THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2374 of 2012 Date:16.07.2014 Between:
Habeeb Sheik . Petitioner.
AND Dr. S.Venkataramana and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2374 of 2012 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against orders dated 25-09-2012 in Crl.MP.No.3491/2012 in D.V.C.No.4/2009 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.
2. Petitioner herein is complainant and first respondent herein is the respondent in DVC.No.4/2009. The said DVC is filed alleging that the respondent committed economic abuse amounting to domestic violence and in the said case, she filed Crl.MP.No.3491/2012 for a direction to the respondent to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- to the credit of DVC.No.4/2009 to meet the professional educational expenditure of the son of petitioner herein and first respondent by name Prem Sameer. The said petition is resisted by the first respondent herein on the ground that the petition is not maintainable and that he has not violated any terms of the compromise decree and even if it is violated, the remedy of the petitioner is before the Court, which passed that compromise decree and the same cannot be agitated in DVC. Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, the learned Magistrate observed that there is no prima facie case of domestic violence and on that ground dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that the order of the lower Court is totally erroneous and the facts of the case squarely fall within the ambit of Section 3 (iv) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which defined “economic abuse”. He further submitted that because of the violation of the first respondent, bright future of a boy who has secured number of gold medals and number of certificates during his careeer from primary level is at stake. He further submitted that the boy joined in Vishnu School of Architecture, Madapur in Five Year Batchelor of Architecture Course and as there was need of immediate payment, petitioner was forced to approach the Court below but the same was not considered. He submitted that the petitioner by raising hand loan has met the requirement.
He submitted that because of the observation of the learned Magistrate that there is no prima facie material attracting economic abuse, which is contrary to the findings of this Court in Crl.P.No.1392/2009, dated 13-03-2009, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of revision to correct the incorrect findings. On the other hand, learned Advocate for first respondent submitted that first respondent has not violated any terms of compromise decree and he is very much concerned about the welfare of his children and he is ready to meet the expenses, but the petitioner being an advocate filing all sorts of cases in order to harass the first respondent and that there are no merits in the claim.
5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether order of Court below is proper, legal and correct?
6. Point:- On an interlocutory petition filed by petitioner in Crl.RC.MP.No.3570/2012, this Court passed an order on 18- 03-2014, directing the first respondent to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 24-03-2014. The first respondent paid that amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19-06-2014 and filed a petition to enlarge time for compliance of the direction of this Court. Petitioner received the said amount without any protest. Crl.MP.No.3491/2012 was filed before the trial Court to meet the expenses of the year 2012 and the petitioner by raising hand loans met that requirement and now by way of complying interim direction of this Court, that amount is paid to the petitioner, which means the request of the petitioner for the interim direction is already complied with and nothing survives. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that since trial Court observed that there is no prima facie material attracting the definition of economic abuse, that will have a bearing on the main DVC, therefore, that observation has to be set aside.
7. Advocate for first respondent contended that the main DVC is not maintainable since after obtaining divorce, there cannot be any domestic relationship. From the submissions of both sides, the main DVC is now at final stage. All these objections, they can raise before the trial Court, with the case law supporting respective contentions of both parties. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of main DVC as expeditiously as possible and consider the objections of both parties, including on maintainability, afresh not being influenced by earlier observations made in Crl.MP.No.3491/2012.
8. With the above direction, Criminal Revision Case is to be disposed of as the interim relief claimed by petitioner for the year 2012 educational expenses is already granted and complied.
9. For these reasons, Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of DVC, as expeditiously as possible and consider the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, without being influenced by any of the observations made by it earlier or by this Court in this revision.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:16.07.2014 mrb