Chartered account wife living in Mumbai away from husband claims she was driven out of the house !! So the poor woman , ok the complainant in this case, gets compensation + +
********************
The Hon Court says and we quote ".........The first respondent/husband shall return Rs.2 lakhs as well as gold bracelet and gold ring within two months from the date of the order and shall pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from today together with arrears payable from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010, failing which the amount shall attract penal interest at 18% per annum from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010 till payment............."
AND
"......the complainant, who is a Chartered Accountant working at Mumbai, is residing away from her husband, allegedly having been driven out of the matrimonial home in 2009. Where the complainant/wife admittedly is away from the first respondent/husband, I consider that the wife is entitled to seek for monetary order for return of the money given by her/on behalf of her to the respondents....."
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
Andhra High Court
V.Chandrasekhar and 2 others.... Petitioners/(R.2 to R.4 in CrlRC.374/14)
K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana, W/o. V. Chandrasekhar, and another....
Respondents/(Petitioner & R.1 in CrlRC.374/14)
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1:Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel Counsel for Respondent No.2:Public Prosecutor <Gist:
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.Nos.261 and 374 of 2014 Date: 03.06.204 Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014:
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014 was filed by V.Chandrasekhar and his parents against K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana, who is the wife of V. Chandrasekhar. Bhavana, wife of Chandrasekhar in her turn filed Crl.R.C.No.374 of 2014. In Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014, the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.397 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar is challenged. In Crl.R.C. No.374 of 2014 the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.170 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from DVC No.20 of 2010 is challenged. Thus, the origin of these two revisions is orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of both the revisions through this common order.
2. K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana laid DVC No.20 of 2010 against her husband V. Chandrasekhar and against the parents of her husband. For brevity, I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in DVC No.20 of 2010.
3. DVC No.20 of 2010 was laid under Section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) seeking for protection order and compensation.
4. The marriage between the complainant and the first respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2008 at Hyderabad. The father of the complainant/wife, who was examined as PW.2, allegedly paid Rs.2 lakhs to the third respondent before the marriage through a cheque on demand by the respondents. The father of the complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- a few days before the marriage to enable the respondents to purchase gifts for distribution among their relatives. It is further alleged by the complainant that the first respondent was presented a gold bracelet and gold ring at the time of marriage and was also presented with money to purchase a flat.
5. The complainant further contended that after marriage, the first respondent used to lock up the complainant in a room in the house where they were residing and was not providing food to her. It also is suggested that the first respondent denied the marital obligations and demanded for additional dowry. The complainant consequently laid DVC No.20 of 2010 seeking for protection order and compensation.
6. The first respondent denied the contentions of the complainant. The first respondent claimed that he has been working as Senior Aircraft Technician (Avionics) in Engineering Department and that the contention of the complainant that the first respondent has been suffering from marital ill-health was not correct. He submitted that the complainant voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home. The first respondent indeed speaks about the purchase of the flat. The first respondent submitted that Rs.2 lakhs given by the father of the complainant was intended to purchase jewellery for the complainant herself. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
7. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant filed C.C.No.304 of 2010 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar u/s.498-A IPC, apart from laying DVC No.20 of 2010 and that on 18.09.2013, C.C.No.304 of 2010 ended in the acquittal of the first respondent. He further pointed out that the criminal Court held that there was no evidence of physical or mental harassment to the complainant. Admittedly, a Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment in C.C.No.304 of 2010 is pending.
