IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When the very matrimonial relationship is snapped, the presentations create obligation on the part of receiver to return those to the person from whom he receive the presentation.
(2) Working out of compensation is only by approximation as there cannot be any mathematical precision for determining the quantum of compensation.

Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.—Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014 was filed by V.Chandrasekhar and his parents against K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana, who is the wife of V. Chandrasekhar. Bhavana, wife of Chandrasekhar in her turn filed Crl.R.C.No.374 of 2014. In Crl.R.C.No.261 of 2014, the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.397 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar is challenged. In Crl.R.C. No.374 of 2014 the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.170 of 2012 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dsitrict, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar arising from DVC No.20 of 2010 is challenged. Thus, the origin of these two revisions is orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to dispose of both the revisions through this common order.

2. K. Bhavana @ V. Bhavana laid DVC No.20 of 2010 against her husband V. Chandrasekhar and against the parents of her husband. For brevity, I shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in DVC No.20 of 2010.

3. DVC No.20 of 2010 was laid under Section 12 of the Protection of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, for short) seeking for protection order and compensation.

4. The marriage between the complainant and the first respondent was solemnized on 14.08.2008 at Hyderabad. The father of the complainant/wife, who was examined as PW.2, allegedly paid Rs.2 lakhs to the third respondent before the marriage through a cheque on demand by the respondents. The father of the complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- a few days before the marriage to enable the respondents to purchase gifts for distribution among their relatives. It is further alleged by the complainant that the first respondent was presented a gold bracelet and gold ring at the time of marriage and was also presented with money to purchase a flat.

5. The complainant further contended that after marriage, the first respondent used to lock up the complainant in a room in the house where they were residing and was not providing food to her. It also is suggested that the first respondent denied the marital obligations and demanded for additional dowry. The complainant consequently laid DVC No.20 of 2010 seeking for protection order and compensation.

6. The first respondent denied the contentions of the complainant. The first respondent claimed that he has been working as Senior Aircraft Technician (Avionics) in Engineering Department and that the contention of the complainant that the first respondent has been suffering from marital ill-health was not correct. He submitted that the complainant voluntarily deserted the matrimonial home. The first respondent indeed speaks about the purchase of the flat. The first respondent submitted that Rs.2 lakhs given by the father of the complainant was intended to purchase jewellery for the complainant herself.

7. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the complainant filed C.C.No.304 of 2010 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar u/s.498-A IPC, apart from laying DVC No.20 of 2010 and that on 18.09.2013, C.C.No.304 of 2010 ended in the acquittal of the first respondent. He further pointed out that the criminalCourt held that there was no evidence of physical or mental harassment to the complainant. Admittedly, a Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment in C.C.No.304 of 2010 is pending.

8. However, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel representing the complainant/wife submitted that while the decision of the Criminal Court was on 18.09.2013, the orders in DVC No.20 of 2010 were passed earlier on 21.02.2012. He further submitted that the nature of evidence and nature of finding in DVC is quite distinct from the evidence in a criminal case and tha