CMC-205/2017

IN THE COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

JHARSUGUDA

Present : - Shri Bishes Kumar Sahu, LL.M.,

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Jharsuguda.

Crl. Misc Case No.- 205/2017

Trial No. 186/2017

Parbati Routh @ Urmila Bhinsa, aged about 28 years,

W/o- Bhola Routh & D/o- Karunakar Bhainsa,
Village- Talpatia, P.S- Jharsuguda,
Dist- Jharsuguda …. …. Aggrieved Person
-Versus-

1. Bhola Routh, aged about 28 years,

S/o- Bira Routh
2. Bira Rout, aged about 60 Years,
S/O- Debanand Rout
3. Sujit Rout, aged about 28 Years,
S/O- Bira Rout

All are of Village- Khukhelmal,

P.S-Belpahar, Dist- Jharsuguda … …. Opposite parties

Counsel for the Petitioner- Shri K.C.Patel & associates,

Counsel for the O.Ps - Shri Deepak Patel & associates

Date of Argument: 05.09.2017

Date of Order: 21.09.2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Woman from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

1. This Order arises out of an application filled U/S – 12 of the Pro-

tection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (here in
after referred to as “Act”) by the Aggrieved person for an order of
prohibiting the Respondents from committing any act of domes-
tic violence U/S- 18 and monetary relief U/S – 20 of the PWDV
Act .

2. The genesis behind the institution of this dispute in brief is that:

1|Page
 CMC-205/2017

Respondent No.1 is the husband of the aggrieved person & Respond-

ent No. 2 and 3 are the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the ag-
grieved person. It is the case of the aggrieved person that, she had
married to respondent No.1 on 08.03.2014 as per their caste anf cus-
tom and after marriage she stayed in her in-laws house for only 8 to 10
days happily and after that all the in-laws family members along with
the respondents demanded more dowry articles like fridge, gold orna-
ments or provide cash of 2 lakhs rupees and when she protested
against such dowry her mother-in-law and brother-in-law assaulted her
by means of fist blow and slaps. Though her husband was present
there he did not protest for it. Once there was a society meeting called
by the in-laws of the petitioner by giving some false allegation against
the petitioner and as per the decision of the caste meeting again the
petitioner stayed with her in-laws with a hope that they may change
their behavior but their behavior never changed. In the Dashahara af-
ter 8 days staying at her in-laws house one day her husband showed
her unwillingness to take care of her and left her at her parents’ house
and since then he has not come forward to take her or he has not
given any maintenance to the petitioner. Later the petitioner came to
know that her husband has kept another lady as his wife. The peti-
tioner has no source of income. The petitioner is now residing at her
parental house at the mercy of her parents and being a distressed lady,
she has filed this present application praying for the above mentioned
reliefs.

3. During the course of trial the respondents neither filed their

show-cause nor took any step during the trial for which they were set
ex-parte.

4. From the above pleadings of the Petitioner and the Respond-

ents, the following points for determinations arise in this case:

2|Page
 CMC-205/2017

I. Whether the Aggrieved person has any domestic relation-

ship with the Respondents?
II. Whether the Respondents have committed any act of do-
mestic violence against the aggrieved person?
III. Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to the relief
claimed?

5. In order to prove her case, the Aggrieved Person has examined

herself as PW-1 and her father as PW-2. As the respondents are set
ex-parte, no evidence is adduced on their behalf. Hence, the present
analysis is confined to the evidence of PW-1 and 2.
6. Now, coming to the factual aspect of the case and coming to the
aspect of the Domestic relationship. The evidence on record goes to
show that, the Respondent No.1 is the husband of the Petitioner. Now it
has to be ascertained as to whether such relationship amounts to do-
mestic relationship. For this purpose it has to be seen whether PW-1
and the respondent have lived together in a shared household at any
point of time. As per the evidence of PW-1 and 2, after the marriage the
petitioner stayed with her husband for few days. To prove her marriage
the petitioner submitted her marriage invitation card which has been
marked as Ext-1. It implies that, the aggrieved person was residing in
the same household with the respondent. The evidence of PW-1 and 2
has remained unchallenged in this regard. The household where they
were residing together after their marriage certainly comes within the
ambit of “shared household” in view of their relationship inter se.
Hence, it is clear that, there exists domestic relationship between the
aggrieved person and the respondents.

