Revising a Sessions Judge's order that set aside a domestic violence protection order. The High Court held there was no domestic relationship as the petitioner did not reside in a shared household owned by the respondents, dismissing the revision petition.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned judgment confirmed.
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 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.436 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT. PREMA SHETTY D/O LATE SADHU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARIYAKALLU, SANOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KARKALA TALUK -574 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.CHANDRANATH ARIGA,.ADV.FOR R-1; R-3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIAL JUDGE DATED: 05.03.2015 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 51/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSION JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT AT UDUPI. PASS SUCH OTHER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRL.RP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.01.2023, POSTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
3
O R D E R
That petitioner is the permanent resident of Kukkundoor Village in the residential house called 'motherland' bearing door No.4/221. The said house is standing in the name of one deceased Sundara Shetty. As per her petition averments, she is the legally wedded second wife of the deceased Sundara Shetty.
4
Her marriage was registered. After her marriage, herself and her husband Sundara Shetty used to reside in the aforesaid house. As he was seriously ill, he was admitted to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. Her husband Sundara Shetty died on 04.01.2010 because of his illness.
5
Therefore, petitioner submitted a complaint before the Karkala Town Police Station which is being registered in FIR No.13/2020.
6
No.35/2010, so also O.S. No.106/2011, seeking injunction. The said suits are pending. Therefore they prayed to dismiss the Petition.
7
GROUNDS
10. That order of the learned Sessions Judge is highly arbitrary
and illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave and serious error by holding that the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are not applicable to the facts of the case. The said Court has grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and respondents. Though there is sufficient evidence placed on record by the petitioner, the evidence so placed on record, both oral and documentary has not been properly appreciated to prove the relationship. The learned Sessions Judge is wrong in coming to the conclusion that the act of the respondents does not amount to domestic violence. She has sought the protection under the provisions of the said Act and now the respondents are trying to dispossess her from the property. Without accepting the documents of the petitioner, the impugned Judgment is passed accepting the contentions of the respondents. Thus the learned Sessions Judge has failed to
8
appreciate the contentions of the petitioner. Whereas the learned Trial Court has understood and applied the facts of the case. Thus the impugned Judgment is only based on hearsay, untrustworthy and self serving statements. Thus it is prayed to allow the revision, set aside the impugned Judgment and restore the order passed by the Trial Court.
9
3.Crl. Appeal. No.309/2011 Mr. Maniraju v/s Mr. G. Nagaraju. DD: 10.08.2021.
the sides.
10
"Whether, the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge
being the First Appellate Court, by appreciating the evidence has rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner?"
11
No.1 appears to be his son and respondent Nos.2 and 3 appear to be the sons-in-law of his husband from his first wife.
12
provisions of the aforesaid Act have no application to the facts of this case and rightly the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Udupi has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner in Crl.A. No.51/2012.
13
marriage itself, she has married Sundara Shetty and she has not gone to any other place.
14
15
the meaning of S.2(s) and hence, respondents are not entitled to claim right to live therein under S.17."
" 2(s) "Shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household."
16
"24. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household.
17
household. In another Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in Crl. A.309/2011, decided on 10.08.2021, this Court has discussed with regard to the provisions of D.V. Act in detail. The said principles can be made applicable to the present facts of this Case.
18
there is no evidence. No doubt, S.2(a) of the Act defines "Aggrieved person", which means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to an act of domestic violence by the respondent. As there exists no domestic relationship, how this petitioner would become aggrieved person is not explained. There is no evidence to show that at any point of time, respondents lived together in a shared household. Section 3 in Chapter II gives a definition of domestic violence. Thus, the petition averments also do not cover the definition of domestic violence as alleged by the petitioner.
19
38. Resultantly, I pass the following:
Crl. R.P. filed by the petitioner under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
The Judgment so passed by the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.A. No.51/2012 dated 05.03.2015 is hereby confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, forthwith. Return the Trial Court and Appellate Court records.
Sd/JUDGE
sac*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the petition by finding no domestic relationship exists between the petitioner and respondents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Whether the petitioner succeeded in proving she was residing in a 'shared household' required to claim protection under Section 2(s) of the Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra (Smt.)Applied¶27
2007 (3) SCC 169 S.R. Batra and another. · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PREMA SHETTY
HEMANTH SHETTY
RAMESH D. SHETTY
K. SUNDAR SHETTY
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