8. However, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel representing the complainant/wife submitted that while the decision of the Criminal Court was on 18.09.2013, the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 were passed earlier on 21.02.2012. He further submitted that the nature of evidence and nature of finding in DVC is quite distinct from the evidence in a criminal case and that the decision in C.C.No.304 of 2010 per se does not effect the fate of DVC No.20 of 2010. I agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel that the parameters in the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case are quite different from the parameters in the appreciation of evidence in a non-criminal matter. The preponderance of probabilities shall determine whether the case of the complainant is made out or otherwise in DVC No.20 of 2010, whereas the question was whether the complainant as wife had established the case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court in C.C.No.304 of 2010. I, therefore, do not agree that merely because the first respondent was acquitted in C.C.No.304 of 2010, it follows that the complainant would not be entitled to the relief sought for in DVC No.20 of 2010.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents questioned the evidence of complainant as PW.1 and the evidence of her father as PW.2 in DVC No.20 of 2010. The learned senior counsel for the wife/complainant submitted, on the other hand, that it might not be permissible for the husband to question the findings regarding the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and by the appellate Court. Indeed, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken the stand that the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court are perverse, so much so, the evidence can be scanned afresh. I am afraid that the evidence does not warrant drawing of any interference that the claim of the complainant was false.
10. The learned trial Judge observed that the complainant has been living with her parents since 2009 and that the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 was consistent and convincing. The Court referred to the fact that the husband admitted issuance of cheque for Rs.2 lakhs by the father of the complainant and also admitted withdrawing the same. He, however, contended that the amount was withdrawn for purchase of jewellery for the complainant. If the jewellery of the complainant is to be purchased, the father of the complainant could very well purchase the same, instead of handing over monies to the first respondent to purchase jewellery. I am not prepared to accept the contention of the first respondent that the husband of the complainant received Rs.2 lakhs from the father of the complainant to purchase jewellery for the complainant and that he in fact purchased jewellery for the complainant, as the same has not been established on the one hand and as the defence is illogical on the other hand. It may be recalled that the trial Court ordered return of Rs.2.50 lakhs received by the first respondent before the marriage and also return of gold ring and gold bracelet apart from payment of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant towards domestic violence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
11. So far as Rs.2.50 lakhs are concerned, the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is that Rs.2 lakhs was given to the first respondent in the shape of a cheque and Rs.50,000/- in the shape of cash for purchasing gifts by the respondents. The first respondent indeed denied the same as RW.1. In view of the fact that RW.1 admitted receiving Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque, the first respondent cannot now go back and claim that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs has not been received by him. So far as balance of Rs.50,000/- allegedly given by the father of the complainant to the respondents towards purchase of presents by the respondents is concerned, there is no documentary evidence such as withdrawing money by the father of the complainant. Further, there was no person to support the stand of the complainant that Rs.50,000/- was paid by PW.2 to the first respondent before the marriage. Consequently, I consider that the complainant failed in establishing that Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid to the respondents before the marriage and that the complainant is entitled for return of the same. It is, however, established that the complainant has given Rs.2 lakhs through a cheque to the first respondent and the first respondent has encashed the same also. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to seek for return of Rs.2 lakhs only.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant/wife inter alia submitted that it is improper to direct the respondents to return the gold ornaments as well as Rs.2 lakhs or Rs.2.50 lakhs as the case may be since the marriage has been subsisting. It would appear that the complainant and the first respondent have filed separate cases before the Family Court seeking for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights respectively. Be that as it may, as on today, the complainant, who is a Chartered Accountant working at Mumbai, is residing away from her husband, allegedly having been driven out of the matrimonial home in 2009. Where the complainant/wife admittedly is away from the first respondent/husband, I consider that the wife is entitled to seek for monetary order for return of the money given by her/on behalf of her to the respondents.
13. So far as the presentation of gold bracelet and gold ring are concerned, the learned counsel for the husband submitted that it would not be appropriate for anybody to ask for the return of the presentation. In the present case, the presentations were made with the expectation of matrimonial relationship. When the very matrimonial relationship is snabbed, the presentations create obligation on the part of receiver to return those to the person from whom he received the presentation. I, therefore, consider that the trial Court was perfectly justified in directing the refund of the gold ring and bracelet.
14. The learned counsel for the complainant/wife further submitted that there is no provision in DV Act for the relief of refund of gold ornaments received by the husband as presentation. Section 20 of DV Act grants monetary reliefs. As the learned senior counsel for the complainant/wife has pointed out, the definition is an inclusive definition. Section 20 adumbrates that the reliefs include but are not limited to the reliefs enumerated in Section 20 of DV Act. I am afraid that the learned counsel for the complainant/wife cannot contend that the reliefs granted in the order for return of gold bracelet and gold ring are beyond the powers conferred by Section 20 of DV Act.
