Sri Rasul Abubakar Pagawale Vs Smt. Bismilla C/O Rasul Pagawale

SRI. RASUL ABUBAKAR PAGAWALE AGE.35 YEARS, OCC. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE, R/O GIRISH NAGAR, JAMAKHANDI-587301. TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. (THE ABOVE PETITIONER IS THE RESPONDENT IN CRL.MIS. NO. 325/2022 BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT ATHANI)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. BISMILLA C/O RASUL PAGAWALE AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT SHIRAHATTI 591304, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶14

Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka,Dharwad Bench

¶15

KU. ABUBAKAR S/O RASUL PAGAWALE AGE. 6 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. BISMILLA C/O RASUL PAGAWALE RESIDING AT SHIRHATTI 591304 TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS MINOR R/BY R1)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC. NO.325/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC-D:679 CRL.P No. 103521 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

J.M.F.C. ATHANI FILED U/SEC. 125 CR.P.C. AGAINST THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶26

Heard Sri H.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lingesh V.Kattemane for Sri K.H.Bagi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶27

Husband is the petitioner with the following prayer:

¶28

“To quash the entire proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.325/2022 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Athani filed u/sec. 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, in the interest of equity and natural justice.”

¶29

On account of the serious differences in the matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent, wife has approached the jurisdictional Magistrate for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In addition to the same, she has also resorted to the jurisdictional Magistrate to take action against the petitioner under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘D.V. Act’, for short).

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC-D:679 CRL.P No. 103521 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

It is the grievance of the petitioner that there cannot

¶34

be any double penalty on a husband for the same cause and therefore sought for modification of the impugned order.

¶35

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material available on record.

¶36

In order to appreciate the contentions urged on

¶37

behalf of the petitioner, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out Section 36 of the D.V. Act which reads as under:

¶38

“36. Act not in derogation of any other law.—

¶39

The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force .”

¶40

On close reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the remedy available to the wife under the Provisions of D.V. Act is not in derogation, but in addition to the other remedies. Therefore, per-se both the proceedings can run parallelly.

¶41