IN THE COURT OF Ms. MAYURI SINGH: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: MAHILA COURT 01:SOUTH DISTRICT:
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
CT No: 4456/18
CNR No: DLST020108352018
Jurisdiction of Police Station : Kotla Mubarakpur
Smt. Anju Negi
W/o Sh. Gajender Singh Negi,
D/o Late Sh. Kalyan Singh Chauhan,
R/o A276, Kedwai Nagar,
New Delhi ..........Aggrieved
Versus
1. Gajender Singh Negi,
S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Negi,
R/o RZF906/17, Raj Nagar, Extension,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
2. Smt. Devishwari Negi,
W/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Negi,
R/o RZF906/17, Raj Nagar Extension,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
3. Ms. Asha Negi,
D/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Negi,
R/o RZF906/17, Raj Nagar Extension,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
4. Mrs. Kusum Lata,
D/o Late Sh. Roop Chand Negi,
R/o A7, Gali No.1, Sidharti Extension,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
5. Ms. Seema,
R/o RZF906/17, Raj Nagar Extension,
Palam Colony, Delhi.
.........Respondents
Date of filing : 16.04.2009
Date of arguments : 02.05.2018
Date of judgment : 08.05.2018
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.1
JUDGMENT
1. In short, the case of the complainant as mentioned in her
complaint is that marriage of the aggrieved was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 05.05.2007 at New Delhi and on the first day after marriage, the motherinlaw of the respondent No.2 taunted aggrieved stating why aggrieved had brought the gold ornaments for 22 carets and not 23 caret and why her brother has not given gold ornaments to sisterinlaw of aggrieved. She further stated that respondent no.1 is the husband, respondent No.2 is the motherinlaw, respondent No.3 and 4 are the sistersinlaw of the aggrieved and respondent No.5 is the niece of respondent no.1. She further stated that motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of the aggrieved made a demand of motorcycle from the aggrieved and respondents were not satisfied with the dowry articles given to the applicant by her relatives at the time of marriage and used to taunt aggrieved for not bringing motorcycle. She further stated that at the instance of his mother and sisters, respondent no.1 used to cause physical assault to the aggrieved. She further stated that in the month of June 2007, the aggrieved alongwith the respondents went to native village of the respondent to perform Puja and respondent No.1 slapped aggrieved and gave a blow on the nose of the aggrieved, at the instance of the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of the aggrieved and sisterinlaw of the aggrieved had threatened aggrieved, which caused mental agony to her. She further stated that aggrieved used to leave her matrimonial house at 7:30 am for the work and used to return home at about 7:30pm, and had to do all household jobs. She further stated that respondent and his family members used to abuse the parents of Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.2 the aggrieved and taunted that the aggrieved did not know how to handle the household works. She further stated that even during the weekly off, aggrieved could not take rest and had to do all household works and respondent became more cruel towards her. She further stated that respondent No.1 used to take liquor frequently and whenever aggrieved advised him not to take too much liquor, respondent reprimanded aggrieved and under the influence of the liquor, respondent used to beat and have forced sexual acts without the consent and desire of the aggrieved. She further stated that whenever the aggrieved expressed her desire for not having sexual intercourse due to medical reasons, respondent made false allegation that aggrieved had relationship with other persons, which caused mental tension and agony to the aggrieved. She further stated that after the marriage, aggrieved had pimples in her cheeks and used to have cough. Respondent used to make allegations that the aggrieved was suffering from various diseases including Tuberculosis. She had to get herself medically examined. Medical tests prescribed by the doctors were found normal and all the expenses for medical examination were borne by the brother and mother of the aggrieved. She further stated that respondent used to allege that the aggrieved had affairs with many men and the aggrieved is a lady of easy virtue and respondent no.1 supported the unfounded and concocted story of his mother and sisters and made allegations. She further stated that respondent No.1 used to allege that the brother and brotherinlaw of the aggrieved are impotent and the parents of the aggrieved belong to low caste. She further stated that the respondent no.1 even abused aggrieved and her other family members in front of the relatives and Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.3 aggrieved had to silently suffer the atrocities and cruelties of the respondents in front of the relatives and respondent used to tell that either the aggrieved should bring motorcycle for respondent no.1 or leave her matrimonial home.