15. So far as grant of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant/wife that the trial Court has not assigned any reason for granting Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the complainant/wife, working out of compensation is only by approximation as there cannot be any mathematical precision for determining the quantum of compensation as in cases like motor accident claims. Where the wife is a Chartered Accountant and the husband himself is a Senior Aircraft Technician, award of compensation Rs.4 lakhs is certainly just and reasonable.
16. The complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.374 of 2014 challenging the order of the appellate Court in reducing monetary claim from Rs.2.50 lakhs awarded by the trial court to Rs.2 lakhs. For the reasons already set out, there was no satisfactory evidence so far as payment of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of presents by the respondents. The appellate Court therefore was perfectly justified in reducing the monetary claim to Rs.2 lakhs, instead of Rs.2.50 lakhs, as awarded by the trial Court. Criminal Revision Case No.374 of 2014 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
17. So far as Criminal Revision Case No.261 of 2014 is concerned, the order of the trial Court awarding monetary compensation Rs.2.50 lakhs, as modified to Rs.2 lakhs by the appellate Court, awarding of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs and directing to return the gold bracelet and gold ring are found to be justified for the reasons already set out. The revision questioning the order of the trial Court, as modified by the appellate Court, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. The orders of the appellate Court granting return of Rs.2 lakhs by the first respondent/husband to the complainant/wife and also return of gold bracelet and gold ring and to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from the date of the order are confirmed. The first respondent/husband shall return Rs.2 lakhs as well as gold bracelet and gold ring within two months from the date of the order and shall pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from today together with arrears payable from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010, failing which the amount shall attract penal interest at 18% per annum from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010 till payment.
19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in both the revisions shall stand closed.
Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Date: 03.06.2014
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
The Hon Court says and we quote ".........The first respondent/husband shall return Rs.2 lakhs as well as gold bracelet and gold ring within two months from the date of the order and shall pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from today together with arrears payable from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010, failing which the amount shall attract penal interest at 18% per annum from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010 till payment............."
AND
"......the complainant, who is a Chartered Accountant working at Mumbai, is residing away from her husband, allegedly having been driven out of the matrimonial home in 2009. Where the complainant/wife admittedly is away from the first respondent/husband, I consider that the wife is entitled to seek for monetary order for return of the money given by her/on behalf of her to the respondents....."
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
Andhra High Court
V.Chandrasekhar and 2 others.... Petitioners/(R.2 to R.4 in CrlRC.374/14)
K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana, W/o. V. Chandrasekhar, and another....
Respondents/(Petitioner & R.1 in CrlRC.374/14)
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vedula Srinivas Counsel for Respondent No.1:Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel Counsel for Respondent No.2:Public Prosecutor <Gist:
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.Nos.261 and 374 of 2014 Date: 03.06.204 Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014:
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014 was filed by V.Chandrasekhar and his parents against K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana, who is the wife of V. Chandrasekhar. Bhavana, wife of Chandrasekhar in her turn filed Crl.R.C.No.374 of 2014. In Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014, the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.397 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar is challenged. In Crl.R.C. No.374 of 2014 the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.170 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from DVC No.20 of 2010 is challenged. Thus, the origin of these two revisions is orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of both the revisions through this common order.
2. K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana laid DVC No.20 of 2010 against her husband V. Chandrasekhar and against the parents of her husband. For brevity, I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in DVC No.20 of 2010.
3. DVC No.20 of 2010 was laid under Section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) seeking for protection order and compensation.
4. The marriage between the complainant and the first respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2008 at Hyderabad. The father of the complainant/wife, who was examined as PW.2, allegedly paid Rs.2 lakhs to the third respondent before the marriage through a cheque on demand by the respondents. The father of the complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- a few days before the marriage to enable the respondents to purchase gifts for distribution among their relatives. It is further alleged by the complainant that the first respondent was presented a gold bracelet and gold ring at the time of marriage and was also presented with money to purchase a flat.
