DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
DISTRICT: NAGAON
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, NAGAON
DV CASE NO: 255/2015
U/S 12 of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
AGGRIEVED PERSON:
Lina Bora
d/o Maheshwar Bora
r/o Ranthali, P.S.- Nagaon Sadar
Dist.- Nagaon
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
Dibya jyoti Barua s/o Late Bholanath Barua r/o Kosolukhuwa, P.S.- Nagaon Sadar Dist.- Nagaon
PRESENT: MISS DRIHATA KAKATI, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, NAGAON
ADVOCATE FOR THE AGGRIEVED : Mr. Birajmoni Bordoloi
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : ------
EVIDENCE RECORDED ON : 05.02.2020
ARGUMENT HEARD ON : 05.02.2020
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 15.02.2020
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
FINAL ORDER
1. The aggrieved person, namely Smti Lina Bora filed a petition u/S 12 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act) against respondent, i.e., her husband, namely Dibyajyoti Barua (hereinafter referred to as respondent) seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act.
2. Brief facts of the aggrieved person’s case- The aggrieved person stated in her petition that on 03.03.2014, she married the respondent at her paternal home. She stated that her family members gave her streedhan articles, the list of which is enclosed with the petition which was duly handed over to the respondent. After their marriage, the aggrieved and the respondent resided together as husband and wife at the residence of the respondent at Kosolukhuwa. However, the respondent was not very keen in spending time in the company of the aggrieved and he neglected her when she was a newlywed bride. Thereafter, the respondent and his family members taunted her saying that the streedhan articles she brought are of low standard. They also humiliated the family members of the agrrieved and stopped her from visiting her family. However, she tolerated such behavior for the sake of her marital life and also with the hope that the
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
behavior of the respondent will soften towards her. The respondent started telling the family members of the aggrieved and their neighbours that the aggrieved suffered from mental diseases. The aggrieved thought that the respondent said it in good humor but later realized that the respondent and his family members time and again said that she had a mental disease because of which she could not socialize with people. The respondent and his family members took her to Guwahati on the pretext of health check up. The doctor examined her for 5 (five) minutes but spoke to the respondent in private for about ½-1 hour. On 11.08.2014, unbeknownst to the aggrieved, the respondent went to Guwahati. The aggrieved stayed in her room for two days and one night in starvation and fear. On asking the family members of the respondent, they replied that no one would live with a mad woman. On 12.08.2014, the aggrieved called her mother and narrated the matter to her. They misbehaved with the aggrieved and her mother because of which she left her matrimonial home and took shelter at her parental home. The aggrieved stated that she is a well-educated woman and she studied Peace and Conflict studies under Political Science department in Gauhati University. She is graduate in Sociology from IGNOU. Keeping in mind their respect in the society, she did not lodge any case against the respondent. However, on 28.08.2014, the respondent filed a Matrimonial case no. 70/14 at Nagaon Court. Upon receipt of notice, she 9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
consulted her advocate and she got to know that the respondent, in conspiracy with the doctor tried to pose her as a mental patient. In this background, the aggrieved filed the instant application seeking reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the DV Act.
3. On receipt of the petition, this case was made over to this court for disposal.
4. Upon receipt of notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement wherein he stated that the aggrieved was never subjected to any domestic violence as alleged in her petition but on the contrary the respondent and his family members were subjected to cruelty, humiliation for the acts of the aggrieved, done as a result of her mental disorder. The respondent further stated that on 03.03.14, marriage between the aggrieved and the respondent was solemnized but soon after the marriage, it came to the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner is suffering from mental disorder which is called Borderline Personality Disorder and the said disease existed prior to her marriage. The respondent also stated that he filed a case for nullity of marriage under the provisions of Sec.12(1)(b)(c) read with Sec.5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act which is registered as Matrimonial Case No.70/2014 and the same is pending. On 05.03.2014, the aggrieved came to her matrimonial house and on the very same day, throughout the marriage reception, the aggrieved appeared irresponsible and depressive and at times,
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
her behaviour and gesture towards the guests was unusual and on asking her mother, she replied that the aggrieved was suffering from fever and she was nervous in the new environment. On the very first day at her matrimonial house, she left the bed at 1:00 p.m. but it was overlooked by all the members of the family considering her ill health and tiredness due to the reception party. The respondent stated that the aggrieved used to avoid all the family members and remained cooped up in her room on her bed all day. She had no desire to cohabit with the respondent. The aggrieved, upset with the fact that the respondent did not greet her uncle subjected him to verbal and physical abuse. The aggrieved was sent to her parental home for a change and refreshment but upon her return, her behavior did not change, rather it worsened and she became violent. The respondent took the aggrieved to several doctors for treatment and she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The aggrieved was of suspicious nature and she also tried to commit suicide. The respondent also stated that the aggrieved married him by playing fraud upon him. The respondent stated that as the marriage remained unconsummated and he prayed for dismissal of the application as the relationship between the aggrieved and the respondent does not fall within the purview of the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
5. The respondent subsequently remained absent without steps because of which the case proceeded ex-parte against the respondent vide order dated 05.12.2019.
6. I have heard the engaged counsel for the aggrieved person and also perused the case record thoroughly. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION i) Whether the aggrieved person, namely Lina Bora was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent, namely Dibya jyoti Baruah?
ii) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to relief(s) as claimed in the application u/s 12 of the Act? If yes, to what relief(s) she is/are entitled to?
Discussion and decision on Point no (I)
7. The factum of marriage between the aggrieved and the respondent is not disputed, neither is the fact that both the parties lived in a shared household. As such the relationship between the aggrieved and the respondent falls well within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Now, what needs to be determined is whether the aggrieved was subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. In order to determine the same, the evidence available on record needs to be carefully assessed.
