from the house by demanding money, site etc”

The Petitioner has not been able to produce a single

document or witness or bring on record any facts or

circumstance which may suggest that the Respondent No.3

abused the Petitioner or that the Respondents have

demanded dowry and thrown the Petitioner out of the house.

Infact, the Petitioner herself deserted the Respondent and

left the matrimonial house at her own will.

e. That on 02-08-2017, the Hon’ble 1st Additional Family

Judge, Bengaluru in M.C. No. 2722/2014 has passed an

order of interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The

Petitioner has suppressed this fact and to mislead this

Hon’ble Court and get additional monetary reliefs. Further it

is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has filed a case before

the Hon’ble Principal Judge, Family Court in Crl. Misc.

371/2016 to direct the Respondent No.1 to pay a monthly

 maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Thus the intention

of the Petitioner is only to get monetary reliefs from the

Respondent No.1. As the Family Court has already passed

an order of maintenance, there is no need for this Court to

delve further into the issue. The Petitioner is not eligible to

claim any monetary relief under the Protection. Of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the Respondents have

not subjected her to any kind of violence.

f. The Petitioner is well qualified, in fact more qualified than

the Respondent and only in order to harass the Respondents

and receive financial gains, the Petitioner has filed the above

case making false allegations. The Respondent No.1 further

submits that the Petitioner is a MBA graduate and is

presently working as a lecturer and just to spite the

Respondent No.1 and knowing fully well that the Respondent

No.1 does not have the means to pander to her huge

demands, has filed this petition just to harass him.

g. Even if the Petitioner is not employed as claimed by her, she

has not produced even a scrap of paper to show that she is

applying for jobs anywhere.

h. It is impossible to believe that the Petitioner is suffering from

depression when there is no certificate or diagnosis from a

qualified physician to flag effect. The medicines prescribed

like sibelium is prescribed for long term cure of migraine

headache, which is common.

It is pertinent to mention that all the allegations made by the

Petitioner are vague, general and omnibus in nature. They fail to

make out any sort of violence, harassment or mental torture

against the Petitioner. There are absolutely no allegations of, either

the domestic violence or harassment or cruelty. Therefore, it is

clearly an abuse of the process of the Court to call upon the

Respondents and specifically for the Respondent No.2 and 3 to

undergo the entire ordeal of the court proceedings under the D.V.

Act.

AUTHORITIES:

In Anil Kumar Vs. Shashi Bala and others, the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh on 2nd May, 2017 in CrMMO No.30 of 2011

observed that “Since there was no evidence with regard to

maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought not

have granted any amount on account of maintenance.”

That in the present case also, no evidence has been brought on

record to demonstrate violence, if any, by the Respondents and

hence the Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs sought under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In Mamta Jaiswal vs. Rajesh Jaiswal, the Madhya Pradesh High

Court on 24th March, 2000 has observed that :

“Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a

monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting

himself or herself in spite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A

spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less

efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the

other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the

nature of pendente life alimony. The law does not expect the

increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the

arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by

implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose”.

In the present case, the Petitioner is a well qualified woman

possessing MBA qualification. Even if we accept that she was

employed till 17-08-2011 she was working as a lecturer in

Bangalore City College which implies that she was possessing

sufficient experience. The Petitioner also failed to prove that in

spite of sufficient efforts made by her, she was not able to get

service and hence she is unable to support herself.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.R. Batra And Anr vs

Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 has held that “the wife

is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household,

and a `shared household' would only mean the house belonging to

or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the

joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in

question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it

taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the

husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of

appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a

`shared household'”
The Petitioner in the present case has stated that after the

marriage the Petitioner and Respondent were residing in the rental

house in Lingarajapuram which is marked as Exhibit P-12. The

rental agreement was entered into by the Petitioner which again

goes to prove that the Petitioner is financially sound. Further she

has failed to prove that the Respondent No.2 and 3 resided with

her. Such being the case, the relief sought by the Petitioner

directing the Respondents not to disturb the possession of the

Petitioner in the shared household has to be rejected.

POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The Petitioner has in fact subjected the Respondents to immense

harassment and acute domestic violence. The Petitioner as per her

own cause title is 28 years and the Respondent No.1 is 23. She

was his lecturer having already finished her post graduation and

working while he was doing his B.Com. One does not have to

stress upon the influence, power and force that can be applied by a

lecturer or a student. The Petitioner forced the Respondent to get

married to her from her position which itself goes to prove the

ulterior motive with which she has embarked on this relationship.