5. The complainant further contended that after marriage, the first respondent used to lock up the complainant in a room in the house where they were residing and was not providing food to her. It also is suggested that the first respondent denied the marital obligations and demanded for additional dowry. The complainant consequently laid DVC No.20 of 2010 seeking for protection order and compensation.
6. The first respondent denied the contentions of the complainant. The first respondent claimed that he has been working as Senior Aircraft Technician (Avionics) in Engineering Department and that the contention of the complainant that the first respondent has been suffering from marital ill-health was not correct. He submitted that the complainant voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home. The first respondent indeed speaks about the purchase of the flat. The first respondent submitted that Rs.2 lakhs given by the father of the complainant was intended to purchase jewellery for the complainant herself. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
7. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant filed C.C.No.304 of 2010 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar u/s.498-A IPC, apart from laying DVC No.20 of 2010 and that on 18.09.2013, C.C.No.304 of 2010 ended in the acquittal of the first respondent. He further pointed out that the criminal Court held that there was no evidence of physical or mental harassment to the complainant. Admittedly, a Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment in C.C.No.304 of 2010 is pending.
8. However, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel representing the complainant/wife submitted that while the decision of the Criminal Court was on 18.09.2013, the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 were passed earlier on 21.02.2012. He further submitted that the nature of evidence and nature of finding in DVC is quite distinct from the evidence in a criminal case and that the decision in C.C.No.304 of 2010 per se does not effect the fate of DVC No.20 of 2010. I agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel that the parameters in the appreciation of evidence in a criminal case are quite different from the parameters in the appreciation of evidence in a non-criminal matter. The preponderance of probabilities shall determine whether the case of the complainant is made out or otherwise in DVC No.20 of 2010, whereas the question was whether the complainant as wife had established the case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court in C.C.No.304 of 2010. I, therefore, do not agree that merely because the first respondent was acquitted in C.C.No.304 of 2010, it follows that the complainant would not be entitled to the relief sought for in DVC No.20 of 2010.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents questioned the evidence of complainant as PW.1 and the evidence of her father as PW.2 in DVC No.20 of 2010. The learned senior counsel for the wife/complainant submitted, on the other hand, that it might not be permissible for the husband to question the findings regarding the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and by the appellate Court. Indeed, the learned counsel for the respondents has taken the stand that the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court are perverse, so much so, the evidence can be scanned afresh. I am afraid that the evidence does not warrant drawing of any interference that the claim of the complainant was false.
10. The learned trial Judge observed that the complainant has been living with her parents since 2009 and that the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 was consistent and convincing. The Court referred to the fact that the husband admitted issuance of cheque for Rs.2 lakhs by the father of the complainant and also admitted withdrawing the same. He, however, contended that the amount was withdrawn for purchase of jewellery for the complainant. If the jewellery of the complainant is to be purchased, the father of the complainant could very well purchase the same, instead of handing over monies to the first respondent to purchase jewellery. I am not prepared to accept the contention of the first respondent that the husband of the complainant received Rs.2 lakhs from the father of the complainant to purchase jewellery for the complainant and that he in fact purchased jewellery for the complainant, as the same has not been established on the one hand and as the defence is illogical on the other hand. It may be recalled that the trial Court ordered return of Rs.2.50 lakhs received by the first respondent before the marriage and also return of gold ring and gold bracelet apart from payment of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs to the complainant towards domestic violence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
11. So far as Rs.2.50 lakhs are concerned, the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is that Rs.2 lakhs was given to the first respondent in the shape of a cheque and Rs.50,000/- in the shape of cash for purchasing gifts by the respondents. The first respondent indeed denied the same as RW.1. In view of the fact that RW.1 admitted receiving Rs.2 lakhs by way of cheque, the first respondent cannot now go back and claim that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs has not been received by him. So far as balance of Rs.50,000/- allegedly given by the father of the complainant to the respondents towards purchase of presents by the respondents is concerned, there is no documentary evidence such as withdrawing money by the father of the complainant. Further, there was no person to support the stand of the complainant that Rs.50,000/- was paid by PW.2 to the first respondent before the marriage. Consequently, I consider that the complainant failed in establishing that Rs.2.50 lakhs was paid to the respondents before the marriage and that the complainant is entitled for return of the same. It is, however, established that the complainant has given Rs.2 lakhs through a cheque to the first respondent and the first respondent has encashed the same also. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to seek for return of Rs.2 lakhs only.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant/wife inter alia submitted that it is improper to direct the respondents to return the gold ornaments as well as Rs.2 lakhs or Rs.2.50 lakhs as the case may be since the marriage has been subsisting. It would appear that the complainant and the first respondent have filed separate cases before the Family Court seeking for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights respectively. Be that as it may, as on today, the complainant, who is a Chartered Accountant working at Mumbai, is residing away from her husband, allegedly having been driven out of the matrimonial home in 2009. Where the complainant/wife admittedly is away from the first respondent/husband, I consider that the wife is entitled to seek for monetary order for return of the money given by her/on behalf of her to the respondents.
