Delhi District Court
In Short vs Unknown on 8 May, 2018
                      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 


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.                                                
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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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
                SINGH                                                     2018.05.08
Anju Negi v. Gajender Singh Negi & Ors.                                                               Page No.21

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s