Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
Mrs. Neelam Manmohan, W/o Manmohan Attavar (Avouched) - Petitioner
Vs.
Sri. Manmohan Attavar Din, S/o Mutthappa Attavar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 282 of 2018
Decided On : 31-07-2018
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [C.A. NO. 43/2005] - Section 2(s) - Question of providing the petitioner a residence by way of shared household - A reading of the provisions (Sections 17, 19, 20 & 22) indicates that it created an entitlement in favour of the women the right of residence under a shared household only to establish her case against the respondent for seeking the relief under the relevant provision. The sections namely Sections 17 and 19 of the DV Act would apply only if it is proved that the petitioner has resided in a Shared household as defined in Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Since she has not at all proved that she has lived along with the deceased respondent for a considerable period of time at a particular address, which was in the knowledge of the neighbours and other people who resided in that locality, it cannot be said that she had lived alone with the deceased respondent in a shared household. Hence, the question of providing the petitioner a residence or shared household, does not arise.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [C.A. NO. 43/2005] - Section 2(s) - Concept of a shared household - When the main concept of a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act itself has not been proved, the question of paying monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act, also does not arise.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [C.A. NO. 43/2005] - Sections 17, 20, 22 - Right to reside in shared household - Grant of maintenance - Petitioner not proved to be residing with opposite party for considerable time period in relationship akin to marriage - None of neighbours supported claim of petitioner regarding household relationship - As petitioner did not live in shared household with opposite party, right of petitioner to reside in shared household, does not arise - No question of paying monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation under Section 22 of Act arises.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [C.A. NO. 43/2005] - Sections 18, 19, 20 & 22 - Concept of 'Live in' relationship -Held, There is no documentary proof to evidence the fact that she ever lived with the respondent. Moreover, she has not at all mentioned in her evidence the period or length that she stayed with the respondent. It is well settled law that the length or staying together by a man and woman has to be proved prima facie, by producing vital and clinching evidence, which has not been done. Hence, the contention that she lived in the shared household, cannot be accepted . Moreover, her pleading does not mention the exact date when kumkum was applied by the deceased respondent on her forehead. Moreover, the deceased respondent being a Christian by religion, the question of he marrying her by applying kumkum as per the Hindu rituals, would not at all arise. A Christian would certainly not have married a woman by applying kumkum, which submission itself is absurd. Therefore, clearly, an adverse inference requires to be drawn against the petitioner to the effect that no such marriage ceremony had taken place as alleged by the petitioner.
Further, the photographs produced by her along with the deceased respondent cannot be believed in totality, since both of them were meeting each other officially either in official functions or gathering and clicking of photos were a usual happening. A person being in a photo along with a celebrity or a person of fame, cannot be considered that the said person is in some way related to the celebrity. Moreover, when negatives pertaining to the photos have not been produced, the same cannot be taken to be material piece of evidence and the Court below has rightly rejected the same, which does not call for any interference.
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 [C.A. NO. 43/2005] - Sections 31, 29 - Appeal against breach of protection order - Maintainability - No order passed against opposite party under 2005 Act, even to extent of ' live in relationship' concept - No domestic relationship between parties established by petitioner, to seek remedies under provisions of 2005 Act - Petitioner cannot seek remedy under provisions of 2005 Act.
WORDS AND PHRASES - Domestic relationship - Domestic relationship means, the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a shared household.
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/appellant against the judgment passed by the III Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 1070/2015 dated 17.02.2018 dismissing the appeal.
2. The factual matrix of the petition is as under :
The petitioner is said to be a Post Graduate in Botany with research in stress physiology and trained in media studies at the Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan and the Indian Institute of Mass Communication. It is further stated that she is a recipient of National Award for ICAR, NOW and AHEAD, published in 1996. Apart from that she was on the International Editorial Advisory Boards till 1996. In the year 2008 she had authored a book titled as “Sikkim, India, Sanctuary to Horticulture Estate” for the Government of Sikkim.
3. The respondent, namely Late Sri. Manmohan Attavar is said to be the Founder Chairman of Indo-American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., (in short referred to as IAHS) and also a Padmashree awardee. It is stated that the petitioner got acquainted with him during her official period in the year 1986, while she was working in the ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research) at New Delhi, as the respondent used to visit the said office regularly in his official capacity, as a Founder Chairman of IAHS. As such he came in touch with the petitioner and the said acquaintance is said to have gradually developed into a strong personal bond between the duo and it is stated that they spent time together publicly. The respondent used to give weekly visits to the working place as well as the residence of the petitioner and he used to make frequent calls and it is stated that they even exchanged letters. Among his friends circles and parties this petitioner was introduced by him as his partner. At the same time the petitioner is said to have been going through a bad marital relationship coupled with divorce proceedings with her husband in 1997, when this respondent is said to have taken good care of her and supported her during her hardships. That both petitioner and respondent were eagerly waiting for culmination of divorce proceedings as the respondent is said to have promised that he would declare publicly the petitioner as his wife and would marry her after getting over the legal hurdles. Their relationship is said to have lasted for almost ten years and it had gone to such an extent that in the year 1998 after some rituals like applying Kumkum, the respondent started visiting the petitioner regularly and they started living together as husband and wife at No. 242, Pitampura Apartments, Pritampura, New Delhi and at No. 6A/46, 3rd Main Road, Jayanagar, 7th Block, Bangalore. They are said to have enjoyed their life to the maximum with consummation of their marriage. Moreover they are said to have moved among the community as husband and wife and the respondent had taken the petitioner to his friends houses and is also said to have introduced her as his wife. Thus he is said to have gained her trust and confidence.
4. It is stated that despite the said bondage between the two, always he had a voice over her. As a result, he had also compelled her to resign her job at ICAR, so as to live with him at Bangalore. Though she was not willing to take such a drastic step in her progressing career, at the same time she was also not interested to put an end to their relationship. As a result and because of the convincing approach of the respondent and his magical words she is said to have tendered resignation to her prosperous job and started living with him at Bangalore. But to her utter shock, she realized that the respondent was already married to one Mrs. Mamtha and he had two children from the said marriage and when she questioned the same, he is said to have promised to marry her by convincing her that his marital life was not happy and he would take divorce soon. Thus she had to suffer in silence because of her love with him. However once the respondent realized that the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
