Partly allowed

Smt Nuthan v. Bore v Sri Rohith Mahadev Narasekar

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2022CRL.RP/777/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in Karnataka allowed the criminal revision petition in part. The compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded in the domestic violence matter was restored as the appellate court had no valid reason to set it aside, while affirming the maintenance order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.868/2015 set aside regarding compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 payable to the petitioner; Maintenance order in C.Misc.No.188/2014 confirmed.

Smt Nuthan v Bore Vs Sri Rohith Mahadev Narasekar — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.777/2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. NUTHAN V.BORE W/O SRI ROHITH MAHADEV NERSEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT SAI BALAJI P.G. FOR GIRLS NO.101, NEAR NARAYANA E-TECHNO SCHOOL GREEN GLEN LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 103

¶8

AND NOW R/AT NUTAN NIVAS NEAR BUS STAND SAINAGAR ROAD RAIBAG BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591 317.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SRINATHA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI ROHITH MAHADEV NARASEKAR

¶13

S/O MAHADEV RAMACHANDRA NARASEKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶14

¶15

SRI MAHADEV RAMACHANDRA NARASEKAR S/O RAMACHANDRA NARASEKAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶16

SMT. MAHADEVI W/O MAHADEVA RAMACHANDRA NARASEKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶17

RESPONDENTS NOS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.24 SIDDI VINAYAKA BUILDING DATTA GALLI M.VADAGAO BELAGAUM – 591 317.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI NAGARAJ M. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1. TO 3)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED ON 24.04.2017 IN CRL.A.NO.868/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 56^TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. BANGALORE (CCH-56) & ETC.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.868/2015 on the file of the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-56) and also prays to confirm the judgment and order dated 01.06.2015 passed in C.Misc.No.188/2014 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court – III at Bengaluru.

¶25

Briefly stated facts of the case are that, the petitioner married respondent No.1 on 08.12.2013 at Belgaum as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent set up matrimonial home at Bengaluru. It is stated that, the respondent was working in I-Gate Company at Bengaluru. It was night shift work and the respondent No.1 had assured the petitioner that he would get a new job by resigning the existing job. The respondent had assured the petitioner that he would clear

¶26

¶27

the PMP exam to get a better job. It is further stated that, after the marriage, the respondent No.1 had tried to clear the exam; however, he could not clear the same. Then, the petitioner has requested her friends to get him suitable job. Jobs were offered, but, the respondent did not show any interest in attending the interviews. It is further stated that, there were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and respondent with regard to job and non – compatibility among themselves. It is stated in the petition that, the respondent had failed to provide basic necessity to the family. Hence, both the spouses were not happy.

¶28

Thus being the fact, on 21.03.2014, the respondent has informed the petitioner that he would go to Belgaum and return within two days. However, he did not return to the home. It is stated that, in spite of several reminders by the petitioner, the respondent did not return to Bengaluru. The parents of the petitioner had been to

¶29

¶30

Belgaum to bring the respondent back to Bengaluru to lead marital life with the petitioner, however, the respondent refused to interact with the in–laws and sent them with bare hands.

¶31

Therefore, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before the MMTC-III at Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.188/2014 seeking protection which is stipulated under section 12 of the Prevention of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for Short Act”). The Trial Court allowed the petition partly and directed the respondent – husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and also awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the economical and emotional abuses.

¶32

Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 01.06.2015 passed in C.Misc.No.188/2014 as stated supra, the respondent had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after appreciating the

¶33

¶34

arguments advanced by the parties, allowed the appeal partly and set – aside the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed the order of payment of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶35

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Appellate Court, has preferred this Criminal Revision seeking to set – aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶36

Heard Sri.Srinatha B.V., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Nagaraja M.Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Court is contrary to the facts, evidence and the law; hence, the impugned order is liable to be set – aside.

¶38

- 7 -

¶39

It is the submission of the petitioner that, the Appellate Court has not considered the cruelty which the petitioner had been subjected to at the hands of the respondent No.1. In fact, the petitioner had lost her precious life by believing the respondent no.1 in the institution of marriage. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, the order of the Appellate Court is liable to be set – aside with regard to setting aside of the compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the first Appellate Court has rightly modified the order of the Trial Court after considering and after re-appreciating the evidence on record. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that, the respondent has not subjected the petitioner to any mental, emotional and economic abuse. The first Appellate Court has passed order appropriately

¶41

¶42

after considering the economic status of the respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the first Appellate Court is neither illegal nor perverse. Hence, no interference is warranted to the order passed by the first Appellate Court.

¶43

After having given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record, the points which arise for my consideration are:

¶44

(1) Is there any illegality, perversity in

¶45

the order of the first Appellate Court in setting aside the compensation?

¶46

(2) Whether the petitioner has made out

¶47

the grounds to interfere in the order of the first Appellate Court?

¶48

Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 8.4.2013 as per Hindu rites and customs.

¶49

¶50

The petitioner has filed petition seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. According to the petitioner, the respondent has cheated her in the matrimonial home which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

¶51

The petitioner has produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 to substantiate her prayer. On the contrary, the respondent has produced Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. The compensation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is different from maintenance awarded under the same Act. In the present case, the Trial Court though awarded maintenance, and separate compensation, the first Appellate Court without assigning any valid reason has set – aside the compensation. When the petitioner is entitled for maintenance, obviously, she is entitled for compensation also. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence awarded the compensation which is appropriate. Though she is entitled for the said compensation, the appellate court set aside the

¶52

10 -

¶53

compensation without assigning any valid reason is liable to be set aside.

¶54

It is to be noted here that, the respondent No.1 married the petitioner on 8.12.2013 and left the company of the petitioner on 21.3.2014. Thereafter, he did not return to Bengaluru to lead matrimonial life with the petitioner. The petitioner being a woman, aged about 30 years and had dream of heaven towards the marriage, really got frustrated by the behavior and attitude of the respondent. No woman can tolerate the said brake down of the marriage within four months from the date of its performance. The mental agony and cruelty she had undergone in the said marriage, it cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, prima facie it appears that the petitioner has sustained mental, economical and emotional abuse at the hands of the respondent. Therefore, by considering the said abuses, the Trial Court has rightly awarded the compensation which is appropriate in this case.

¶55

11 -

¶56

In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as follows:

¶57

Point No.1 in the “Affirmative”

¶58

Point No.2 in the “Negative”.

¶59

In view of the observations made above, I

¶60

proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) The judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.868/2015 on the file of the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-56) is set aside with respect to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/payable to the petitioner.

¶64

(iii) The judgment and order dated 1.6.2015 passed in C.Misc.No.188/2014 on the file of

¶65

12 -

¶66

the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court – III at Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Bss/Un

Smt Nuthan v. Bore v Sri Rohith Mahadev Narasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nuthan v. Bore v Sri Rohith Mahadev Narasekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Nagappa Acharya

Smt Tejswini M Vs the State of Karnataka

Panchalingiah Vs State of Karnataka

State by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise Mandya District Vs Raju M P

Sanjay. H. v. Vs M/S. Sambharama Chits Pvt. Ltd.

Sri K N Malleshappa Vs Sri Basavanagowda