In a criminal revision, the Karnataka High Court rejected the husband's challenge to a domestic violence maintenance order, holding that the lower courts were not erroneous in finding abuse and abandonment given the petitioner's failure to adduce evidence despite granted time.
No order as to costs granted to either party. Revision dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.141/2015
BETWEEN :
Sri. Chetan R. Lokande, S/o. Late Rama Krishna Rao Lokande, Aged about 36 years, No.11, 4th Cross, Sector – B, Rama Reddy Colony, Basava Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 037. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Hemanth Kumar D., Advocate)
AND :
Smt. Sushma J., W/o. Chetan R. Lokande, D/o. Jeevann Rao, Aged about 24 years, Residing at No.41/2, Ward No.12, 9th Cross, Kalyan Nagar, T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 057. …Respondent
(By Sri. Kalyan R., Advocate)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 20.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.25081/2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC – III, Bengaluru, and also to set aside the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the
2
Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court – I, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.692/2010.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Hearing , this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard Sri. Hemanth Kumar D., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
3
Revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as husband and wife, respectively, for the sake of convenience.
Wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PWDV Act’, for short) seeking reliefs under the provisions of the said Act from the husband contending that on 17.06.2009 her marriage with the revision petitioner was performed in Shubharam Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru, and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. It is further contended that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid as dowry and her parents have spent Rs.13,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is further contended that their matrimonial life was not happy. Physical and mental torture was imparted on her in the matrimonial home and she was threatened that she would be driven away from the matrimonial house and she was forced to do house hold work and clean the toilets of the house. It is further contended that her husband further demanded money
4
from her parents to buy a car and for construction of the first floor of their house. It is further contended that on 07.03.2010, she was abandoned from the matrimonial house and therefore, she has approached the concerned authorities for protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monitory reliefs under Sections 20 and 22 of the PWDV Act.
evidence of the wife, who was examined as PW1 and considered the documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Husband has
5
cross-examined the wife but despite granting sufficient opportunity he did not lead his evidence except filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.
points as under and answered the points:
1) Whether the aggrieved person proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence against her?
2) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the reliefs U/Sec.18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
3) What order?
“The petition filed by the aggrieved person U/Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is hereby partly allowed.
6
The respondent is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person U/Sec.18 of the Act.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month for accommodation U/Sec.19 and Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the aggrieved person from the date of this order.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation U/Sec.22 of the Act to the aggrieved person.
The aggrieved person is not entitled for any other reliefs claimed U/Sec.20 of the Act.”
husband filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court – III, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.25081/2014. The Learned Judge in Fast Track Court, secured presence of the parties and records and heard the parties in detail. On cumulative consideration of the material on record, the First appellate Court vide order dated 20.10.2014 dismissed the appeal of
7
the husband by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.692/2010 dated 13.03.2014.
8
He further contended that the First Appellate Court without application of the mind, has blindly confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate without even adverting to the records of the trial Court in a proper manner and thus, prayed for allowing the revision petition.
9
REASONS
10
opportunity. Subsequent to granting of time to engage a counsel to represent the husband, no efforts were made by the husband to engage an advocate and proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. As such, the learned Magistrate, closed the side of the husband and with the available material on record passed an order as referred to supra. As such the argument canvassed on behalf of husband that even though husband has lead the evidence, trial Court and First appellate Court’s observation that there is no evidence on behalf of husband is erroneous, cannot be countenanced.
11
learned Fast Track Judge confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate.
12
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Magistrate which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court does not require any further interference.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, point is answered
and passed the following order:-
ORDER
Revision Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
SV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding recorded by the trial court regarding domestic violence and the subsequent maintenance order was erroneous and resulted in injustice?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the confirmed orders denying the husband's defence due to failure to lead evidence?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Chetan R. Lokande
Sushma J.
V. SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
