Smt. Varalakshmi W/O Chandrashekar Vs Sri Chandrashekar… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt. Varalakshmi W/O Chandrashekar Vs Sri Chandrashekar… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None by way of enhancement; revision petition dismissed. Petitioner left with liberty, per Section 36 of the D.V.Act, to seek maintenance in appropriate proceedings by filing applications under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month awarded under the DV Act petition was on the lower side, warranting admission of the revision petition for further consideration/enhancement. +1 more

Court's answer

In view of Section 36 of the D.V.Act, the petitioner has the right to seek maintenance in appropriate proceedings by filing necessary applications under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

No finding that domestic violence occurred was recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate; instead, in paragraph No.22 of the Trial Court Order he stated that it is the moral and legal obligation of the husband to look after his wife by providing a sufficient amount of maintenance.

Key takeaways

Such a finding is totally uncalled for, as the petition is not under S.125 Cr.P.C.; the Trial Magistrate's observation that S.12 proceedings are summary in nature requiring no strict proof cannot be countenanced in law - there must be a specific finding recording that the husband committed domestic violence.ratio¶14
Under the D.V.Act, a protection order is to be granted after holding an enquiry and recording a finding of domestic violence; the primary object of the Act is such a protection order, and where passing it may result in further domestic violence, the Court may instead order a suitable amount of monetary compensation.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintenance - Criminal revision by wife (CRL.RP No. 100226/2023, S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.) against confirmation by the First Appellate Court (judgment dt. 16.07.2022, Crl.A. No. 10/2021) of the Trial Magistrate's order (dt. 06.11.2020, Crl.Misc. No. 937/2014) granting only Rs. 2,000/- p.m. maintenance in a petition under SS.12, 18, 20 and 22 of the DV Act - Held: (i) the primary object of the DV Act is to pass a protection order after holding an enquiry and recording a finding of domestic violence; monetary compensation is the alternative course only where passing a protection order may result in further domestic violence; (ii) the Trial Magistrate recorded no finding of domestic violence, stating instead in para 22 of his order the husband's 'moral and legal obligation' to maintain the wife - such a finding is totally uncalled for, the petition not being under S.125 Cr.P.C.; nor can his observation that S.12 proceedings being summary in nature require no strict proof be countenanced - a specific finding that the husband committed domestic violence is essential; (iii) nevertheless, in view of S.36 of the DV Act the petitioner retains the right to seek maintenance in appropriate proceedings by filing applications under the Cr.P.C. - with that liberty, no good ground to admit the revision petition - Revision petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:263 CRL.RP No. 100226 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100226 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, II CROSS, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, BALLARI, TQ. DIST. BALLARI-583101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O HANUMANTHARAYA AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O HANUMANTHARAYA AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, BOTH ARE R/O. MALLURU JANATHA COLONY, 1^ST CROSS, SSIT POST, TUMAKURU, TQ. DIST. TUMAKURU-572101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y. KOTRESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

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

NOTICE SERVED TO R2)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.07.2022 IN CRL.A NO. 10/2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COUT) AT BALLARI, CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2020 IN CRL.MISC NO. 937/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.MF.C. AT BALLARI, ONLY IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO NOT AWARDING THE MAINTENANCE AND COMPENSATION, AND ALLOW THE PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC. 12, 18, 20 AND 22 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005, BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AS PRAYER FOR WITH COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:263 CRL.RP No. 100226 of 2023

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

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

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Hanumanthareddy

Sahukar, for the petitioner.

None appears for the respondents.

Wife is the revision petitioner, challenging the order

of granting maintenance of ₹ 2,000/- in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 937 of 2014, in a petition filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V.Act’ for short).

The order of the Trial Magistrate was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2021.

Being aggrieved by the same, wife is before this

Court.

Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that award of maintenance of ₹2,000/- is on the lower side and sought for admitting the petition for further consideration.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:263 CRL.RP No. 100226 of 2023

HC-KAR

He would further contend that the respondent is a businessman having huge income every month and with only ₹2,000/- as maintenance, the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and sought for admitting the petition for further consideration.

Since, the counsel for the respondent absent. This Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the petitioner had sought for maintenance of ₹8,000/- per month as damages and compensation of ₹10,00,000/- and also sought for return of the cash of ₹1,50,000/- in the petition filed before the Trial Magistrate.

As could be seen from the provisions of the D.V.Act, a protection order is to be granted by the Court after holding an enquiry and recording a finding that there was the D.V.Act. The primary object of the D.V.Act, is to pass a protection order and direct the husband and relatives to allow the wife petitioner along with her child, if any, to reside in the shared residence.

Where the Court is of the opinion that passing such an order may result in further domestic violence, instead of passing a protection order, and directing the husband to allow

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:263 CRL.RP No. 100226 of 2023

HC-KAR

the wife and child, if any, to return to the shared residence, the Court may order a suitable amount of the monetary compensation.

In other words, the primary object of the Act is to pass an order of a protection after recording a finding that domestic violence existed.

In the case on hand, no such finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate. Instead, in paragraph No.22 of the Trial Court Order, the learned Trial Magistrate has stated that it is the moral and legal obligation of the husband to look after his wife and by providing a sufficient amount of maintenance.

Such a finding is totally uncalled for, as it is not a Petition under Section of 125 Cr.P.C. All that trial Court was required to determine is whether domestic violence had occurred and whether a protection order was to be passed. A discussion is made in paragraph No.18 of the said judgment, wherein the learned Trial Magistrate recorded that the proceedings falling within the sweep of Section 12 of the Act are summary in nature and therefore, strict proof for domestic violence and negligence on the part of the respondents are not required. Such an order

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:263 CRL.RP No. 100226 of 2023

HC-KAR

cannot be countenanced in law. There must be a specific finding recording that the husband committed domestic violence.

Nevertheless, in view of Section 36 of the D.V.Act, the petitioner has the right to seek maintenance in appropriate proceedings by filing necessary applications under the provisions of Cr.P.C.

With that liberty, this Court does not find any good ground to admit the revision petition for further consideration.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

The revision petition dismissed .

Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

RHR/- CT:CMU

LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 37