Partly allowed

Smt. Priyanka Palankar v. Sri. Prathik S Palankar

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2023CRL.RP/605/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition partially, modifying the lower court's order. It enhanced the advance payment for alternate accommodation from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1.20 lakhs and monthly rent from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 12,000. The petitioner can seek reinstatement in the original property if the respondent fails to pay rent.

What did the court decide?

The order directing respondent No. 1 to pay for alternate accommodation was modified; advance enhanced to Rs. 1,20,000 and monthly rent to Rs. 12,000.

Smt. Priyanka Palankar Vs Sri. Prathik S Palankar — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 605 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. PRIYANKA PALANKAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, W/O PRATHIK S PALANKAR, R/A NO.302, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. PRATHIK S PALANKAR S/O SURESH G PALANKAR AGED ABOUT 33 YRS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. USHA PALANKAR W/O SURESH G PALANKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YRS,

¶15

SRI SURESH GANAPATHI PALANKAR S/O GANAPATHI PALANKAR AGED ABOUT 63 YRS,

¶16

ALL ARE R/A 302, 8^TH MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S. SARAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶19

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED BY

¶20

¶21

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶22

THE M.M.T.C.-V, BENGALURU, IN CRL.MISC.NO.109/2019 AND THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2020 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.APPEAL NO.2667/2019 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.RP. AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bangalore, (for short, ‘the Trial Court’) in Crl. Misc. No.109/2019, by which the respondent No.1 herein was ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- towards advance for an alternate accommodation and Rs.6,000/- per month as its rental expenses to the petitioner. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’) in Crl. Appeal No.2667/2019, by which it upheld the said Order passed by the Trial Court.

¶26

The petitioner herein is the wife and respondent No.1 is her husband while respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her inlaws.

¶27

¶28

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶29

The petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.109/2019 for various reliefs under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’). She filed an application (I.A.No.1) under Section 23(1) and 23(2) of the Act of 2005 to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from matrimonial home and to pay monetary relief as allowed under Section 20 of the Act of 2005 along with Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

¶30

The Trial Court after considering the material placed on record, allowed the said application in terms of the Order dated 28.08.2019 and directed the respondents to provide accommodation to the petitioner in the matrimonial home i.e., No.302, 8^th Main, Pipeline road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the property in question’) and also reserved liberty to her to seek help of the Protection officer to implement the said Order. Further, Protection officer was directed to do the needful if the petitioner approached for the same. An application under Section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 was filed by the respondents to recall the said Order on the ground that they were not heard before passing the order. The Trial Court in terms of the Order dated 09.12.2019, partly

¶31

¶32

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶33

allowed the application and modified its earlier order dated 28.08.2019 and directed the respondent No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards advance for an alternate accommodation and Rs.6,000/- per month as its rental expenses to the petitioner from the date of the said order till the disposal of main petition or further order. This was challenged by the petitioner, in Crl. Appeal No.2667/2019 before the Appellate Court.

¶34

The Appellate Court held that the property in question where the petitioner desired to stay belonged to the respondent No.2 herein. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra [AIR 2007 SC 1118], the Appellate Court held that such property could not be the shared household of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had invoked the provisions of the Act of 2005, the Appellate Court held that in the fitness of things, it is appropriate to keep the parties separate, pending disposal of the proceedings and therefore, dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court.

¶35

¶36

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶37

Being aggrieved by the impugned Orders passed by

¶38

both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court having once passed an order dated 28.08.2019 could not have undone the same on 09.12.2019 though there was no need to do so. She submitted that the petitioner was residing at the property in question and therefore, it was her shared household and she was entitled to reside in the said accommodation. She submitted that the petitioner is entitled to continue to reside in the property in question and therefore, the impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Trial Court which was upheld by the Appellate Court warrants interference.