She did not want the Respondent No.1 to have anything to do with

the Petitioner.

That the burden of proof would be on the Petitioner to prove her

case of Domestic Violence against the Respondents. On perusal of

the petition or the deposition of the Petitioner, it is clear that no

specific and ascertainable allegations are made by the Petitioner

against the Respondents. As mentioned above though the

petitioner has to prove her case to the preponderance of the

probability yet the initial burden of proving that the Respondents

have inflicted Domestic Violence on her lies on the Petitioner.

When such being the case, mere filing of petition with vague

allegations which are replicated in the evidence in chief through

affidavit does not stands the test of proving Domestic Violence

against the Respondents. It is to be noted that the Act of Domestic

Violence is different from normal wear and tear of the family life.

On analysis of the entire deposition of the petitioner as well as the

allegations made in the main petition, the Petitioner has failed not

only to plead specifically the aspect of Domestic Violence but also

failed in proving the same.

Mere proving Domestic Relationship between the Petitioner and

Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 would not suffice to grant relief's under

the provision of the Domestic Violence Act. In order to grant relief's

under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act the petitioner is

required to prove that the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 subjected the

Petitioner to Domestic Violence as defined U/s 3 of the Domestic

Violence Act.

The petitioner has failed to prove that she is an "aggrieved person"

who has suffered "Domestic Violence" at the hands of the

Respondents. Though the relationship between the parties is

admitted. Merely because there is a domestic relationship between

the Petitioner and the Respondents, it does not prove or provide

presumption that the Petitioner is subjected to Domestic Violence.

The Petitioner has sought for a Protection Orders under Sec.18.

Sec.18 provides that after giving both the parties an opportunity of

being heard if this court is prima facie satisfied that the Domestic

Violence has taken place or is likely to take place then a Protection

Order can be passed in favour of the aggrieved person. Hence, the

Petitioner is expected to prove that Domestic Violence has taken

place on her. However, the Petitioner has failed to prove that she

has been subjected to Domestic Violence. Hence, grant of

Protection Order is subject to a condition that the court must be

satisfied of commission of Domestic Violence. The petitioner has

failed to prove such Domestic Violence the fact which is condition

precedent for grant of order under Sec.18, which has not been

fulfilled. Therefore, protection order is liable to be declined to the

Petitioner.

It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner was working even after

marriage. That in Exhibit P-14 that is a Trust Deed the Petitioner

is Author of the Trust. Hence it could be said that the Petitioner is

financially independent and sound. Under these facts and

circumstances, it is opined that the Respondents have not

subjected the Petitioner to economic abuse also.

That all the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner are only of monetary

nature. She is either claiming to restrain the Respondents from not

disturbing the possession of the Petitioner in the shared household

or she is claiming the relief of maintenance and compensation

which are again in the nature of monetary claims. Thus it is clearly

an attempt to extract exorbitant monies from the Respondents and

blatant abuse of the process of law.

Section 3 of the Act defines “domestic violence” as follows:-

"3. Definition of domestic violence- For the purposes of this Act, any
act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall
constitute domestic violence in case it-
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well
being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends
to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal
and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with
a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable
security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person
related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b);
or
(d)otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to
the aggrieved person."

It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to prove the

allegations of Domestic Violence against the Respondents. Hence

no relief can be claimed under the PWDVA as the alleged incidence

of violence have not taken place and there is no ill-treatment or

harassment given to the Petitioner.

CONCLUSION:

The Petitioner has failed to prove that the Petitioner was subjected

to any domestic violence as defined u/s. 3 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the Respondents.

Hence on this ground itself the petition filed by the Petitioner may

be dismissed.

That this is a sheer misuse of the welfare statute which is a boon

to women subjected to domestic violence. It is due to such misuse

and abuse that the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts in

many cases have held that the courts should be cautious while

granting reliefs under this statute and also grant only if a proper

case is made out. There is a duty cast on this court therefore to not

allow women, just because they are women to abuse the process of

law to the detriment of the society in general and men in

particular.

In the instant case it can be seen from the multiple proceedings

initiated by the Petitioner against the Respondent in the Hon'ble

Family Court, under Sec 498A of the IPC in addition to the above

case, just to harass the Respondents and make the Respondent

No.1 to agree to her demands.

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

reject the claims made by the Petitioner and pass such other

orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts

and circumstances of the case; in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore

Dated: 09-02-2018 ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS