IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8669 of 2008 Between: Nuni Rama Tulasi & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Nuni Satyanarayana & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8669 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri A.S. Vasudevan, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/the second respondent. 2. The criminal petition is directed against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2008, on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajahmundry, dated 29.11.2008. 3. The factual background for the dispute is the domestic violence case in D.V.C.No.1 of 2007, filed by the petitioners herein against the first respondent herein and 2 others, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru. The petitioners herein contended that Stridhana properties of about Ac. 5.00 were kept with the first respondent herein apart from about 30 tulas of gold ornaments and the first petitioner prayed for reliefs under Sections 18 to 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”). The contention of the first respondent herein is that no property was given to the first petitioner at the time of the marriage and the first respondent developed Ac. 3.33 cents of land given to him by his father and also cultivated lands on lease with the income from which he purchased Ac. 3.00 in the name of the first petitioner and Ac. 1.00 in the name of the second petitioner. 4. During the course of enquiry, the trial Court had examined P.W.1 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and R-1. 5. In the order of the trial Court, dated 18.01.2008, the trial Court noted the claims of the first petitioner about her paternal grand father purchasing Ac. 4.00 of land at Valluru Village in her name and the first respondent herein purchasing Ac. 1.00 of land in the name of the second petitioner herein. She also referred to execution of a Will-Ex.P-4 by her grand father bequeathing Ac.2.90 cents of land, a house and a cattle shed. The second respondent to the domestic violence case who was examined as R.W.2 is the mother of the first petitioner, who stated about the first respondent herein purchasing the land in the name of the first petitioner with the income from his own land and leasehold lands. She also stated about purchase of Ac. 1.00 of land by the first respondent herein in the name of the second petitioner. The trial Court, on perusal of Ex.P-4, found bequeathing of properties by the grand father in favour of the first petitioner and the trial Court further found that even according to respondents 1 and 2 to the domestic violence case, the first petitioner got Ac. 4.00 of land in her name. The trial Court, therefore, felt it appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to deliver possession of the landed properties which are in the name of the first petitioner and also hand over their original documents to the first petitioner within one month under Section 19(8) of the Act. 6. The first respondent herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2008 against the said order and the Appellate Court, after referring to the rival contentions and evidence, noted the admitted relationship between the parties and observed that the evidence of the mother of P.W.1 itself was about not giving even a cent of land as Pasupu Kumkuma at the time of the marriage and the husband himself purchasing the land in the name of the wife with the income from cultivation. While the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 are necessarily tainted with interestedness and require corroboration independently so as to acquire the necessary degree of credibility for acceptance, the evidence of R.W.2 may tend to probablise the possibility of acquisition of the land in the name of the first petitioner by the first respondent herein with his earnings, more so, in view of the first petitioner being married to the first respondent at the age of 7 years and the first petitioner being only a house wife even according to her own description without any income or avocation. The document No.40 of 1987 or document No.1901 of 1981, copies of which are filed along with the material papers, do not indicate the consideration for the purchases coming from any other person than the first petitioner or the first respondent and the purchase of Ac.1.00 of land in the name of the second petitioner was admittedly done by the husband. While P.W.1 is entitled to whatever rights were conferred and or whatever properties were bequeathed to her under Ex.P-4-Will, insofar as the property admittedly under the cultivation of the first respondent herein is concerned, any direction under Section 19(8) of the Act to return the possession of the property to the wife will arise only in consequence to the property being one to which the wife is entitled to. While a benami purchase between the husband and wife is not prohibited under law, the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record as concluded by the Appellate Court are in favour of the properties being purchased benami by the husband in the name of the wife, consequently leading the Appellate Court to direct delivery of possession of only those landed properties which were bequeathed under Ex.P-4-Will along with delivery of original documents relating to them and not the other properties though standing in the name of the wife. 7. The contentions of the petitioners against the said judgment due to the absence of the Court appreciating the self-acquired nature and absolute ownership of the properties do not, therefore, appear to be acceptable in exercise of the very restricted jurisdiction of this Court with reference to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). If the possession and cultivation of lands are with the husband, a direction under Section 19(8) of the Act is called for only on prima facie satisfaction of the Court on the entitlement of the wife to such possession and when the trial Court merely proceeded on the basis of properties standing in the name of the wife and when the Appellate Court, on a detailed analysis of the evidence, considered it probable that it was the husband who purchased properties benami in the name of the wife, the direction of the Appellate Court in modification of the trial Court order cannot be considered interfearable under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, any motives attributed to R.W.2 cannot overweigh the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence as appreciated by the Appellate Court. As observed by the Appellate Court, the civil rights of the parties regarding the properties are to be ultimately adjudicated and settled in appropriate proceedings to which the parties may take recourse to before the civil Court and not here. Therefore, I find no merits in the criminal petition. 8. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8669 of 2008 Date: 12th October, 2011 KL