She further stated that on the night of 22.02.2008, respondent no.1 and his cousin Sanju came from a birthday party under the influence of liquor. Aggrieved was sleeping in her bedroom at that time as she was not well. She further stated that under the influence of liquor, respondent no.1 wanted to have sexual intercourse, but aggrieved was not well, therefore, she refused to the respondent politely. She further stated that respondent no.1 became so annoyed that he pressed the face of the aggrieved with pillow and when aggrieved pushed respondent no.1, he pulled hairs of the aggrieved and caused physical assault and harm. She further stated that due to the acts and behaviour of the respondents, aggrieved was shocked and became unconscious and cousin of the respondent no.1 namely Sanju shifted aggrieved to a clinic in an unconscious state. Respondent No.1 told doctor that she was having gas problem and doctor advised to shift the aggrieved to Chandra Hospital, as they had no oxygen facilities. Aggrieved further stated that she told doctors at Chandra Hospital that the respondents had assaulted her and thus the doctor informed police on 100 number and doctors prepared MLC of the aggrieved. She further stated that brother, mother and other relatives of the aggrieved also reached Chandra Hospital, where the respondents insulted and abused them. She further stated that on the intervention of Sanju, aggrieved went to her parental home for sometime. She further stated that thereafter, police had called the aggrieved and respondent Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.4 No.1 on 01.03.2008, wherein the respondent admitted his mistake and tendered his apology with an undertaking for not repeating the same. She further stated that on the assurance of the respondent and for the sake of her family, she started living with the respondents. She further stated that aggrieved used to give Rs.1400/ per month to her mother inlaw, out of her salary. Even after that, respondents demanded to bring and purchase all other daily grocery items. She further stated that respondents continued to maltreat and cause cruelty to the aggrieved and brother of the aggrieved called a meeting of the relatives of both aggrieved and respondent no.1, wherein respondent no.1 promised not to cause any cruelty to the aggrieved. Aggrieved further stated that she did not inform her brother and mother about the cruelty of the respondents under fear that it will cause tension to them and mental agony and also with the hope that later better sense would prevail upon the respondents. She further stated that on the night of 24.05.2008, respondents again made dowry demand and abused brother and mother of the aggrieved. She further stated that she silently suffered cruelty of the respondent, however, they again started to insult and abuse the aggrieved in the morning of 25.05.2008, which was resisted by her. She further stated that respondents caused physical assault by slapping and pulling the hairs of the aggrieved. She further stated that as cruelty of the respondent became unbearable, aggrieved called police at 100 number who took them to the police station and police got conducted the medical examination of the aggrieved and recorded her statement and aggrieved thereafter went to her parental house and since then, she is residing there.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.5 She further stated that respondent No.1 was working as a Personal Assistant in the National Highway Authority and drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/ per month and respondent no.2 was getting family pension. She further stated that sister of the respondent No.1 was working in a government office and aggrieved was residing with respondent no.1 at RZF906/17, Raj Nagar, having a threeroom accommodation, besides separate kitchen, bathroom and drawing room and accommodation was shared by the aggrieved and the respondents. She further stated that respondents are also receiving monthly rental of Rs.5000/pm for one room accommodation given to a tenant in the same premises and respondent No.1 has no other obligations except to maintain the aggrieved and aggrieved is entitled for two room accommodation to live nearby her workplace which was at Lodhi Road, New Delhi wherein the rent for tworoom accommodation was Rs.7000/ per month. She further stated that aggrieved was working as Computer Operator with World Energy Council and drawing monthly salary of Rs.6500/, which was not sufficient to maintain her and aggrieved was working on contractual basis and the work contract was to expire in January, 2010. She further alleged that aggrieved has incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/, which were borne by the brother and mother of the aggrieved and respondent had asked for the original medical bills for the reimbursement from his department and under good faith, aggrieved handed over the same to respondent No.1, however, aggrieved has photostate copies of few bills and respondent has got reimbursement of the medical expenses but did not pass it on to the aggrieved. She further stated that respondent no.1 came to the workplace of aggrieved Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.6 and insulted her in front of her colleagues and respondents were giving telephonic threats to the aggrieved and her relatives and forcing her to give divorce and aggrieved was not able to maintain herself and thus was dependent upon her brother and mother since 25.05.2008.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
