HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 1771 of 2009 Date: 30-12-2009 Between: Smt. Gousia Begum Petitioner and D. Fareed and another Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.R.C.No. 1771 of 2009 ORDER: This Revision case has been directed against the Judgment, dated 24-09-2009 in Crl.A.No.99 of 2009, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Mahaboobnagar, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy in D.V.S.No.1 of 2009, dated 15-07-2009 has been confirmed, under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. The parties herein will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Magistrate for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The aggrieved person Gousia Begum is the wife of the respondent M.D. Fareed. They were married in 1980 and are blessed with two sons and one daughter. The respondent was working as Driver in APSRTC and he retired from service on 31.03.2008 and received Rs.6 lakhs towards retirement benefits. The aggrieved person, respondent and their children have been residing in Household No.41-14, Bander Nagar, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District (hereinafter referred to as “shared household”). 4. The allegation against the respondent is that since last five years he has been ill-treating the aggrieved person and her children and attempted to drive them from the shared household. It is also alleged that he did not show any love and affection towards them and that he beat the aggrieved person many a times indiscriminately and threatened to marry another woman. It is also alleged that since the last two years he has been residing separately in one portion of the shared household and not providing maintenance to the aggrieved person and her children. It is also alleged that the respondent did not pay single paise to the aggrieved person and her children from his retirement benefits and that he has been threatening to sell the shared household and trying to evict the aggrieved person and her children from the shared household. The specific case of the aggrieved person is that the shared household is the ancestral property of the parties. The aggrieved person sought protection order from ill-treatment and restraining the respondent from alienating the shared household and from evicting her and her children from the said shared household. 5. The respondent in his counter denied the allegations of ill-treatment and all other material allegations made against him, however, the relationship between the parties has been admitted. His specific case is that the aggrieved person is adamant and having dominating nature and that she incurred huge debts without his consent and knowledge. His further case is that the aggrieved person has misappropriated the amounts given to her by him and that she had given the amounts to her brothers and father for their luxurious expenses. The specific case of the respondent is that the aggrieved person has to pay Rs.26,000/- to one Mallaipalli Sriramulu S/o Baghavanthu resident of Mallaiapally, Rs.20,000/- to one Baliah S/o Galaiah, of Wanaparthy, Rs.20,000/- to G. Sathayanarayana S/o G. Ramulu and Rs.50,000/- to one Srinivasulu S/o Pullaiah of Wanaparthy. It is also his contention that he has been providing provisions to the aggrieved person and his children from Ramalingeshwara Kirana and General Stores, Wanaparthy, which belongs to one Ramesh. It is also his case that he has brought-up his two sons and performed the marriage of his daughter by incurring debts and cleared debts with his retirement benefits. It is also his case that the residential household is his self-acquired property and that he intended to dispose of the same and settle at his native place at Gaggalapally of Nagarkurnool after his retirement, but the aggrieved person is not agreeable for the same. It is also his case that he has also made arrangements for the employment of his sons at Nagarkurnool by taking some shops at Wanaparthy. It is also his case that since the aggrieved person is not inclined to obey him and settle at Gaggalapally, she filed the present complaint with all false allegations. 6. In order to prove their case, the aggrieved person herself has been examined as PW-1 and PWs.2 and 3 have been examined on her behalf. On behalf of the respondents, the respondent himself has been examined as RW-1 and RWs.2 and 3 have been examined. No documentary evidence has been adduced on either side. 7. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate”) held that the aggrieved person failed to prove that the respondent is guilty of domestic violence and that the respondent cannot be restrained from selling the shared household and that in the circumstances, it is reasonable if the respondent is directed to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioner before selling the shared household. Aggrieved by the said order, the aggrieved person preferred an Appeal before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “Sessions Judge”) and the learned Sessions Judge also opined that the aggrieved person failed to prove that there was domestic violence and in the circumstances confirmed the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Case has been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/aggrieved person submitted that the domestic violence has been defined in Section 3 of the Act and as per clause (i) of the Explanation-I ‘physical abuse’ and as per clause (iii) ‘verbal and emotional abuse’ and as per clause (iv) ‘economic abuse’ include domestic violence. It is also submitted that Section 17 of the Act gives right to residence to an aggrieved person in a shared household and that Section 19 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to pass residence orders restraining the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared household. It is also his submission that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the respondent committed domestic violence and that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective which resulted in miscarriage of justice. 9. The learned counsel for aggrieved person has also submitted that the respondent, only in order to harass the aggrieved person, has been trying to sell the shared household and if the household is sold, the aggrieved person would become shelterless. It is also submitted that where the circumstances show that there is no other alternate except to sell the household, then only an order for alternate accommodation should be passed. