Dismissed¶¶41

Sri Kishore v. Smt Radhika

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026CRL.RP/13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: criminal revision; S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22; compensation payable to wife; Crl.Misc.No.45/2013 (MMTC, Mayo Hall); confirmation in Crl.A.No.447/2019; revision dismissed for want of jurisdictional error or patent factual error; DV findings insulated from divorce merits; pending divorce in MFA No.1411/2019; compliance under protest; husband v wife; High Court of Karnataka; V Srishananda, J.; 11.03.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:14494.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order needs no interference, as there is no error of jurisdiction or patent factual error; accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. ¶¶35

Sri Kishore Vs Smt Radhika — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the trial Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, contains any error warranting interference in this revision petition. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

The impugned order needs no interference, as there is no error of jurisdiction or patent factual error; accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.

¶¶35

Ratio / Principle

It is made clear that the observations made by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, while dealing with the wife's petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act shall not affect the merits of the grounds and objections raised in the pending divorce proceedings in MFA No.1411 of 2019; with this observation the ends of justice are met.

¶¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (V Srishananda, J.; decided 11.03.2026) — CRL.RP No.13 of 2022 filed under S.397 r/w S.401 Cr.P.C by the husband against the judgment dated 05.08.2021 in Crl.A.No.447/2019 (LIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, CCH-60) confirming the order dated 05.11.2018 in Crl.Misc.No.45/2013 (I-MMTC, Mayo Hall, Bangalore) passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, challenged only in so far as it related to the compensation payable to the wife — Dismissed: the impugned order needs no interference, there being no error of jurisdiction or patent factual error; the confirmed order had been complied with under protest — Held/direction issued: the observations of the trial Magistrate, as confirmed by the First Appellate Court, shall not affect the merits of the grounds and objections in the pending divorce proceedings before this Court in MFA No.1411 of 2019. Counsel for petitioner contended (as a contention) that the child born of the wedlock was no more, leaving little scope on merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14494 CRL.RP No. 13 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 13 OF 2022

¶6

(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI KISHORE S/O LATE SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O NO.28, CHINNAPPA COLONY OPP TO FCI GODOWN VIJINAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 016.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUPREETH S, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. RADHIKA W/O KISHORE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O B-5, 60/1, 15^TH MAIN HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI MOHD. USMAN SHAIKH, ADV.)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2021 IN CRL.A.NO.447/2019 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-60) AND JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2018 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.45/2013 PASSED BY THE I-MMTC, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN.I.A.NO.1/2021 FOR I.A.NO.1/2021 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO STAY THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.08.2021 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.447/2019 PASSED BY THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-60), FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:14494 CRL.RP No. 13 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Revision petition is by the husband having suffered an order under Section 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.Misc.No.45 of 2013 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2019.

¶24

Sri Supreeth S, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the order of trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is complied under protest taking note of the pending divorce petition between the parties which is now before this Court in MFA No.1411/2019.

¶25

At the outset, Sri Supreeth S would contend that since the child that was born in the wedlock is no more. As such, on merits there is not much scope to be addressed in the present revision petition.

¶26

However, he expresses an apprehension that the finding recorded by both the Courts and observation made

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14494 CRL.RP No. 13 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

while recording the said finding may come in the way of disposal of the divorce petition between the parties on merits.

¶31

In reply, Sri Mohd Usman Shaikh, learned counsel

¶32

for the wife would submit that grounds of divorce has got nothing to do with the finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate while exercising the power under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is a distinct relief that has been obtained by the wife in the attended facts and circumstance of the case. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is totally uncalled for.

¶33

Taking note of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶34

On such perusal of the material on record,

¶35

impugned order needs no interference as there is no error of jurisdiction or patent factual error.

¶36

If an observation is made that the finding recorded by trial Magistrate which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court shall not affect the merits of the divorce petition pending

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:14494 CRL.RP No. 13 of 2022

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

in the aforesaid Miscellaneous First Appeal, ends of justice would be met.

¶41

Accordingly, the revision petition dismissed.

¶42

However, it is made clear that the observations made by the trial Magistrate, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, while dealing with the petition filed by the wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act shall not affect the merits of the grounds and the objections raised in the pending divorce proceedings now pending in MFA No.1411 of 2019.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶45

NMS

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Kishore v. Smt Radhika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kishore v. Smt Radhika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chandrakala v Vs Smt C Kalpana

Sri Sathya Narayana v Vs M/S Yelahanka Merchants Finance Company

Mithun Vs Smt. Smitha

Saleem Ulla Khan Vs Harish Kumar N v

Sri. R. Venkatesh Vs Sri. C. Govindan Kutty

Narasimha Murthy Vs State of Karnataka by