2. Written statement was filed by the respondents on 24.08.2009. It is stated in the reply that the application against respondent no. 2, 3 4 and 5 is not maintainable as they are women and do not have domestic relationship with the aggrieved. Aggrieved is living a comfortable and stable life since separation from 25.05.2008 and is living at her mother’s and brother’s house at Kidwai Nagar, out of her free will and has been insisting R1 to set up a nuclear family. Refusal of R1 to live separately from old aged mother is the cause of present litigation. The application has been filed in April 2009 whereas aggrieved is living separately since 25.05.2008 and hence, application is not maintainable. The present application has been moved immediately after R1 was granted bail by Delhi High Court on 31.03.2009, as aggrieved failed to harass R1 and his family members. Aggrieved used to commit acts of cruelty and domestic violence. In the reply on merits parawise, respondents have denied all allegations. However, the factum of marriage is not disputed. It is stated that marriage was a simple one and aggrieved was never subjected to any cruelty and aggrieved never made any complaint to any authority till May 2008. Aggrieved enjoyed the tour to native village of the respondents. R1 used to drop her to the bus stand and she used to go to her parental Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.7 house without consent of R1. Aggrieved under the influence of her brother and mother wants the property of R2 to be transferred in her name. R1 never takes alcohol and never made forced sexual relationship with her. R1 always provided love to the aggrieved, but she is making allegations to grab property of her motherinlaw in conspiracy with her brother. R1 is an open minded husband and aggrieved is a working lady. R1 never demanded any motorcycle from the family members of aggrieved and rather they have a long history of cruelty/atrocities/dowry demands and a case u/s 498A IPC is registered against them, including the aggrieved in PS Vikas Puri even prior to the marriage of aggrieved. Aggrieved was never subjected to mental or physical cruelty on 22.02.2008 and R1 had taken her to Chandra Hospital on her excuse that she was having breathing problem. No FIR was registered against the respondents and doctor did not find any serious diagnosis and the falsity of the story of the aggrieved is proved from this fact. R1 and his family members never asked for the salary of the applicant and falsity of her story can be proved by a case FIR No. 12/09 filed by the applicant in PS Kotla Mubarakpur where she is alleging a different figure of Rs. 1000/ monthly contribution in the matrimonial home. Aggrieved was not subjected to cruelty on 24 or 25.05.2008 and made a fake call to police control room on 100 number. R1 is only taking home salary of Rs. 12,000/ and having responsibility of old aged mother and unmarried sister and aggrieved is earning Rs. 8000/ per month with no liability. House No. RZF906/17, Raj Nagar is exclusive property of R2 and aggrieved and her brother want to grab the same.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.8 INTERIM MAINTENANCE
3. Vide order dated 05.04.2010, interim restraint order was passed against the respondents and the prayer for interim maintenance was declined.
AGGRIEVED’S EVIDENCE:
4. Aggrieved tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.CW1/1 and relied upon document Mark A. She reiterated the contents of her complaint in her affidavit. She was examined as CW1. PW2 is HC Ram Niwas, who deposed regarding letter Ex.PW2/A. PW3 is Anil Kumar, who deposed regarding lease deed Ex.PW3/A, salary slip and medical reimbursement of the respondent i.e. Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively.
No other witness was examined in CE.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE:
5. Only R1 led evidence in his defence. As far as other respondents are concerned, they were exparte at that stage and even after exparte order was setaside qua them, they were only permitted to adopt the crossexamination of aggrieved and other CWs by R1. They did not lead any evidence in RE. Sh. Abhijeet Kumar Verma was examined as RW1 in respondent’s evidence, who tendered his evidence and deposed regarding document Ex.RW1/1, Ex.RW1/2, Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.9 Ex.RW1/3, Ex.RW1/4 and Ex.RW1/5. Respondent No.1 examined himself as RW2. Sh. Sachin Kumar was examined as RW3.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
6. Final arguments are heard and record is perused. Ld. Counsel for R1 submitted raising preliminary objection stating that as far as R4 is concerned, her address as mentioned in the memo of parties, shows that she was residing in Uttam Nagar and she never had domestic relationship with the aggrieved and deliberately her other address is mentioned of that of Raj Nagar. It was further submitted that income affidavit of the aggrieved justifies the income as well as expenditure and hence, there is no question of matching of financial status of R1 and complainant. He placed reliance on judgment Manish Kumar v. Pratibha decided on18.09.2008 in this regard, Delhi High Court. It was further submitted that aggrieved is living in government accommodation of his brother and even otherwise, alternative accommodation was sought u/s 19 only as interim relief and aggrieved gets HRA. On merits of the case, it was submitted that there is manipulation in the medical record Mark A, which is not proved on record as per law. It was also submitted that the reimbursement given by the department to the accused cannot be treated as salary and emoluments and the same is only to compensate for the expenses incurred towards the office by R1. It was also submitted that as far as perquisites is concerned, the employer is automatically mentioning the same in form No.16 additionally and this is the amount being paid to the owner of the rented accommodation provided to R1 by the office Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.10 and hence, not the income of R1. It is admitted that maintenance is being given u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that allegations are false, testimony is full of loopholes and not substantiated and further that evidence is beyond pleadings.
