Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(AP) 1602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Epuri Venkata Lakshmi, and Others - Appellant
Vs.
E Rajani and Others - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 356 Of 2019
Decided On : 03-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kambhampati Ramesh Babu
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP),B Chandra Shekhar

A Judicial Magistrate under the DVC Act lacks civil court powers for property disputes, and economic abuse constitutes domestic violence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate - The court clarified the scope of a Judicial Magistrate's authority under the DVC Act, emphasizing that such a magistrate does not possess the powers of a civil court to adjudicate property disputes, despite section 26 suggesting civil proceedings may overlap. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 21)

(B) Economic Abuse - Defined under Section 3 of the DVC Act, economic abuse constitutes a form of domestic violence, which includes deprivation of financial resources. The court confirmed that the applicants experienced economic abuse through denial of access to property. (Paras 13, 20)

Facts of the case:
The case involved a dispute over agricultural land following the death of a husband, with the wife and daughter claiming rights under the DVC Act, while the husband's family contested their claims. (Paras 3-4)

Findings of Court:
The courts below rightfully recognized the applicants' claims and the existence of economic abuse, affirming the relief granted by the learned Magistrate. (Paras 21)

Issues: The key issues were whether the Judicial Magistrate acted as a civil court under the DVC Act and whether economic abuse occurred. (Paras 12, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a Judicial Magistrate does not have civil court powers in property disputes, and economic abuse was established through the denial of access to financial resources. (Paras 14, 21)

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

ORDER:

V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, is filed by the petitioners impugning the order dated 11.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.80 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division, Eluru.

2. For delivering justice, law is made. Justice is required to be delivered in accordance with the law. Certain times, grievances are raised that in the process of evaluation for justice law is violated. The case before this court is one such instance as argued before this court.

3. Sri Krishna Murthy and Smt.Rajani got married on 12.05.1990. During their wed lock, they were blessed with a female child by name Posamma. It was a normal happy life. Sri Krishnamurthy purchased Ac.1.71 cents of land in R.S.No.700/1 in MM Puram Village under a registered sale deed dated 11.08.1993. Thereafter, it was on 10.02.1997 he died intestate. Thus, he was survived by his wife Smt.Rajani and his daughter Posamma.

4. The above referred Sri Krishna Murthy is son of Sri Gangaraju. The wife of Sri Gangaraju is Smt. Venkata Lakshmi. After the death of Sri Krishna Murthy, the above referred Ac.1.71 cents of land has been under the possession and enjoyment of Sri Gangaraju and his family. After the death of her husband, Rajani and her daughter Posamma shifted their residence to Annadevarapeta feeling that Siri Ganga Raju and his family have not been looking after their welfare.

5. It is in such fact situation, Smt.Rajani and her daughter Posamma filed DVC.No.46 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, West Godavari District. They sought certain directions under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members must account for the yield over the land and deliver the land to Smt.Rajani. There were certain fixed deposits standing in the name of Posamma. They were lying with Union Bank of India, Pulla Branch, Bhimadole Mandal. Therefore, a direction was sought as against the Branch Manager permitting Posamma to withdraw the amount standing in her name. The applicants further prayed for monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to each of the applicants payable from the date of filing of their applications and also sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Father-in-law and mother-in-law are shown as respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their family members are shown as respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 and the Branch Manager is shown as R6. R1 who is the father-in-law to the first applicant filed a counter and his family members/ R2 to R5 filed a memo adopting the same. They contended that the petition is unjust and cannot be maintained and it has to be dismissed. The learned Magistrate framed the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the husband of P.W.1 by name Epuri. Krishnamurthy, had right, title and interest with respect to Ac.1-77 cents of land situated in R.S.No.700-1 of Malikimohamadpuram by virtue of Ex.P.6 and if so, whether PW.1 and her daughter are entitled to seek restitution into the property by virtue of section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956 coupled with section 26 of DVC Act, 2005.

2. Whether the second applicant is entitled to withdraw the fixed deposits from the Union bank of India, Bhimadole which stand in her name.

3. Whether the respondents caused mental, physical and emotional stress to P.W.1 in the shared household and if so, whether she is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent by living separately.

4. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation for mental and emotional trauma.

6. On behalf of the applicants, first applicant Smt.Rajani testified as PW.1 and she got examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Ex.P6 is the photocopy of the sale deed pertaining to the agricultural land. The mother-in-law of the first applicant testified as RW.1 and two other witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents as