Page 1
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
DISTRICT: GOLAGHAT
IN THE COURT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (S),
GOLAGHAT
MISC. (D.V.) CASE NO: 54/ 2014
UNDER SECTIONS 12, PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005
SAJINA BEGUM
-VERSUS-
YUSUF ALI
YAKUB ALI
HAJIRA KHATOON @ MISIR BEGUM
PRESENT : B. DUTTA, SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (S),
GOLAGHAT
ADVOCATE FOR THE AGGRIEVED PERSON: MD. TAHIR ALI
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SRI P. BORBORA
EVIDENCE RECORDED ON: 09/04/15, 28/05/15, 04/02/16
ARGUMENT HEARD ON: 10/03/2016
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 21/03/2016
FINAL ORDER
1) The allegedly aggrieved person Smti Ayesha Begum @ Salma
(in short aggrived person or petitioner) has preferred this petition
under Sections 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
Page 2
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
2005 (in short D.V.Act) claiming reliefs under Sections 18,19,20,22
and 23 of the said Act.
2) The factual matrix that led to institution of the instant
proceedings, as alleged by the aggrieved person, is that she got
married to Yusuf Ali as per Muslim rites on 11/05/11. She brought
several things from parental home to matrimonial home at the time of
marriage. Things were of value of about 2 lacs. She began to stay at
matrimonial home after marriage. She gave birth to a son on
10/10/2012. After about 4 months of marriage, her husband, father-
in-law Yakub Ali, mother-in-law Hazira Khatoon began to demand Rs.
50,000/- from her. They threatened to kill her.
Her husband complained about her articles, brought from
parental home, beat her and rebuked her using obscene words. The
respondents suspected her with any person. If she talked with
anyone, the 1st respondent used to beat her being instigated by other
respondents. Respondents confined her in room while going out. Their
torture increased. Being confined in the room, she had to break
bamboo wall of the room to come out and quench her thirst and to
eat something. After returning they tortured her for this, beat her,
tried to kill her.
Several times she had to come to prrental home for her
security. Being persusded by her guardian she returned to
matrimonial home.
Respondents treated the aggrieved woman like servant. They
did not allow her to mingle with neighbours. In January, 2013
respondent Yusuf Ali drove her out of home in connection with
Page 3
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
demand for dowry and kept the son with them. On that day
respondents beat her severely. On that day she informed at
Chumonigaon police outpost. On 27/01/2013 the police made the
partiesto arrive at an amicable settlement. Both parties put signature
on an agreement. But after some days respondents continued with
their torture upon the aggrieved woman. On 02/07/2014 being
instigated gy other respondents, respondent Yusuf Ali drove her out of
him after beating. Then her brother brought her in critical condition to
parental home. since then she has been at parental home with her
son. Her parental family members contacted respondents several
times for bringing her dowry articles, but they did not return.
Ultimately in November, 2014 they declared that they would not
return dowry articles.
Respondent Yusuf Ali has not paid any maintenance to the
aggrieved woman and her son. Yusuf Ali is a healthy person. He has
business, cultivation. He earns around Rs. 50,000/- per month. But
aggrieved woman has no source of income.
So, the aggrieved person made a prayer for following reliefs-
(a) To direct the respondents to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-
(twenty thousand rupees) to her,
(b) To direct respondents to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.
2,00,000/- (two lacs rupees) to the aggrieved woman,
(c) To recover her „Stridhan‟ articles.
Page 4
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
3) The respondents appeared and filed written statement. They admitted
that the aggrieved woman is legally married wife of Yusuf Ali, They
denied all the allegations of torture, demand for money or articles.
Respondents contended that after marriage the aggrieved
woman showed unwillingness to maintain conjugal relationship with
her husband. She wanted to go to parental home. she came out
without telling them. Then Yusuf Ali and Yakub Ali brought her back
from Naharani Charali. She told them that due to pressure from the
parents she got married to Yausuf Ali. She was not willing to get
married to him. Repondents informed her parents abou it. Then her
parents came and brought her to their house. She stayed there for
about 18/19 days and then she returned.
She stayed at matrimonial home for about 2 months. After that
she began to go to parental home twice or thrice per month. after
about 10 months without informing them she went to parental home.
after about 15 days her husband went with respondent Yakub Ali and
neighbours Pajiratddin, late sahabuddin to bring her. Parental family
members of aggrieved woman rebuked them. But respondents
brought her to their house. After that aggrieved woman stopped
working at matrimonial home. Again respondents informed her
parents about it. Her parents brought her for some time. After return
she again continued her behaviour. Once her father brought her with
him for her rural treatment. Then her husband went to her parental
home. her parents suggested him to consult psychiatrist for the
aggrieved woman. Her husband came to know know that aggrieved
woman was not taking medicines. He brought her to his house, but he
could not make her take medicines. Whenever they forced her to take
Page 5
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
medicines, she falsely complained her parents that the respondents
were torturing her. Then her father brought her to his house.
She stayed at parental home for 3 months. Then respondents
brought her to their house. Again her father brought her to his house.
Then health of respondent Hazira Khatoon deteriorated. So,
respondent Yusuf Ali went to bring the aggrieved woman. But her
parents refused to send her. After that respondent Yusuf Ali returned;
but continued to visit his wife and son, and supply them with goods,
whenever he could. Once while he tried to bring them to his house,
parental family members of aggrieved woman tried to beat him.
After 8 months of that incident aggrieved woman‟s father
made a complaint at majgaon mosque, where people, assembled, told
both the parties to amicably settle the matter. At night on that day
respondent Yusuf Ali and Yakub Ali brought the aggrieved person to
their house with 3 other persons namely Piyaruddin, Abdul Hemid and
Sorujan Ali. After staying at matrimonial home for one day aggrieved
woman again created chaos for going to parental home. then
abovesaid 3 persons were called for. They talked to the aggrieved
woman. Then she stayed peacefully for about 7/8 days. After that she
again started to demand to go to parental home, she continued her
visit to parental home 4/5 times a month. once being prevented by
her husband she created hue and cry. Abovesaid 3 persons were
called for. Aggrieved person told that she would not stay there. then
her parental family was informed. For one month her father brought
her with him. Her husband visted her and her son. But her father
drove him out. aggrieved woman told him that she would come if her
Page 6
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
husband gets separated. On his refusal she told him not to visit them
after that. After that respondents got notice of the instant case.
Respondents further stated that Yusuf Ali is a daily wage
labourer. He earns around Rs. 2500/- per month.
Respondents prayed to dismiss this case.
4) The aggrieved person in support of her case examined as
many as two witnesses, including herself. The respondents examined
one witness. After adducing her evidence aggrieved woman defaulted
in appearance. So, cross-examination of D.W.s had to be dispensed
with.
5) I have heard the argument, put forwarded by learned counsel
for the respondents. Argument by aggrieved woman had to be
dispensed with due to her default in appearance.
6) FACTS ADMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS:-
(i) That the petitioner is wife of respondent Yusuf Ali,
(ii) That she stayed with them at their house,
(iii) That due to their co-habitation a son was born,
(iv) That the aggrieved woman is at parental home now alongwith the
son.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
7) The following points for determination arose before this court
for a fair disposal of this case after consideration of contentions and
counter-contentions of the parties-
Page 7
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
(i) Whether the respondents subjected the aggrieved person to any act
of „domestic violence‟?
(ii) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to reliefs, as prayed for?
On these points, the decision of this Court and reasons
thereof are discussed below-
DISCUSSION,DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF
8) Point (i) Whether the respondents subjected the
aggrieved person to any act of ‘domestic violence’?
(8.1) PW1 aggrieved woman stated that she was at husband‟s house
after marriage and was blessed with a son. She is at parental home
with the son now. After 5 months of marriage her husband, mother-
in-law and father-in-law demanded dowry, money amounting to Rs.
50,000/-. On her inability to meet the demands her husband beat her.
Her mother-in-law told that she would bring a niece after driving out
the aggrieved woman. Her father-in-law said about killing her. They
used to suspect her. They did not allow her to mingle with
neighbours. Once respondents snatched away her son. Then she
informed at police station. That time an amicable settlement was
arrived at. After that again her husband beat her. Other respondents
instigated him. Her father, jamsed, Isanul Haque went and saw her
lying on ground. Since then she has been at parental home.after filing
this case she has received her articles from the respondents.
During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that her husband, father-in-
law, Inkram Ali brought her to Dr. Bijoy Bora of Golaghat for
treatment. She denied that she was also brought to Dr. Adinath
Page 8
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
Sharma of Jorhat. She admitted about filing a complaint by her father
at Majgaon Mosque and about bringing her to matrimonial home at
that night by her husband, father-in-law and other two persons.
(8.2) PW2 Jamsed Ahmed stated that he knows both the parties. After
about 5/6 months of marriage of aggrieved woman with respondent
Yusuf Ali, respondents asked for money from her, beat her, drove her
out of home. PW2 has business at the neighbourhood of the
respondents. As such, he knows about happennings at their house.
Whenever parental family members of the aggrieved womaan went
she was not allowed to talk to them. In 2013 differences between the
parties were amicably setteled at Chumonigaon police outpost. But
again torture upon the aggrieved woman was started. Once in 2014
she was confined in a room. She got fainted. Then PW2 went there.
He alongwith her brother and Isanul Haque brought her to parental
home. now, she is at parental home. Yusuf Ali has made no
correspondence with her.
During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he is uncle of the
aggrieved woman. He stated that both parties complained at Majgaon
mosque and 3 persons namely Piyaruddin, Abdul Hemid and Sorujan
Ali were appointed as guardians. He admitted that after about 7/8
days of settlement at majgaon Mosque the aggrieved woman came to
parental home. He stated that due to torture, meted out again, the 3
persons, assigned by the Mosque surrendered the matter.
(8.3) DW1 Yusuf Ali stated that on 11/05/2011 after one month of
marriage the aggrieved woman showed her unwillingness to stay at
Page 9
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
his house. He brought her to parental home. on 10/10/12 she gave
birth to a son. She went to parental home after that; then refused to
come. He brought her to his house. She again went to parental home.
Her mother told that there might be some mental problem of the
aggrieved woman. He brought her to Dr. Bijoy Bora, then to Dr.
Adinath Sharma. Doctor told to take medicines for 3 years. But after 5
days her father brought her with him. Her father did not allow her to
get treated. He proposed respondent Yusuf Ali to stay at his house
[aggrieved woman‟s parental home]. once her father beat him while
he went to visit her. Her father complained at Majgaon Jamat. There
both parties amicably settled. He brought her. After about one month
she told that if she was not allowed to go home, she would commit
suicide. Then her parental family members were called for. DW1‟s co-
villagers were also there. she was sent to parental home. after that
she did not return. PW2 denied all the allegations of torture,
contention of informing at Cumoni outpost by the aggrieved woman.
He stated that now he is not paying maintenance allowances to the
aggrieved woman. He gives sometimes if he finds someone. During
pendancy of this case the aggrieved woman came to his house and
stayed for two months. Then went to parental home. both parties
then entered into an agreement before the Notary. She told before
leaving that she is at parental home at her own wish.
(8.4) Now, evidence of DW1 remained uncontroverted due to non-
cross-examination. He stated that aggrieved woman‟s father
complained at Majgaon Jamat. But aggrieved woman did not state
that either in her petition or in her examination-in-chief. As her father
Page 10
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
was complaining and she was allegedly aggrieved, she should have
stated about it. Only during cross-examination, she admitted that. By
applying presumption under illustration (g) of Section 114, Indian
Evidence Act, it can be said that such evidence would have been
unfavourable to the aggrieved woman.
(8.5) One allegation of the aggrieved woman is that respondent Yusuf
Ali has not been maintaining her and her son. DW1 himself stated that
he is not maintaining the aggrieved woman and her son now. Then
again he stated that if he finds someone, then sometimes he sends
money to them. PW1 stated that Yusuf Ali has not been maintaining
her. PW2 also stated that Yusuf Ali has not been making
correspondence with the aggrieved woman. So, here preponderance
of probability lies in favour of the aggrieved woman. It shows that
Yusuf Ali has been at least abusing the aggrieved woman
economically. Allegations against other respondents could not be
proved by the aggrieved woman by reliable evidence. She stated
certain new things against them during her deposition, which
allegations were not in her petition. So, allegations of domestic
violence found to be proved only against Yusuf Ali.
Point (i) decided partly in affirmative,partly in negative.
(9) Point (ii) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled to
reliefs, as prayed for?
Page 11
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
(9.1) It is admitted by the respondents that minor son of the parties
is now with the aggrieved woman at her parental home. there is no
dispute that aggrieved woman has no source of income. As point No.
(i) is decided in affirmative, it can certainly be said that aggrieved
woman is entitled to maintenance from her husband.
(9.2) Contention of aggrieved woman is that Yusuf Ali earns arouns
Rs. 50,000/- per month. Contention of respondent is that he earns
around Rs. 2500/- per month as a daily wage earner. There is nothing
on record which shows that he is not able bodied. Hon‟ble Supreme
Court observed in „SHAMIMA FAROOQUI –VS- SHAHID KHAN‟
[judgment dated 06/04/15]-
“In this context,we may profitably quote a passage from the
judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Prakash
Bodhraj –vs- Shila Rani Chander Prakash [17]wherein it has been
opined thus:- “An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be
capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to
maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is
not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them
according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to
show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable to
reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal
obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does
not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against him.”
Page 12
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
(9.3) Here Yusuf Ali has not been able to prove exact amount of his
income. He stated about his income in an approximate amount. Even
if daily wage is considered to be at least Rs. 250/- per day, and
working day per month is taken to be 25 days in average, his
minimum monthly income will be 6,250/-. Obviously as an able bodied
person he has capacity to indulge in productive works and earn more.
While fixing monthly maintenance allowance, the interest of the minor
son, who is with the aggrieved woman, will occupy prime importance.
Moreover, during deposition DW1 has not stated about his any other
liability. Keeping in view all aspects, monthly maintenance allowance
for the aggrieved woman is fixed at Rs. 3500/-.
(9.4) PW1 stated that she has already received her articles from the
respondents.
(9.5) Keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of the case, and
after perusing evidence on record, this court does not consider it to be
a proper case to grant compensation to the aggrieved woman.
Decision:- Point (ii) is partly decided in affirmative, partly in negative.
(10) In view of the above discussion and the decisions, reached in
the points for determination no. (i) and (ii) this court holds -
(a) That respondents Yakub Ali and Hazira Khatoon are not found to
be liable for committing acts of „domestic violence‟.
(b) Respondent Yusuf Ali is found to be liable for committing acts of
„domestic violence‟ upon the aggrieved person.
(c) That respondent Yusuf Ali shall pay a maintenance of Rs. 3,500/-
(three thousand and five hundred rupees)only per month for the
Page 13
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
maintenance of the aggrieved person alongwith her son.
The order of maintenance is effective from the date of filing
the application by the aggrieved woman.
Each of the parties to be provided with a copy of this order
free of cost. Send another copy to the Protection Officer, Golagaht
for information.
The case is disposed of on contest without costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 21st
day of March,2016 at Golaghat.
SMTI B. DUTTA
SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE(S), GOLAGHAT
Page 14
MISC.(D.V.) CASE NO: 54 OF 2014
MRS. SAJINA BEGUM –Vs- YUSUF ALI & ORS.
TYPED BY ME
SDJM(S), GOLAGHAT
APPENDIX (A)Prosecution Exhibits: Nil (B)Defence Exhibits: Nil (C)Prosecution Witnesses: (i) PW1- Sajina Begum (ii) PW2- Jamsed Ahmed (D)Defence witnesses:
(i) DW1- Yusuf Ali
SMTI B. DUTTA
SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE(S), GOLAGHAT