Counsel for the aggrieved submitted that evidence of R1 is to a great extent beyond pleadings. Aggrieved is entitled to separate accommodation and it does not matter that she is getting HRA from her department as she is entitled to the same standard of living as her husband. The submissions on behalf of respondents are without merits. It was submitted that aggrieved is entitled to monetary relief u/s 20 of PWDV Act. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for the aggrieved that since 25.05.2008, aggrieved is residing in matrimonial home and the marriage was solemnized on 05.05.2007 and dispute arose for the first time on 22.02.2008. It was submitted that complainant is getting monthly maintenance in the sum of Rs.8,000/pm from Ld. Family Court. It was further submitted that no Written Statement has been filed by R2 to R5 and hence averment of complaint are admitted by them. It was further submitted that R1 has not specifically replied to the contents of complaint. It was submitted that aggrieved is working in contractual employment and is a beneficiary of ESI. It was submitted that brother is maintaining her as a social gesture and that respondent no. 1 has improved on his testimony beyond pleadings and that medical document corroborates the testimony of complainant. It was also submitted that the lump sum income of R1 is Rs. 50,000/ and he has no liability.
Arguments heard and judgments filed on record perused.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.11 LEGAL PROVISIONS TO BE SEEN:
7. In order to claim any Relief under the Act, it is imperative for the aggrieved person to show that she shared a domestic relationship with the respondent and she was subjected to domestic violence during the said period.
As per the Act, domestic relationship which is defined in section 2(f) means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
As per section 2(s) of the said Act, shared household means a household where the person aggrieved lives or has at any time lived in a domestic relationship with the respondents. Shared household means a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member1.
In the definition of domestic violence u/s 3 of the Act, it is stated that there must be an act, omission or commission or conduct of respondents which amounts to domestic violence. To constitute Domestic Violence, the conduct of the respondents should be such as to imply that the aggrieved was harassed or tortured by the said act. It is stated u/s 3(a) of the Act, that there must be harm or injury or endangering the health, safety, life, limb or well being, whether mental 1 Neha Jain & anr. v. Gunmala Devi & Anr. RSA 282/2015 decided on 30.7.2015 Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.12 or physical of the aggrieved, to cause physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Section 3 (b) provides that domestic violence shall also be committed if the respondent 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 dowry. Section 3 (c) of the Act provides that conduct mentioned in clause (a) and clause (b), if, has the effect of threatening to the aggrieved or any person related to her, may amount to domestic violence. Section 3 (d) of the Act, provides that to constitute domestic violence, there may be physical or mental injury or harm caused to the aggrieved person. In the explanation to Section 3 physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse have been defined.
Domestic violence is defined in section 3 of the Act as any act or omission on part of the respondent which causes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse to the aggrieved or an act or omission which 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 an act which threatens or which causes physical or mental harm to the aggrieved.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
8. It is first to be seen whether parties were in a domestic relationship and whether they lived in a shared household or not. From Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.13 the averments made, it is clear that aggrieved and respondent no.1 were married on 05.05.2007. Respondent has not disputed the fact that aggrieved is his wife and used to stay together with him in the same house. Thus, their domestic relationship and living in shared household at one point of time are established. As far as R4 is concerned, during her crossexamination, complainant admitted that she was married prior to the marriage of the complainant and is residing separately from her matrimonial home. Hence, it is seen that R4 was never in domestic relationship with the aggrieved and hence, this application u/s 12 DV Act is not maintainable qua her.
As far as R2 to R5 are concerned, complainant has insisted domestic relationship with them and their staying together with her in the same matrimonial house at one point of time and there is no evidence led by R2 to R5 to show that they were not residing with the aggrieved at any point of time.
9. Further, it has to be now seen whether any domestic violence was suffered at all by the aggrieved or not. In support of her case, Complainant/aggrieved examined herself as CW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. She deposed in her affidavit on the lines of her Complaint. She testified that she was married to R1 on 05.05.2007 and from the very first day in her matrimonial home, she was taunted for the lack of marriage gifts sent by her father and day and night harassed for the way in which marriage was held. Family members taunted her over the dowry item and demanded AC (Air Conditioner) from her brother in place of cooler. Within one month of the marriage, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw made demand of Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.14 motorcycle. In month of June 2007, aggrieved went to native village with respondents and respondent No.1 slapped her and gave a blow on her nose.