¶40

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the order dated 28.08.2019 was passed behind the back of the respondents and therefore, it was imminent for them to seek recalling of the said Order and the Trial Court after considering their claim, recalled the said order and directed the respondents to provide an alternate accommodation to the petitioner by paying a sum of

¶41

¶42

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶43

Rs.50,000/- towards advance for an alternate accommodation and a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as its rental expenses to the petitioner. He further submitted that since the property in question does not belong to the respondent No.1 but belongs to the respondent No.2, proceedings against her were not maintainable in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R. Batra’s case (referred supra). He further submitted that the respondent No.2 herein has initiated proceedings in MSC.CR.58/2019-20 before the Tribunal of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens and Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Competent Authority') seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to vacate the property in question. In the said proceedings, the Competent Authority has passed the Order dated 29.01.2020 directing the respondent No.1 herein to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioner and that order is not challenged by the petitioner herein before any Court till date.

¶44

I have considered the contentions of both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and I have perused the records of the

¶45

¶46

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶47

Trial Court as well as its Order dated 09.12.2019 and the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court. An attempt was made by this Court to resolve the dispute between the parties by calling upon the respondent No.1 to identify a suitable and a convenient premises for use and occupation by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 identified a two bedroom house and filed a memo placing on record copy of the rent agreement obtained from the landlord and a photograph of the house. However, the petitioner was not willing to re-locate to this house, though it was close to her mother's place, but insisted to go back to the property in question.

¶48

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the property where the petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing, belonged to the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Likewise, it is not seriously disputed that the respondent No.2 herein had initiated proceedings before the Competent Authority for a direction to the petitioner herein to vacate the property in question. In that proceeding, an order is passed by the Competent Authority to provide an alternate accommodation to the petitioner.

¶49

8 - CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶50

Likewise, it is not in dispute that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a suit in O.S. No.3595/2019 before the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, where they have sought for an interim order to restrain the petitioner herein from entering the property in question but the said application was rejected by the said Court on 20.07.2019. Later, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.02.2020. It may be that the property in question that stands in the name of the respondent No.2 was the shared household of the petitioner. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.R. Batra’s case (referred supra) is now no longer good law in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [2021 (1) SCC 414]. However, since the parties are warring against each other, it is not appropriate to reinstate the petitioner in the property in question in view of the acrimony between them, which could only worsen the situation not only to the petitioner, but also the respondents. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the parties do not see eye to eye, it is appropriate that the petitioner is provided with sufficient means to find an accommodation for herself. The Trial Court in terms of the Order dated 09.12.2019, had

¶51

¶52

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶53

directed the respondent No.1 herein to pay advance of Rs.50,000/- and rent of Rs.6,000/- per month for an alternate accommodation to the petitioner herein which in the present day is too less and the petitioner cannot find an accommodation at that price. In that view of the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to enhance the advance to a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- being the 10 months’ rent at a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. It is made clear that the respondent No.1 shall pay monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- that falls due either by depositing it before the Trial Court regularly or by paying it into the account of petitioner or by tendering it to the petitioner through a demand draft. It is made clear that if the respondent No.1 fails to pay the monthly rent on the first day of every month, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek her reinstatement into the property in question.

¶54

In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-V, Bangalore, in Crl. Misc. No.109/2019, which has been affirmed by the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.2667/2019 is modified. The respondent No.1 is directed to

¶55

10 -

¶56

CRL.RP No. 605 of 2020

¶57

pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the petitioner being the advance in respect of a house that may be identified by the petitioner herself and the respondent No.1 shall also pay monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- on the first day of every month, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to seek to enter and reside in the matrimonial home i.e., No.302, 8^th Main, Pipeline road, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru 560 040. The advance and rent shall be credited to the account of the petitioner or tendered to her by a demand draft before the Trial Court or deposited before the Trial Court.

¶58

The pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed off.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SMA

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. Priyanka Palankar v. Sri. Prathik S Palankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Priyanka Palankar v. Sri. Prathik S Palankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Amarnarayana Babu Vs Smt Saraswathamma

Sri G Umesh Vs Sri Somashekar

Nazeer Ulla Vs Jagadeesh. S. J.

Mrs Jamuna K P Vs Mr v B Krishna

Dr.Yathindranath Shetty Vs Sri.Bhadrappa Kulakarni

Sri Raju H B Vs Sri B Shivarajaiah