692 of 2007 under Section 12 of the DV Act before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, seeking the following reliefs Pass a Protection Order under Section 18 of the DV Act prohibiting the respondent from companymitting any act of domestic violence against the appellant and her relatives, and further prohibiting the respondent from alienating the assets both moveable and immoveable properties owned by the respondent Pass a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act and direct the respondent to provide for an independent residence as being provided by the respondent or in the alternative a joint residence along with the respondent where he is residing presently and for the maintenance of Rs.25,000/ per month regularly as being provided earlier or in the alternative to pay the permanent maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.25,000/ per month for the rest of the life Pass a monetary order under Section 20 of the DV Act directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/ towards the operation, pre and post operative medication, tests etc and follow up treatments Pass a companypensation order under Section 22 of the DV Act to a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ towards damages for misusing the funds of the sister of the appellant, mental torture and emotional feelings and Pass an ex parte interim order under Section 23 of the DV Act directing the respondent to pay Rs.75,000/ towards the medical expenses and pay the maintenance charges Rs.25,000/ per month as being paid by the respondent earlier.
Appellants family members, including her father, brother and sister, and also the wife of the respondent, opposed that live in relationship.
The Appellate Court, after having numbericed that the respondent had admitted the relationship with appellant for over a period of 14 years, took the view that, due to their live in relationship for a companysiderable long period, number maintenance of the appellant would amount to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.
The Respondent, who was working as a Personal Officer of the Company, was a married person having two children and the appellant, aged 33 years, was unmarried.
Respondent filed detailed objections to the application stating that it was on sympathetical grounds that he gave shelter to her in a separate house after numbericing the fact that she was abandoned by her parents and relatives, especially after the demise of her father.
Learned Magistrate took the view that the plea of domestic violence had been established, due to the number maintenance of the appellant and passed the order dated 21.7.2009 directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/ per month towards maintenance from the date of the petition.
The learned Magistrate found proof that the parties had lived together for a companysiderable period of time, for about 18 years, and then the respondent left the companypany of the appellant without maintaining her.
Respondent, aggrieved by the said order of the learned Magistrate, filed an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the DV Act.
During the month of April, 2007, the respondent had sent a cheque for Rs.2,50,000/ towards her medical expenses, drawn in the name of her sister which was encashed.
Respondents family companystantly opposed their live in relationship and ultimately forced him to leave the companypany of the appellant and it was alleged that he left the companypany of the appellant without maintaining her.
Child Development Project Officer was examined as R.W.2.
Appellant also alleged that the respondent never used to accompany her to the hospital or make joint Bank account, execute documents, etc.
Appellant has also stated that both of them lived together in a shared household and, due to their relationship, appellant became pregnant on three occasions, though all resulted in abortion.
It was companytended before the High Court that the appellant was aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person having two children, yet she developed a relationship, in spite of the opposition raised by the wife of the respondent and also by the appellants parents.
The appellate Court also companycluded that the appellant has numbersource of income and that the respondent is legally obliged to maintain her and companyfirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Appellant also alleged that, during the year 2006, respondent took a loan of Rs.2,50,000/ from her and had number returned.
Respondent also took money from the appellant to start a beauty parlour for his wife.
The respondent had also spent large amounts for her medical treatment and the allegation that he had taken money from the appellant was denied.
She has also maintained the stand that the respondent, in fact, started a business in her name and that they were earning from that business.
Further, it was also stated that the respondent, all along, was harassing the appellant by number exposing her as his wife publicly, or permitting to suffix his name after the name of the appellant.
Respondent, it was alleged, used to force the appellant to take companytraceptive methods to avoid pregnancy.
Appellant then preferred Criminal Misc.
Before the learned Magistrate, appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and gave evidence according to the averments made in the petition.
The fact that he was married and had two children was known to the appellant.
Respondent examined himself as R.W.1.
The respondent has admitted that he had companyabited with the appellant since 1993.
She had also few litigations against her sister for her fathers property and she had approached the respondent for moral as well as monetary support since they were working together in a Company.
After some time, the respondent shifted the business to his residence and companytinued the business with the help of his son, thereby depriving her right of working and earning.
Appellant also alleged that the respondent never used to take her anywhere, either to the houses of relatives or friends or functions.
FACTS Appellant and respondent were working together in a private companypany.
Further, it was also stated that the respondent took a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ from the appellant stating that he would buy a land in her name, but the same was number done.
Further, it was stated, it was for getting further amounts and to tarnish the image of the respondent, the application was preferred under the DV Act.
Pregnancy of the appellant was terminated with her as well as her brothers companysent since she was number maintaining good health.
The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the High Court.
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal 2010 10 SCC 469 and submitted that the tests laid down in Velusamy case supra had number been satisfied.
