ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S. Ravi Kumar, J.
Kolli Babi Sarojini and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Kolli Jayalaxmi and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal Revision Case No.1160 of 2008
Decided on 29.4.2014
Result: Revision allowed.
S. Ravi Kumar, J.—This revision is against order dated 25-6-2008 in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) at Hyderabad whereunder order dated 6-11-2007 in D.V.C. No.11 of 2007 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is set aside.
2. Parties are herein after referred to as complainant and respondents as arrayed in the D.V.C.No.11 of 2007 for convenience and for better understanding.
3. The brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Complainant filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act 2005) contending that her marriage with Kolli Narendrababu (son of first respondent and brother of respondents 2 and 3) was solemnized on 9-5-1987 at T.T.D. Kalyanamandapam, Tirupathi and it was an arranged marriage. After marriage, couple left for Vijayawada on 10-5-1987 which is the place of in-laws of the complainant and marriage was consummated on 11-5-1987. After some time, couple shifted to Hyderabad. In a couple of weeks after the marriage, complainant noticed that the respondents cheated her and her father by suppressing the fact that her late husband Narendrababu was suffering from psychological disorder and was not mentally sound. Three months after the marriage, her husband left for Vijayawada on the pretext of the ailment but respondents 1 and 2 did not allow him to return back to Hyderabad and complainant was forced to go to Kodada to her in-laws house and there complainant was treated like a maid servant. At the time of marriage, it is informed to the father of the complainant by the first respondent and her brother Y.Venkataratnam Babu and respondents 2 to 4 that 13 shops located at Nela Kondapalli village in Khammam District were allotted to the share of Narendrababu though they stand in the name of 2nd respondent and all the benefits arising out of those shops can be enjoyed by the complainant and her husband after marriage. But first respondent was collecting rents from the tenants of the above mentioned shops at Nela Kondapalli village and never paid rents to the complainant or her husband. Complainant was blessed with a girl child by name Gouthami on 18-8-1988 and at the age of two years, her daughter was snatched away from her and kept at the house of respondents 3 and 4. Complainant was harassed and her life was made miserable which made her to leave the house to reach her fathers house. She approached Woman Protection Cell in the year 1992 and on the counselling by the protection cell, she came back to matrimonial house. Thereafter, complainant was blessed with boy on 23-7-1993 and after the birth of boy, first respondent separated complainant and her husband and was paying a meager some of Rs.1500/- towards monthly expenditure of the complainant and her two children and that compelled her to borrow money from her father and her brother for monthly maintenance. On the intervention of elders, the complainant was allowed to collect rents from 13 shops and respondents also paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant styling it to be the share of her husband. On 23-5-2006, wife of 2nd respondent passed away and after the ceremonies, complainants daughters mind was polluted by the respondents and she was taken away to the respondents house at S.R.Nagar and complainant and her husband returned to Hyderabad on 7-6-2006. Complainant was not allowed to meet her daughter. Respondents instructed the tenants of the shops to stop payment of rents from June, 2006 and the second respondent started collecting those rents. While so, complainant husband suffered from sever chest pain on 28-1-2007 and he was treated as out patient at Nikhil Multi Specialty where they suggested surgery. None of the respondents showed any humanity nor responsibility and the petitioner lost her husband on 4-2-2007 because of the sheer non-cooperation of the res
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.