10. As far as the allegations against R2 is concerned, it is alleged that she taunted the aggrieved over dowry on the very first day of marriage and that after one week, she taunted the complainant as to why she had not brought AC (Air Conditioner) instead of cooler. The date and time of the alleged taunts is not specified. It is further alleged that R2 had also demanded motorcycle within one month of the marriage. Again, the date, time and place of the demand is not specified and even the words employed by R2 are not mentioned. It is alleged that at instance of R2, R1 used to assault the complainant, but the reason for such an assertion on the part of complainant is not specified. It is not alleged that aggrieved used to see R2 egging on R1 to torture the aggrieved. It is alleged that R2 used to abuse the aggrieved and taunt her, but the date and time period of such taunts and abuse is not specified and the allegation is vague and general in nature. As far as R3 is concerned, the allegations against her is very vague and general. There is no specific incident as mentioned with any allegations against her. As discussed above, aggrieved never had domestic relationship with R4 and hence, the question of domestic violence does not arise for consideration. The allegations against R5 are also vague and general and there is no specific allegations of domestic violence against her. Hence, the allegation of domestic violence against R2, R3 and R5 are not proved.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.15
11. The allegations as levelled against R1 are being dealt with one by one. According to the testimony of the complainant, in the month of June 2007, when the aggrived left his native village for pooja, she was slapped by R1 and given blow on nose. However, during her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the respondent, she stated that she did not remember the date of incident. Neither the date and day of the incident is specified, nor there is any medical document in support of such slapping and blow on the nose. There is nothing to suggest that any complaint was made to police in this regard and if not, why so? It is further interesting to note that during cross examination of R1, a sugestion was put to him that ‘at the time of departure to the native village’, there was swelling on the face of the complainant, despite the next very suggestion being that the swelling occurred due to physical assault ‘in the native village’. According to the complainant, respondent and his family members used to abuse her parents and taunt her over her household skills. However, neither the dates nor time period is specified nor it is stated as to what was said by each of the respondents towards the abuses and taunts. Hence, the allegation is general and vague in nature. Complainant has also mentioned that under the influence of liquor respondent No.1 used to beat her and had forced sexual contact with her, despite expressing disinclination due to medical illness. However, complainant has not specified the number of times or even the time duration during which any such act was perpetrated on her and the nature and duration of medical illness suffered by her. There is only one specific allegation dated 22.02.2008 as made in her testimony regarding the intention of the R1 to have sexual intercourse with her and him getting anoyed on her refusal.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.16 During her crossexamination, she stated that “I cannot tell the exact date on which my husband had forced sexual act on me”. Even with regard to the incident dated 22.02.2008, there is no allegation that any forced sexual contact was made with her. The medial document is support of the allegation of assasult dated 22.02.2008 is not proved as per law. No doctor was examined to prove the medical document and there was no opportunity for the respondents to rebut the medical document by crossexamining the concerned doctor or expert witness. As far as the stand of R1 is concerned, according to R1, this is a fabricated document and during crossexamination of complainant, several suggestions were put to her in this regard. The word MLC finds mention on the medical document of Chandra Hospital. The original document was never produced in the court and the photostate copy relied on by the aggrieved is disputed by R1. The medical discharge slip is not at all proved on record and even otherwise, during cross examination, aggrieved failed to account for the mention of the word MLC over this document, which is apparently not a MLC. Aggrieved failed to disclose the name of the doctor. A suggestion was also put to her that she had converted her gastric problem to incident of beating. Though the medical discharge slip cannot at all be read against the respondents, a bare perusal of this document shows history of epigastric pain and it is common knowlede that the most common reason for the same is gastric problem. In any case, neither the original document was produced in the court nor the concerned doctor was examined to throw light upon this aspect.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.17
12. There is also allegation made by aggrieved that on 24.05.2008, respondents had made dowry demand and abused her brother and mother and on 25.05.2008, she was assaulted by the respondents. It is again observed that aggrieved did not choose to prove on record her medical examination report as alleged to have been prepared on that day. It is interesting to note that while according to the testimony of complainant as well as her complaint, she was assaulted on 25.05.2008, a suggestion was put to RW2 that the MLCs of the complainant and sister of RW2 were prepared with regard to the incident dated 24.05.2008. It is not at all the stand taken by the aggrieved that any assault was caused to her on 24.05.2008 or that any MLC was prepared with regard to that assault.
13. There is also an allegation made by the aggrieved that she was accused of extra marital relationship by R1. However, it is strange that during her crossexamination by counsel for R1, she stated that “I cannot tell the exact date on which my husband levelled the above mentioned allegation regarding my extra marital affair. I cannot tell the name of any person with which (sic) my husband used to connect me about the extra marital affair”. It is not the plea taken by the aggrieved during her crossexamination that general allegation of loose character was made against her. Hence, it is quiet surprising that she failed to disclose the name of the person with whom she was allegedly associated. No reason has been assigned by aggrieved as to why she could not tell the name of that person. She did not even specify any date regarding the alleged visit of her husband to her work place and none of her colleagues were examined by her to throw light on this.
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.18
14. Ld. Counsel for the aggrieved has placed reliance on the document letter (Ex.PW2/A) and submits that in this document, there is admission of guilt by R1 and this document is not disputed by him. This contention has been opposed by counsel for R1 who submitted that the document is not an admission of guilt. I have perused the document carefully. It is noteworthy to mention that during cross examination of complainant a suggestion was put to her that she was mentioning false incident regarding admission of mistake by her husband on 01.03.2008. In para No.10 of the affidavit Ex.CW1/A, it is specified that a written apology with an undertaking for not repeating the same was made before the police by the respondent no.1 on 01.03.2008. A perusal of the document Ex.PW2/A shows that it is a joint statement of aggrieved and respondent No.1, wherein respondent No.1 stated that he will not cause any physical harm to aggrieved in future by way of scuffle or otherwise. It is also stated by R1 that aggrieved had inflicted self injury on herself in past and she be asked not to do so in future. There is a mention over the document by the aggrieved that she has read the document, thereby implying the she understood and accepted the undertaking as per the understanding between the couple, resulting in the preparation of this document. Now the question is, can this document be taken on its face value to be admission on the part of aggrieved that she used to inflict injuries on herself. If the answer is ‘No’, it is inexplicable as to how this document can be read as a conclusive evidence against R1 to suggest that he used to inflict domestic violence upon the aggrieved. When the statement is read, it is seen that it makes reference to the future Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.19 incident and an undertaking that no physical violence would be caused in future, without any reference to any happening in the past. Further, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that it is implicit in the line of R1 in the document that some physical violence was caused to the aggrieved, it cannot automatically also be assumed that the repeatative acts of assault were perpetrated or that it was a one sided affiar in the scuffle. Further, such a negative assumption of the occurence of any incident of physical assault upon the aggrieved by R 1 from this document, without consideration of the fact that the statement of R1 is itself conditional and points out towards the nature of aggrieved to harm herself, is not prudent. Any document has to be read as a whole and any selected reading of the document to the deteriment of R1 cannot be done. Further it cannot be lost sight of that during his crossexamination on 01.07.2017, respondent no. 1 stated that he had given the undertaking on 01.03.2008 as complainant had put a lot of pressure on him and police personnel had advised him that in order to save his other family members, he should give the undertaking. There is no such suggestion given to the respondent no. 1 to the effect that there was no pressure on him to give the undertaking. The document Ex.PW2/A does not at all reflect that R1 admitted regarding causing of any injury to aggrieved on 22.02.2008. It is further seen that while aggrieved claimed that her brother had called a meeting of relatives from both sides and respondent no. 1 had promised not to cause cruelty, she had not specified the date, time and place of any such meeting and neither her brother nor any of her relatives have been examined by her in support of such an allegation. Hence, in the light of the loopholes in the testimony of aggrieved and Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.20 anomalies in the complainant evidence as discussed above, this document alone cannot be pressed into service to bring home the guilt/fault of R1. This document does not at all go to prove that aggrieved was assaulted by R1 on 22.02.2008 and as far as testimony of aggrieved in this regard is concerned, the same is not fool proof/doubful and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the allegations against R1 regarding domestic violence is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the aggrieved has not been able to prove any of the allegations made by her against the respondents. Hence, her petition u/s 12 PWDV Act is disposed of as dismissed. No relief as contemplated under the Act is allowed to the aggrieved. Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated from date of this Order. Copy be given dasti to both parties.
Announced in the open court
on 08.05.2018 (MAYURI SINGH)
M.M (Mahila Court01)/South District
Saket Court/New Delhi
Digitally signed
by MAYURI
MAYURI SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2018.05.08
15:02:05
+0530
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors. Page No.21
