Dr. Amrutha B. Ujjamma Vs Smt. Anitha. N

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6203 CRL.P NO.6643 OF 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6643 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DR. AMRUTHA B. UJJAMMA W/O BHARATH B.V., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, DENTIST AT RAJARAJESHWARI DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, NO.14, RAMAHALLI CROSS, KUMBALAGODU, BENGALURU, R/AT NO.508, F3, DHANESHWARI NIKETAN, BEML 3^RD STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. ANITHA N. W/O LATE ARUNCHANDRA B, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

¶13

KUMARI MANUSHI ARUN B. D/O LATE ARUNCHANDRA B., AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1,

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.2000A/41, 16^TH 'B' CROSS, TARALABALU LAYOUT,

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:6203 CRL.P NO.6643 OF 2023

¶17

VIDYANAGAR, DAVANAGERE - 577 005.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER-R1)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.614 OF 2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DAVANAGERE FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, the petitioner seeks following relief:

¶24

"Quash the entire proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.614/2022 pending on the file of the IV Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Davanagere filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in respect of the petitioner in the interest of justice."

¶25

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 is the wife of late Arunchandra B. and respondent No.2 is her minor daughter. The petitioner is the sister of the said Arunchandra B. The Respondents 1 and 2 instituted the proceedings against he petitioner and other family members in Criminal Miscellaneous No.614 of 2022 before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Davanagere under Section 12 of the Protection of

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:6203 CRL.P NO.6643 OF 2023

¶28

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, the parents of the petitioners are also the parents of deceased Arunchandra B., who were arraigned as respondents 1 and 2 while, the petitioner herein who is the sister of deceased Arunchandra B. was arraigned as respondent No.3.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record including the petition filed by the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in order to point out that, apart from the fact that the petitioner is married and residing elsewhere without living in a shared household or domestic relationship along with the respondents, the respondents are not entitled for any relief under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, so long as the petitioner cannot said to have committed any act of domestic violence as against the respondents coupled with the fact that the petitioner and respondents did not ever lived in a shared household or share domestic relationship, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:6203 CRL.P NO.6643 OF 2023

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that the petitioner herein is liable to return 'Stridhana' properties received by her from the respondent No.1 at the time of her marriage with late Arunchandra B. in addition to being liable to pay compensation in favour of the respondents and as such, there is no merit in the present petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

A perusal of the material on record in particular the averments made in the petition will clearly indicate that, there are no specific allegations regarding the petitioner herein receiving any 'Stridhana' properties from the respondent No.1 at the time of her marriage. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner who is a sister-in-law of the respondent No.1 and residing separately, cannot be fastened with the liability of returning 'Stridhana' properties back nor paying any compensation to the respondents in terms of Section 19 or 20 of the Protect of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶35

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner being married and residing elsewhere and not sharing the domestic relationship or a domestic household along with the respondents either at the time of the marriage of the respondent No.1 or at the time of demise of her husband or subsequently, the

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:6203 CRL.P NO.6643 OF 2023

¶38

impugned proceedings against the petitioner herein deserves to be

¶39

quashed.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

1. Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶43

The entire proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous No.614 of 2022 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Davanagere filed against the petitioner herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are hereby quashed.

¶44

SD/(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶45

ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Dr. Amrutha B. Ujjamma v. Smt. Anitha. N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Amrutha B. Ujjamma v. Smt. Anitha. N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivalingappa Sahadeva Gombigudda Alias Vs the State of Karnataka by

Aditya Pai Vs the State by

Byragonda Siddalinganna Silpa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Sadik Vs State of Karnataka

B H Ramesh Vs State by

B Nageswara Rao Vs State of Karnataka