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision in the case S.R. BATRA v. TARUNA BATRA [1], wherein it was held that if the property is a joint family property, in which the husband of an aggrieved person is a member, she can claim protection order not to disposes her. 10. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the aggrieved person earlier filed quash petition and simultaneously she filed the Appeal and that she has not referred about the quash proceedings in this Revision. It is also submitted that the respondent had incurred debts while constructing shared household and also in performing the marriage of his daughter and therefore, he has to sell his household to clear off the debts. It is also submitted that both the courts below categorically held that the aggrieved person failed to prove the domestic violence and therefore she is not entitled for the protection order. It is also argued that the respondent has been maintaining the aggrieved person by paying the bills in kirana shop and the orders passed by the Courts below are justified and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 11. The learned counsel for the aggrieved person, in reply, submitted that the aggrieved person has mentioned that she had withdrawn the quash proceedings in the grounds of Revision and that even ‘economic abuse’ amounts to domestic violence. 12. In the light of the rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the aggrieved person is the victim of domestic violence? 2. Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for an order of protection restraining the respondent from alienating the shared household? POINT NO.1: 13. Before discussing whether the aggrieved person is the victim of domestic violence, it may be useful to refer to the definition of ‘domestic violence’ as provided under Section 3 of the Act, which reads as follows: “3. Definition of domestic violence:-- For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it— (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.” 14. Under Clause (i) of Explanation-I of Section 3 of the Act, “physical abuse” is defined as follows: ““physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force.” Clause (iii) of Explanation-I of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: “(iii) verbal and emotional abuse” includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.” Clause (iv) of Explanation-I of Section 3 of the Act reads as follows: (iv) “economic abuse” includes— (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance. (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) Prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.” 15. Therefore, it has to be seen whether an aggrieved person is entitled to all or any economic or financial resources under any law, custom or under an order of Court or otherwise and whether the aggrieved person require such economic or financial resources out of necessity for example share in crops being provided for her maintenance etc. Even the deprivation of household necessities amounts to economic abuse. Deprivation of stridhan or property held jointly or separately by the aggrieved person, deprivation of payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance also amount to economic abuse. Under Clause iv(b) all the properties such as household effects, assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person (a) has an interest (b) is entitled to use by virtue of domestic relationship (c) which may be reasonably required by her and her children (d) stridhan or any property jointly or separately possessed by her cannot be disposed of by the husband under clause iv(c). The acts of the respondent husband in prohibiting or restricting to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy or restriction to access to the shared household amounts to economic abuse thereby domestic violence. Thus a wide definition covering several omissions and commissions have been brought within the ambit of domestic violence. The intention of the Legislature appears to be to provide all sorts of protection to the aggrieved person and her children. 16. ‘Aggrieved person’ has been defined under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as follows: “(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.” 17. Under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act, “Shared household” has been defined, which reads as follows: (s) “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.” 18. In the case between S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra[2], when the aggrieved person claimed right in the house which stands in the name of her mother-in-law it has been held as follows. “Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. We cannot agree with this submission. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grandparents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.” 19. In this case since the shared household stands in the name of the respondent, the above decision is not applicable. 20. The domestic violence includes not only ‘physical abuse’, but also ‘verbal and emotional abuse’ and it also includes ‘economic abuse’. The very object of the Act appears to be to provide effective protection to the rights of the woman who are the victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The harassment by way of unlawful dowry, demand of dowry from the woman or her relative will also be covered under these definitions. 21. It is not in dispute that the aggrieved person is the wife of the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that they are residing in the same household. Since the relationship is not in dispute and admittedly they lived together in a shared household, there is domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the shared household in dispute is the shared household within the definition of clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act. 22. It has to be kept in mind that the domestic violence may occur within the four corners of the household and in some cases it may occur in the bedroom of the parties. Therefore, it may not be possible for a wife to secure the witnesses to corroborate her version. Where the parties have children, they may come forward and depose corroborating the version of aggrieved person. In most of the cases, children may not interfere and may become silent spectators. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to analyze the evidence of the wife and to consider all other surrounding circumstances and decide whether her version is acceptable or not. Merely because there is no corroborating evidence of any other witness, the evidence of a victim of domestic violence need not be discarded. It is settled law that conviction can be placed upon the solitary testimony of a single witness provided evidence of such witness is believed by the Court. This principle will hold good when the fact to which she deposes is not witnessed by anybody else. Thus, the Court must examine whether the evidence is reliable inspiring confidence and trustworthy. If it appears to be truthworthy even solitary evidence of an aggrieved person can be accepted. However, Court must examine whether the evidence is in conformity with normal human conduct and probable in the surrounding circumstances of the case. 23. Coming to the evidence in this case, the aggrieved person herself has been examined as PW-1. She has deposed that the respondent had been asking herself and her children to vacate the shared household. Her further case is that the respondent did not give any amount from his retirement benefits and that he is not providing anything for maintenance to her and her children and that they are depending upon the earnings of her elder son. Her specific case is that the shared household was constructed about 20 or 22 years back and that the respondent, after selling the ancestral property at Gaggalapally, constructed the said shared household and it’s present value is Rs.30 to 40 lakhs and that the respondent is planning to sell the said household and trying to evict her and her children from shared household. 24. It is the case of the respondent that he performed the marriage of his daughter in the month of August, 2007 by spending an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and that his two sons were unmarried. It is also his case that as on the date of filing of this case, he was residing in one portion, and his wife and children are residing in another portion at Bandarunagar, Wanaparthy and that he used to take meals in hotel. It is also his contention that he raised loans and constructed the household and that he performed the marriage of his daughter by raising loans and that the parents of his wife did not give any amount to him for the construction of the household and for the marriage of his daughter. It is his specific case that he had to pay the entire retirement benefits to the creditors and that still he has to discharge loans to the tune of Rs.5 or 6 lakhs and therefore, he intended to sell shared household to discharge the debts and to settle the life of his sons by establishing business for them. It is also his contention that the aggrieved person obtained loan of Rs.1 lakh and odd and he had discharged the same to some extent. 25. Thus the main dispute appears to be with regard to the proposal of respondent to sell the shared household. The case of the aggrieved person is that she had met the expenses for the marriage of her daughter and according to her, her parents gave the entire amount. When she was confronted with some Xerox copies of pronotes, she admitted that she brought Rs.20,000/- on two occasions under two promotes and gave the same to the respondent and later the respondent discharged the loan amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest. 26. On behalf of the aggrieved person (PW-1), her brother was examined as PW-2. He deposes that the respondent is trying to sell away the shared household since five years. 27. The aggrieved person has also examined PW-3, one of her neighbour, who also deposed that the respondent is trying to sell the shared household. 28. On behalf of the respondent, RW-2 was examined, who deposed that at the time of the marriage of the respondent’s daughter, he gave Rs.2 lakhs towards loan and that the respondent had discharged the said loan. He also deposed that the respondent against took loan and he is due to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs to him. However, he admitted that there is no document to show that he paid the amount to the respondent. 29. RW-3, one of the colleagues of the respondent, also deposed that he advanced an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent as loan for the marriage of his daughter and he did not discharge the said loan. 30. Now it has to be seen whether the respondent incurred the debts and he has to sell his household. Admittedly the respondent constructed the shared household in the year 1984 and gradually renovated the same. He retired from service in March, 2008. Thus, admittedly the respondent constructed the shared household more than 24 years prior to his retirement. Admittedly he has not taken any loan from any bank or from APSRTC, in which he was working. Thus the contention of the respondent that he borrowed the amount for the construction of his household cannot be accepted. It is not his case that he borrowed the amount in 1984 and could not discharge the same till the date of his retirement. 31. As far as the debts to be discharged by the respondent are concerned, though the respondent (RW-1) deposed that still he has to discharge the debts to a tune of Rs.5 to 6 lakhs, there is no such averment in the counter. Admittedly, the household was constructed in 1984. The suggestions given to the aggrieved person go to show that the respondent incurred debts about Rs.6 to 7 lakhs for the marriage expenses of her daughter and that he discharged those debts. The respondent also deposed that the aggrieved person obtained loans, which he discharged. Admittedly, the respondent received about Rs.6 lakhs towards his retirement benefits and he discharged the loan taken for the marriage of his daughter and the above circumstances go to show that there is no need to sell the household to discharge the debts. A reading of the counter also reveals that the main intention of the respondent is to settle down at his native place after his retirement. 32. According to respondent, he has spent an amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of his daughter. According to the aggrieved person, her parents helped her in performing the marriage of her daughter and the respondent did not spend any amount. A reading of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 reveals that they advanced the amount to the respondent for the marriage expenses of the daughter of the aggrieved person. According to the respondent he has spent about Rs.5 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of his daughter. Even if the version of the complainant (PW-1) that her parents have spent the amount towards marriage expenses of their daughter is disbelieved, the evidence of the respondent (DW-1) shows that he had spent Rs.5 lakhs towards the marriage expenses of his daughter. Admittedly, the respondent has received Rs.6 lakhs towards retirement benefits. Therefore,