Allowed¶53

Sri. Anil Kumar. v. Vs Smt. Sharmila. R

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026CRL.RP/1154/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 petition by wife (Crl. Mis. No.95/2014) dismissed 02.02.2015; appeal under Section 29 D.V. Act allowed with remand for protection and maintenance orders based on Domestic Incident Report; criminal revision by husband and in-laws allowed on subsequent events: divorce decree dated 05.09.2017 (M.C.No.2217/2015) attained finality, acquittal under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 D.P. Act attained finality, both parties re-married; wife held not entitled to protection or maintenance orders; appellate judgment set aside. Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty J; NC: 2026:KHC:6261.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition allowed; the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. ¶53

Sri. Anil Kumar. v Vs Smt. Sharmila. R — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision petition allowed; the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the dissolution of the marriage by a divorce decree that has attained finality, the acquittal of the accused that has attained finality, and the re-marriage of both parties, the wife is entitled to any protection orders or maintenance order in her Section 12 D.V. Act petition, such that the appellate remand to the Trial Court serves any purpose and the impugned judgment can be sustained.

¶52

Court's answer

In view of the divorce decree dated 05.09.2017 in M.C.No.2217/2015 having attained finality and both parties having re-married, the wife, who is the petitioner in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014, is not entitled either to any protection orders or to a maintenance order, and therefore no purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the Trial Court.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 cannot be sustained.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.PC by the husband and in-laws against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.447/2015 (LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), whereby the wife's appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act was allowed and the matter remanded to the Trial Court to reconsider her Section 12 PWDVA petition (Crl. Mis. No.95/2014, dismissed 02.02.2015) and pass appropriate protection and maintenance orders considering the Domestic Incident Report. Held: the marriage stood dissolved by decree of divorce dated 05.09.2017 in M.C.No.2217/2015, which decree attained finality; the accused stood acquitted in the criminal case under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, and that acquittal also attained finality; and both parties have since re-married. In these circumstances the wife is not entitled either to any protection orders or to a maintenance order, no purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the Trial Court, and the impugned appellate judgment cannot be sustained. Revision petition allowed; impugned judgment and order set aside.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1154 OF 2018 (

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANIL KUMAR V S/O LATE R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. N. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶10

SRI SUNIL KUMAR V S/O LATE VENKATESH.

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT NO.21/1 2ND FLOOR, 3RD MAIN 3RD A CROSS, CHIKKALASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 061.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S, ADV., FOR

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI S. RAMA MURTHY, ADV.)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. SHARMILA R W/O ANIL KUMAR V AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.148, 3RD MAIN AGS LAYOUT AREHALLI UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. HEMALATHA M.K, ADV., FOR SRI H.M. MURALIDHAR, ADV.)

¶20

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN CRL.APPAL NO.447/2015 OF THE LEARNED LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 07.09.2018 AND UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.95/2014 (ANNEXURE B).

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with 401 Cr.PC is filed by the husband and in-laws with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶30

Respondent-wife had filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'D.V.Act') in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. After a full-fledged trial, the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment and order dated 02.02.2015. Against the said judgment, wife had filed Crl.A.No.447/2015 under Section 29 of the D.V.Act assailing the order passed in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018, had allowed Crl.A.No.447/2015, and has remanded the matter to the Trial Court to consider the petition afresh and pass appropriate protection order and maintenance order considering the Domestic Incident Report of the jurisdictional Protection Officer. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015, the husband is before this Court.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the husband has been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed in M.C.No.2217/2015 by judgment and decree dated 05.09.2017. He submits that the criminal case registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under the provisions of the D.P.Act, has been closed and the accused in the said case have been acquitted. Petitioner and respondent, both are now re-married, and therefore, no purpose would be served by remanding the matter, since no protection order or

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

maintenance order can be now passed in view of the changed circumstances. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and submits that the petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act was filed prior to the decree of divorce and even the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case is subsequent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the wife cannot be granted any relief in her petition filed under Section 12 of the D.V.Act. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶41

The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

¶42

documentary evidence placed on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the wife had failed to prove that her husband had committed the act of domestic violence, and accordingly had dismissed her petition filed under Section 12 of the D.V.Act.

¶43

The Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.447/2015 has set aside the said order on three grounds, (a) the criminal case filed against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

498A and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act was pending consideration; (b) the husband was gainfully employed and wife had no source of income, and therefore, he was duty bound to pay her maintenance; and (c) wife is entitled for an appropriate residential order under Section 19 of the Act.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the marriage of the parties to this petition was dissolved subsequent to dismissal of Crl. Mis. No.95/2014 by the jurisdictional Family Court in M.C.No.2217/2015 by a decree of divorce dated 05.09.2017. Undisputedly, the said decree of divorce has attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the accused in criminal case that was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P.Act, have been acquitted and the said judgment and order of acquittal, also has attained finality. The Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court with an observation that the Trial Court shall pass appropriate protection orders and maintenance orders considering the Domestic Incident Report of the jurisdictional Protection Officer. Undisputedly, the parties have now re-married after the decree of divorce was granted to them in M.C.No.2217/2015. Under

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:6261 CRL.RP No. 1154 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the circumstances, the wife who is the petitioner in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014 is not entitled either for any protection orders or for maintenance order, and therefore, no purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order:

¶53

Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.447/2015 by the Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside.

¶54

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 07.09.2018 in Crl.A.No.447/2015 allowing the wife's appeal and remanding the matter to the Trial Court to consider her Section 12 D.V. Act petition afresh and pass appropriate protection order and maintenance order considering the Domestic Incident Report.¶34
Court of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 07.09.2018
Prior proceeding
Respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014 before the jurisdictional Magistrate.¶30
Prior proceeding
After a full-fledged trial, the Trial Court dismissed the petition by judgment and order dated 02.02.2015.¶30
Prior proceeding
Trial Court concluded that the wife had failed to prove that her husband had committed the act of domestic violence.¶42
Prior proceeding
Wife filed Crl.A.No.447/2015 under Section 29 of the D.V. Act assailing the order passed in Crl. Mis. No.95/2014.¶30
Prior proceeding
Appellate Court's ground (a): the criminal case against the petitioners under Section 498A and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act was pending consideration.¶47
Prior proceeding
Appellate Court's ground (b): husband gainfully employed and wife without income, therefore duty bound to pay her maintenance.¶47
Prior proceeding
Appellate Court's ground (c): wife entitled to an appropriate residential order under Section 19 of the Act.¶47
Prior proceeding
Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce dated 05.09.2017 in M.C.No.2217/2015 by the jurisdictional Family Court, subsequent to dismissal of Crl. Mis. No.95/2014.¶48
Prior proceeding
The decree of divorce has attained finality.¶48
Prior proceeding
Accused in the criminal case under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act have been acquitted.¶48
Prior proceeding
The judgment and order of acquittal has also attained finality.¶48
Prior proceeding
Both parties have re-married after the decree of divorce in M.C.No.2217/2015.¶48

Sri. Anil Kumar. v. Vs Smt. Sharmila. R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anil Kumar. v. Vs Smt. Sharmila. R

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

Sri N Byregowda Vs Smt Devarajamma

S K Sreenivas Vs K Prabhakar Reddy

Mohammed Shoaib Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushma S Vs Anil P

Abu Sulaiman Mandal Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Wajid Vs Sri Mujeeb Abdul Matheen