8. The aggrieved tendering herself as PW-1 stated in her evidence on affidavit that right after 7 (seven) days of their marriage, the respondent refused to live
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
together with her at night. Thereafter, the respondent started to ignore her and he never showed any interest towards her. Later on, the respondent along with his family members started to insult and misbehave with her and her family members on the pretext that the streedhan articles brought by her were of below standard and further they restrained her from going to her parental house. The respondent also spread a rumour in the matrimonial home and also the neighbouring locality that she is has a mental disorder. On 11.08.2014, the respondent went to Guwahati without informing her, leaving her alone in a room in the matrimonial home without any food.
9. It is pertinent to note here that domestic violence is not limited to physical violence or abuse. It takes a number of forms which broadly includes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. The evidence on record reveals that the behavior of the respondent had always been indifferent towards the aggrieved. It lacked any sense of warmth or affection towards the aggrieved. A wife, especially a newlywed bride desires the company of her husband. The total lack of company and affection of the respondent towards the aggrieved shows his complete disregard to her feelings and desires which is likely to push the wife into a state of despair and seclusion at the matrimonial home. It is important to mention here that overt actions are not always necessary in order to qualify as domestic abuse. Emotional abuse is a
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
covert form of domestic violence and the apathetic conduct of the respondent and lack of interest towards the aggrieved is most likely to create an emotional turmoil in the mind of the wife. As such, the conduct of the respondent was sufficient to constitute emotional abuse upon the aggrieved.
10. The respondent also passed snide remarks regarding the quality of the streedhan articles of the aggrieved. Moreover, the respondent told his family members as well as the neighbors that she suffers from a mental disorder. It is pertinent to mention here that words have the power to deeply impact a person. Hurtful and condescending words tend to have an adverse psychological effect on a person thereby disturbing the mental peace of that person. In the instant case, the insults directed towards the aggrieved with a view to belittle her can be categorized as mental torture. In absence of evidence on part of the respondent and also the absence of cross-examination of the aggrieved, the evidence forwarded by the aggrieved remain uncontroverted.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I come to the conclusion that there were incidents of mental and emotional torture upon the aggrieved and the respondent has subjected the aggrieved to domestic violence. Thus, point no (i) is decided in the affirmative and in favor of the aggrieved. Discussion and decision on point no. (ii)
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
12. In view of the discussion above, it is evident that the aggrieved person was subjected to domestic violence by the respondents and as such, she is entitled to the reliefs claimed, the extent of which shall be decided hereon.
Protection order under Section 18 13. The respondent is directed not to commit any further acts of domestic violence upon the aggrieved person.
Residence order under Section 19
14. The aggrieved stated in her evidence that she is living at her parental home. As the aggrieved is living apart from her husband, she is entitled to accommodation. The respondent is directed to provide separate accommodation to the aggrieved.
Monetary relief under Section 20
15. The aggrieved stated that the respondent is a Class-I contractor having sufficient source of income. Moreover, he has landed properties at different areas of Nagaon District including Kachalukhowa, Azad Nagar, Near Christ Jyoti School, Haiborgaon etc. Also, he has a grocery shop near Nagaon Civil Hospital and from all sources he used to earn a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month. The aggrieved stated that she is the 1st rank holder in “Peace and Conflict Studied” under political science under Gauhati University and a Master Degree holder of Sociology under IGNOU. She also stated that she has filed a case against the respondent u/S 125 Cr.P.C. 9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
seeking maintenance which was registered as MR 27/16. In that proceeding the Court was pleased to allow her a monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) after final hearing. But, the respondent has not paid any maintenance in pursuance to that order. In absence of any evidence by the respondents or cross-examination of the aggrieved, the evidence forwarded by the aggrieved remains unrebutted. The aggrieved has not submitted any documents in support of her claim of the respondent’s income. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the respondent is the husband of the aggrieved and it is his bounden duty to maintain his wife. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent is not an able bodied man capable of earning his livelihood. In view of the same, the respondent is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand) only per month to the aggrieved.
Compensation under Section 22
16. The aggrieved party has suffered at the hands of the respondent and had gone through quite a predicament due to the wretched conduct of the respondent. As such, the respondent directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for the emotional and mental torture suffered by her.
Thus, Point no (ii) is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the aggrieved. 9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
ORDER
1. In light of the above discussion, the aggrieved is entitled to reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 of the DV Act.
A. The respondent, namely Dibyajyoti Barua is prohibited from committing any act of or aiding or abetting in the commission of domestic violence upon the aggrieved person, namely Lina Bora either at the place of her current residence or on her return to her matrimonial home.
B. As the aggrieved is living apart from her husband, she is entitled to separate accommodation. The respondent is directed to provide separate accommodation to the aggrieved.
C. The respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees four thousand) only payable from the date of this order and is to be paid within the first seven days of each succeeding calendar month.
D. The respondent has subjected her to domestic abuse because of which she suffered at the hands of the respondent. Taking the same into consideration, I am of the opinion the aggrieved must be compensated. The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- 9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
(Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for the physical and mental torture suffered by her.
Let a copy of this order be given free of cost to the aggrieved and a copy of this final order is also to be sent to the O/C of the concerned P.S. as well as the Protection Officer.
The final order is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced in the open court today on the 15th day of February, 2020 under the hand and seal of this court.
Miss Drihata Kakati JMFC, Nagaon
9| P a g e DV Case No. 255/15 Lina Bora v Dibyajyoti Barua
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses of aggrieved person
PW-1 : Lina Bora
List of witnesses of respondents
NIL
List of exhibits of aggrieved person
NIL
List of exhibits of respondents
NIL
Drihata Kakati JMFC, Nagaon
9| P a g e