Dismissed¶7

Sri Vishwanath M v. Smt v Hemalatha

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2025CRL.P/11655/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, CRL.P No.11655 of 2025 (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J., 22-08-2025): quashing refused of S.12 DV Act proceedings (Crl.Misc. No.223/2024) where marital status of respondent No.1 is a disputed question of fact; limits of inherent jurisdiction under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS; Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, cited by petitioner's counsel; cross-reference M.C.No.3547/2025 before Family Court for declaration of nullity of marriage; maintenance claim of Rs.40,000/- per month noted; petition dismissed with liberty to lead rebuttal evidence.

What did the court decide?

Whether respondent No.1 was already married at the time of her alleged marriage with the petitioner, and whether the subsequent marriage between the parties is null and void, are disputed questions of fact. ¶5

Sri Vishwanath M Vs Smt v Hemalatha — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Crl.Misc. No.223/2024 under Section 12 of the DV Act, premised on a domestic relationship arising out of a valid marriage, can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the petitioner's contention that respondent No.1 is not his legally wedded wife.

¶2

Court's answer

¶5

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot assume or adjudicate upon such contested facts at the stage of Section 482 proceedings; the parties must adduce oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court.

¶5

Key takeaways

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to short-circuit proceedings where serious disputed questions of fact arise, requiring detailed examination and trial.ratio¶6
Since the petitioner has already initiated proceedings before the Family Court seeking declaration of nullity of marriage, he is at liberty to pursue the same and lead evidence in support of his claim.ratio¶6
The trial Court, in the pending DV Act proceedings, is equally competent to assess whether respondent No.1 is entitled to the reliefs sought therein.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (cf. S.528 BNSS) seeking quashing of Crl.Misc. No.223/2024, a proceeding under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 instituted by respondent No.1 claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month and protection orders against the petitioner-husband. Petitioner's sole ground: respondent No.1 is not his legally wedded wife, her first marriage allegedly subsisting at the time of the purported marriage; relying on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158), counsel urged that inherent power under S.482 extends to quashing S.12(1) DV Act proceedings amounting to abuse of process. Held (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.): whether respondent No.1 was already married and whether the marriage is null and void are disputed questions of fact requiring oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court; inherent jurisdiction under S.482 cannot be invoked to short-circuit proceedings involving serious disputed questions of fact; petitioner may pursue M.C.No.3547/2025 before the Family Court seeking declaration of nullity and lead rebuttal evidence; the trial Court is competent to assess the reliefs claimed in the DV proceedings. Petition dismissed, liberty reserved to substantiate his defence.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11655 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VISHWANATH M S/O MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO 455, M GOPAL REDDY BUILDING, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENA AGRAHARA, BOMANAHALLI, BENGALURU -560068

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI G RAKESH RAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. V HEMALATHA W/O M VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO 445, MASJID ROAD, VIRATNAGARA, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560068.

¶15

VEDHITH V REDDY S/O VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, R/AT NO.445, MASJID ROAD, VIRATNAGARA, BOMMANAHALLI,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU -560068. [SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER SMT V HEMALATHA]

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 (U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRL.MISC. NO.223/2024 FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Criminal Miscellaneous No.223/2024, instituted by respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘DV Act’). In the said proceedings, respondent No.1 has sought multiple reliefs, namely: maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month; a protection order restraining the husband from interfering with her personal life and liberty; and a further order protecting her against any ill-treatment, assault,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

or acts of harm and injury to her life allegedly at the hands of the present petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner, by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, has sought quashing of the said proceedings on the principal ground that respondent No.1 – Smt. Hemalatha, cannot be treated as his legally wedded wife. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the absence of a valid marital relationship between the parties, an application invoking Section 12 of the DV Act is not legally maintainable. According to him, the very substratum of the proceedings under the DV Act fails, as the reliefs therein are premised upon the existence of a domestic relationship arising out of a valid marriage. It is further contended that the only efficacious remedy available to him, in order to avoid protracted trial, is to seek quashing of the proceedings by approaching this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶30

In support of the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Drawing strength from the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, it is urged that this Court is not powerless in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings filed under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, if continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶35

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made and perused the grounds urged in the petition. It is to be noted that the entire basis of the petitioner’s challenge rests upon disputing the marital status of respondent No.1. The petitioner asserts that respondent No.1 was already married and that her first marriage was subsisting when she purportedly entered into marriage with him. To substantiate this claim, the petitioner has also placed reliance on M.C.No.3547/2025, which is pending adjudication before the competent Family Court, wherein the petitioner has specifically sought a declaration that his marriage with respondent No.1 is a nullity in the eyes of law.

¶36

In light of the aforesaid pleadings and grounds, this

¶37

Court is of the considered view that the relief sought by the

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioner cannot be granted at this stage in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The question as to whether respondent No.1 was already married at the time of her alleged marriage with the petitioner, and whether the subsequent marriage between the parties is null and void, are all disputed questions of fact. Such issues require the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. Unless the petitioner is able to substantiate by leading rebuttal evidence that the marriage with respondent No.1 was contracted during the subsistence of her earlier marriage and is, therefore, void, this Court cannot assume or adjudicate upon such contested facts at the stage of Section 482 proceedings.

¶41

It is well settled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to short-circuit proceedings where serious disputed questions of fact arise, requiring detailed examination and trial. Since the petitioner has already initiated appropriate proceedings before the Family Court seeking declaration of nullity of marriage, he is at liberty to pursue the same and lead evidence in support of his claim. The trial Court, in the pending DV Act proceedings, is equally

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:33029 CRL.P No. 11655 of 2025

¶43

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

competent to assess whether respondent No.1 is entitled to the reliefs sought therein.

¶46

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to substantiate his defence and lead rebuttal evidence in the pending proceedings.

¶47

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶48

SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Sri Vishwanath M v. Smt v Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vishwanath M v. Smt v Hemalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Samiulla Vs State by Hulimavu Ps

Sri Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Sridhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Prakash Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Ganesh Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri K Venkatesh Vs the Dig and Ig