Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
R. Prabhakar & Another
Versus
Dr. V. Jothilakshmi
Crl.R.C.No.88 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Decided on : 30-10-2012
Domestic Violence - Maintenance - Sections 18(A)(B)(C)(E)(F)(G), 19(A)(B)(C), 20(C) - The court discussed the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and held that the respondent is entitled to relief under the Act, including maintenance for the minor children.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a case against the petitioners, her husband and mother-in-law, under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging physical and mental torture, denial of accommodation, and maintenance for her and her children. The petitioners denied the allegations and stated that the respondent was not entitled to relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to relief under the Domestic Violence Act, including maintenance for the minor children, based on the evidence and circumstances presented.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of domestic violence, denial of accommodation and maintenance, and the entitlement of the respondent to relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the evidence presented, which established the respondent's entitlement to relief, including maintenance for the minor children.
Final Decision: The court modified the judgment passed by the appellate court, reducing the maintenance payable to the minor children and directing the petitioner to open separate bank accounts for the children and remit the maintenance amount regularly.
The respondent herein / petitioner, viz., Dr. V. Jothilakshmi had filed a case in M.C.No.12 of 2011 against the petitioners herein / respondents viz., husband and mother-in-law respectively under Section 18(A)(B)(C)(E)(F)(G), 19(A)(B)(C) and Section 20(C) of Domestic Violence Act stating that she has been married to the first petitioner herein on 05.09.2003. From the date of marriage both the petitioners herein and their family members have been torturing her physically and mentally. She gave birth to a female child on 06.06.2004. Therefore, the petitioners and their family members prevented her from entering the matrimonial home since she gave birth to a female child. Finally, they demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-besides her monthly salary. The second petitioner i.e, the mother-in-law had not provided food and also disconnected the cooking gas connection of the cylinder. Further, she instructed her son not to provide food and maintenance to the wife, therefore, the respondent herein had herself provided all maintenance to the children and also metedout all expenses.
2. The respondent further stated that the second petitioner herein and her daughter had criticized about the complexion of the infant being dark. Therefore, they demanded further dowry and also demanded a motorcycle to the husband, failing which, they threatened that a second marriage will be arranged with a girl of fair complexion, who is financially sound. They obtained her signature in a loan document forcibly and made her legally enforceable to clear the debt. They also removed the name board of the clinic and closed the same. Besides this, the water connection and electricity connection were disconnected. The services of the housemaid was also dispensed with. The respondent further stated that when she conceived for the second time, her mother-in-law had not provided food and other basic requirements, with the result, she was laid up with blood sugar. The petitioners had threatened the respondent that if she delivered a female child for the second time, she would not be permitted to reside within the matrimonial home. Therefore, the respondent / wife had entreated to be provided with accommodation for her residence and her children and also pleaded for payment of maintenance to the minor children.
3. The petitioners herein had filed a counter statement and resisted the said petition. The husband stated that his wife was working as a doctor from the year 2004 onwards at various hospitals, viz., Vijaya Hospital, Kamakshi Memorial Hospital, V-care Hospital. Now she is permanently working as a medical officer, employed with the Chennai Corporation Hospital. From the date of marriage his wife has been saying she desired to marry a doctor, but her father compelled her to marry the first petitioner herein. He is always doing his service to his wife as a dutiful husband and had maintained her through his earnings as a Manager in the bank. The first petitioner further stated that whenever both of them attended any function, his wife would say to others that she is a doctor, but her husband is a bank employee and so she was not satisfied with his treatment. On one occasion, his wife removed her thali. Occasionally, the first petitioner herein used to return late at night after finishing his office work and at such times, she would lock the door and keep him waiting for long periods. The first petitioner further stated that his mother and sister are taking much care on his second female child and they are providing all necessary things. He had obtained a loan from the bank in order to purchase a two wheeler which was not provided as promised by her. The petitioners family members are very happy with the female child. Further the second child was also a female and this was known by scan method, three months after conception. The first petitioner and his family members had taken his wife to a private hospital for her second delivery and during that time all the fa
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
