High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal revision petition. The Court held that the Appellate Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court's order awarding relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act due to lack of material evidence, pendency of a divorce decree, and failure to prove allegations of cruelty or dowry demand.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.45 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
K.S.GEETHA WIFE OF SATHISHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF KALKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI
CHANNRAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI:T.B.SANDESH, ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT YALIYUR VILLAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT
RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT D.KALENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116
RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT MADENUR VILLAGE SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116 HASSAN DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:D.J.NANJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE (VC))
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2014 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60 OF 2014 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITON.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD BENCH THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner-wife is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2014 on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and Additional Sessions Judge at Channarayapatna, (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), wherein, the order dated 10.03.2014 passed in Crl.Misc.No.456 of 2011 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channarayapatna, came to be set aside by allowing the criminal appeal.
No.1 on 13.03.2011 and before marriage, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and 200 grams of gold ornaments were given as dowry. After marriage, for about one month, respondent No.1 looked after her very well and subsequently, he started ill-treating her as he was addicted to bad vices. He started demanding cash of Rs.8,00,000/- as additional dowry. Respondent No.2 being the mother of respondent No.1, respondent Nos.3 to 6 being the brothers and sisters of respondent No.1 were also ill-treating her. It is stated that within 15 days from the date of marriage, respondents started ill-treating her. That the petitioner was not keeping good health. Respondent No.1 instead of providing her treatment assaulted her and dragged her out of the house. The accused snatched gold ornaments weighing around 135 grams. The petitioner lodged criminal complaint with Channarayapatna Rural police, which was registered in Crime No.73 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DV Act. It is stated that respondent No.2 is owing 8
acres of land and she is getting annual income of Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 is doing business in
coconuts and earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner sought for orders under Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. She sought for returning of Rs.1,00,000/- and 200 grams of gold, which were given at the time of marriage. She also sought for share in the properties owned by her husband.
the petitioner. When this was rejected, a false complaint was lodged. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the petition.
came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without any merits and accordingly, the appeal was allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court.
in spite of the order passed by the Trial Court, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not paid any amount towards maintenance. It is also stated that respondent No.1 had filed a petition for divorce, but however, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded ignorance about its result. Learned counsel submitted
that the impugned order passed by the Appellate court is devoid of merits since the petitioner is subjected to cruelty demanding dowry and therefore, she is entitled for the relief that is granted by the Trial Court. Hence, he prays for
allowing the revision petition and to restore the order passed by the Trial Court.
permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/- is granted in favour of respondent-wife. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek any relief under the provisions of DV Act, as she never resided with the respondent nor she led marital life. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition in the interest of justice.
“Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court needs to be set aside by restoring the order passed by the Trial Court?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
REASONS
married to respondent No.1 on 13.03.2011. This fact is not in dispute. It is the further contention of the petitioner that dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and 200 grams of gold ornaments
were paid at the time of marriage. It is also stated that she was subjected to cruelty by respondent No.1 and others and she was ousted from the matrimonial house by snatching the gold ornaments which she was having.
200 grams of gold at the time of marriage. Nothing has been placed before the Court in support of such contention. She also contended that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents. As per the address of respondents, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are residing together. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are residing in different addresses. Nothing has been stated by the petitioner as to how they joined with respondent Nos.1 and 2 in ill-treating her when they are residing separately. The petitioner contended that she has spent huge amount for arranging the marriage and also suffered injuries due to the act of respondents. No materials are placed before the Court to prove such contentions.
marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner. He also contended that the said petition came to be allowed on 19.04.2018, awarding permanent alimony of Rs.3,00,000/in favour of the present petitioner. This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the petitioner has initiated separate criminal proceedings against the respondents for cruelty said to have been meted to her, demand and acceptance of dowry and when the marriage between the parties is already dissolved by a decree of divorce and when the petitioner has not placed any material in proof of her contention that respondent No.1 is having agricultural lands or he is having his own income from business, there is absolutely no reason to allow the petition and to grant any of the reliefs as sought by the petitioner.
petition without any basis. However, the Appellate Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to allow the appeal preferred by the respondents. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
In view of the discussion held above. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’.
The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court setting aside the Trial Court's order granting relief under the Domestic Violence Act needs to be set aside?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K.S. GEETHA
SATHISHA
RANGAMMA
PREMA
KUMARA
BHARATHI
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
