Lack of evidence for dowry claims leads to dismissal of domestic violence petition.

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated

05.09.2022 in C.A.No.143 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur confirming the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the first respondent are the husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 02.11.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner have given 40 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-wheeler and they have also given Sridhana articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. Due to the matrimonial dispute arose between them, the petitioner has filed a petition in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015 claiming 40 sovereigns of gold jewels, Sridhana articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- given to the first respondent for purchasing the two-wheeler, claiming interim maintenance and for compensation. The trial Court, after considering the materials placed before him and the evidences rejected claims made by the petitioner, except for return of the two-wheeler, which was purchased out of the money given by the petitioner's family, and dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed C.A.No.143 of 2019 before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner specifically pleaded in her Domestic Violence Petition that at the time of marriage, her family members have given 40 sovereigns of gold jewels, Sridhana articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-wheeler, however, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that there is no domestic violence made against the respondents and also arrived that no proof was filed before the trial Court for purchasing of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and Sridhana articles and payment of Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two- wheeler. However, the trial Court has believed the words of the respondents that they received Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-wheeler and that the respondents are ready to return the two-wheeler to the petitioner. Such plea was accepted by the trial Court, but the trial Court has not accepted the plea made by the petitioner that the petitioner's family members have given 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs.2,00,000/- Sridhana articles since no proof was filed before the trial for purchasing the jewels and sridhana articles and the same was affirmed by the lower appellate Court is not acceptable one and prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondents and their names are also printed in the cause list, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.

5. It is seen from the records that except the averments made before the trial Court, no documents or no bills were produced before the trial Court for purchasing of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and Sridhana articles and therefore, the trial Court has refused to accept the plea raised by the petitioner and the same was confirmed by the lower appeallate Court. In view of the absence of any materials, the trial Court and the lower appeallate Court have rightly dismissed the petition and the appeal. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no error or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order pa