7. Now coming to the point of committing any act of domestic

violence by the respondent, it is the evidence of PW-1, that, During the
stay at her in-laws house all the respondents were torturing her
physically & mentally. Even whenever she was ill they were not taking
any care of her even they were not providing her fooding and clothing

3|Page
 CMC-205/2017

properly. Once there was a society meeting called by her in-laws by

giving some false allegation against her and as per the decision of the
caste meeting again she stayed with her in-laws with a hope that they
may change their behavior but their behavior never changed. Once her
husband came in a drunken state and assaulted her seriously and
pushed her forcefully for which she felt severe pain in her waist.
Though all the in-law family members were present there they didn't
protest to the uncivilized activities of her husband and nobody took
care of her and all were saying, “until she brings Rs.2,00,000/- or
fridge and gold ornaments they will torture her.” Even they were
threatening to do away with her life. They were not allowing her to talk
over telephone with her parents. In this regard one F.I.R. was also
lodged by the petitioner in the Jharsuguda PS against her in-laws
which has been registered as Jharsuguda PS case No. 609 of dated
10.12.2016 under section 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 494,34 of IPC r/w
Sec.4 of the D.P. Act. The certified copy of the F.I.R. marked as Ext-2,
certified copy of the final form with respect to Ext-2 is marked as Ext-
3, certified copy of the seizure list with respect to Ext-2 marked as Ext-
4. In the Dashahara after 8 days staying at her in-laws house one day
her husband showed her unwillingness to take care of her and left her
at her parents’ house and did not turn up to look after her. For which
the petitioner led her life with much difficulty due to want of food and
clothing. Now the petitioner is passing her days with much difficulty.
The petitioner has no source of income and she is now residing at her
parental house at the mercy of her parents. The evidence of PW-1 has
remained unchallenged. The above acts of the respondent amount to
physical, verbal and economic abuse of the aggrieved person and
ultimately domestic violence within the meaning of Sec-3 of PWDV Act.

8. Now, coming to the relief claimed by the Aggrieved person, it is

worthwhile to say that, the present Act is framed with a noble objective
that is to save the women from destitution and harassment. As per the

4|Page
 CMC-205/2017

provisions of this Act, when the Aggrieved person establishes that, she
has domestic relationship with the Respondents and that, she has been
subjected to domestic violence, then she deserve the reliefs mentioned
in the Act. The materials available on the record suggest that, the Ag-
grieved person is subjected to domestic violence, so she is entitled to
an order of protection. So far as monetary relief is concerned, since the
Aggrieved person claims that the Respondent no.1 is earning
Rs.20,000/- per month as JCB Driver in the MCL, and on the basis of
the same she has claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her main-
tenance but she has not filed any document showing the exact income
of respondent no.1. However, as this court has come to the finding that,
the aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence in the hands
of the respondent, a fair and reasonable amount can be fixed towards
monetary relief. Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

This Misc. Case be and the same is allowed against Respond-

ents/ Opposite Parties but without costs. The Respondents/Opposite
parties are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic vio-
lence against the Aggrieved person. The Respondent No.1/ Opposite
party No.1 namely Bhola Routh is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.
2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Aggrieved person per month
towards maintenance with effect from the date of filling of application
i.e. from 06.04.2017. The said maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees
two thousand only) accruing from month to month, is to be tendered to
in shape of Bank Draft by the first week of every month and the same
shall be received by the Aggrieved person Smt. Parbati Rout. Re-
spondent No.1 Bhola Routh is further directed to pay the arrear main-
tenance to the aggrieved person within four calendar months from the
date of this order, failing which the aggrieved party is at liberty to take
shelter of the Court. Issue free copy of this order to both the parties
and I.I.C, Jharsuguda, Police station.

5|Page
 CMC-205/2017

Pronounced the order in the open court today this the 21 st day of
September, 2017 under my hand and seal of this Court.

S.D.J.M., JHARSUGUDA

List of witnesses examined by the Aggrieved person :

P.W.1 : Parbati Rout
P.W.2 : Karunakar Bhainsa
List of witnesses examined by the Opposite Party :
NIL
List of exhibits marked by the Aggrieved person :
Ext.1 : Marriage Invitation Card
Ext.2 : Certified copy of F.I.R.
Ext.3 : Certified copy of Final form with respect to Ext.2
Ext.4 : Certified Copy of Seizure list with respect to Ext.2

List of exhibits marked by the Opposite Party :

NIL

S.D.J.M., JHARSUGUDA

6|Page