13. So far as the presentation of gold bracelet and gold ring are concerned, the learned counsel for the husband submitted that it would not be appropriate for anybody to ask for the return of the presentation. In the present case, the presentations were made with the expectation of matrimonial relationship. When the very matrimonial relationship is snabbed, the presentations create obligation on the part of receiver to return those to the person from whom he received the presentation. I, therefore, consider that the trial Court was perfectly justified in directing the refund of the gold ring and bracelet.
14. The learned counsel for the complainant/wife further submitted that there is no provision in DV Act for the relief of refund of gold ornaments received by the husband as presentation. Section 20 of DV Act grants monetary reliefs. As the learned senior counsel for the complainant/wife has pointed out, the definition is an inclusive definition. Section 20 adumbrates that the reliefs include but are not limited to the reliefs enumerated in Section 20 of DV Act. I am afraid that the learned counsel for the complainant/wife cannot contend that the reliefs granted in the order for return of gold bracelet and gold ring are beyond the powers conferred by Section 20 of DV Act.
15. So far as grant of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant/wife that the trial Court has not assigned any reason for granting Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. As rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the complainant/wife, working out of compensation is only by approximation as there cannot be any mathematical precision for determining the quantum of compensation as in cases like motor accident claims. Where the wife is a Chartered Accountant and the husband himself is a Senior Aircraft Technician, award of compensation Rs.4 lakhs is certainly just and reasonable.
16. The complainant preferred Crl.R.C.No.374 of 2014 challenging the order of the appellate Court in reducing monetary claim from Rs.2.50 lakhs awarded by the trial court to Rs.2 lakhs. For the reasons already set out, there was no satisfactory evidence so far as payment of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of presents by the respondents. The appellate Court therefore was perfectly justified in reducing the monetary claim to Rs.2 lakhs, instead of Rs.2.50 lakhs, as awarded by the trial Court. Criminal Revision Case No.374 of 2014 is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
17. So far as Criminal Revision Case No.261 of 2014 is concerned, the order of the trial Court awarding monetary compensation Rs.2.50 lakhs, as modified to Rs.2 lakhs by the appellate Court, awarding of compensation at Rs.4 lakhs and directing to return the gold bracelet and gold ring are found to be justified for the reasons already set out. The revision questioning the order of the trial Court, as modified by the appellate Court, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed. The orders of the appellate Court granting return of Rs.2 lakhs by the first respondent/husband to the complainant/wife and also return of gold bracelet and gold ring and to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from the date of the order are confirmed. The first respondent/husband shall return Rs.2 lakhs as well as gold bracelet and gold ring within two months from the date of the order and shall pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs within two months from today together with arrears payable from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010, failing which the amount shall attract penal interest at 18% per annum from the date of the order in DVC No.20 of 2010 till payment.
19. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in both the revisions shall stand closed.
Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Date: 03.06.2014
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment