Usually PWDVA/DV Act cases are taken on face value and interim maintenance against husbands is awarded. However following judgment shows dismissal of DV Act complaint based on no prima-facie evidence. A rare occurence, but nothing is impossible if you fight well.
Full text follows with important points in bold:
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN : MM : ROHINI :
DELHI
Application No.1192/1
PS Sultan Puri
U/s 12 of Domestic
ORDER Violence Act, 2005
Sonia versus Vinod etc.
15.09.2007 ( At 3.00 p.m.)
1. Applicant Sonia is present in person at this time.
All the respondents are present in person with Ld. Counsel
Shri Anujai Tiwari. Ld. Protection Officer Ms. Kiran also
present.
2. By this order, I have to decide an application of
applicant Sonia w/o Shri Vinod and D/o Shri Brahm Parkash
( in short called as applicant hereinafter) filed u/s 12 of the
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( in
short called as Act hereinafter).
3. This application was filed by the applicant on
20.08.2007. The main facts of this application are that the
applicant was married to respondent No.1 on 19.11.2006;
that respondent No.1 and his other family members were not
satisfied with the dowry articles and they started harassing
the applicant on one ground or the other; that severe
beatings were also given to the applicant by respondent No.1
and his other family members on several occasions; that
respondent No.1 was habitual of drinking and misbehaving
with the applicant from time to time without any justified
reasons; that matter was also reported to the local police but
contd…P/2
no action was taken against any of the respondents and
hence this application was filed claiming relief as prayed for
at the end of the application.
4. Notice of this application was given to Ld. Protection
Officer Ms. Kiran (in short called as Protection Officer
hereinafter) and she filed Domestic Incident report before
this court pertaining to this matter. Notice of this application
was also issued to all the respondents through Protection
Officer and they had put their appearance before this court
through their Ld. Counsel on 01.09.2007. They were also
supplied copies of the application and all the relevant papers
attached in support of it and they sought time to file reply to
this application. However, they did not opt to file any written
reply to it and their Ld. Counsel orally opposed this
application on behalf of respondents without filing any written
reply.
5. I have heard applicant and her counsel Mr. Danvir
Singh and Mr. Manjeet as well as all the respondents and
their Ld. Counsel Shri Baldev Sharan on 14.09.2007
pertaining to this matter. Views of Protection officer were
also taken into consideration as she was also present on
14.09.2007. The main submissions of applicant and her Ld.
Counsel were that on the basis of entire facts narrated in the
application coupled with Domestic Incident Report submitted
by Protection Officer, she was in dire need of protection
orders as per prayer clause of the application under
discussion.
contd…P/3
6. On the other hand, main submissions of the
respondents and their Ld. Counsel were to the effect that
no domestic violence had ever been committed against the
applicant by any of the respondents; that respondent No.1 is
the only married person in his family having liability to
support his widow mother aged about 75 years; that
respondent No.1 was also having liability to support his other
three sisters and one brother, who were all unmarried and
depending upon the earnings of respondent No.1; that
family of respondents was very poor family and they were
having only small house of three small rooms and they
cannot spare one room for the applicant exclusively out of
this small accommodation; that respondent No. 1 was also
ready to reside peacefully with the applicant in his parental
house but the applicant herself was of quarrelsome nature
and was not co-operating at all on any point with the family
members of respondent No.1; that respondent No.1 was still
ready to keep her in his parental house provided she co-
operates with other family members; that respondents were
the victims rather than aggressors and that it was the
applicant only who was harassing the respondents on trivial
matters. Lastly, a prayer was made to dismiss the
application under discussion.
7. I have perused the entire judicial file minutely in view
of the above mentioned rival submissions. I have also taken
into consideration the view points of the Protection Officer
and the Domestic Incident Report submitted by her before
this court.
contd….P/4
8. On the basis of entire facts and circumstances of this
case, I am prima facie of the considered opinion that
behaviour of applicant is of such a nature that she is not co-
operating with the respondents. She prima facie appears to
be harassing the respondents on trivial matters. The
applicant has prima facie failed to satisfy this court that
respondent No.1 or any of his other family members have
really committed any Domestic Violence against her in the
given facts and circumstances of this case. The applicant
prima facie appears to be residing at present with her
parents without any justified reasons. Her in-laws are very
much in need of her company and support because all the
three sisters and one brother of respondent No.1 are
unmarried at present and prima facie depending upon the
earnings of respondent No.1 and the mother of respondent
No.1 appears to be quite old and physically weak in health.
She also needs the services of her daughter-in-law namely,
applicant for her own care and protection.
9. On the basis of above mentioned discussion, I am
prima-facie of the considered opinion that no domestic
violence has taken place pertaining to this matter and the
applicant does not deserve any order in her favour from this
court at present. Her application under discussion is prima
facie found to be devoid of any merits at this stage it is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Contd……P/5
10. Let one certified copy of this order be given dasti to
the applicant and one such copy collectively to all the
respondents as they are all family members. One certified
copy of this order be also sent to the SHO of area concerned
and one such copy be also given to the Protection Officer for
her record, as prayed for.
Announced in the open court,
today i.e., on 15th
of September, 2007.
(DR. SHAHABUDDIN)
MM. ROHINI / 15/9/07