Dismissed¶42

Smt. Gajalakshmi v. Sri. T. Girigowda

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026CRL.RP/1632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024; decided 01.06.2026 by H.P.Sandesh J.; wife and daughter vs husband (Mysuru); revision under S.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. / S.438 BNSS against JMFC order dated 17.04.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.950/2020 under DV Act (S.12) claiming compensation, maintenance, sustenance, medical expenses; dismissed at admission as the same allegations were already adjudicated (earlier S.125 Cr.P.C. round, Criminal Misc.No.156/2003, confirmed in RPFC.No.54/2008; Exs.R1 to R3); no changed circumstances recorded; second round of litigation.

What did the court decide?

No ground is made out to admit the revision petition; the petition is dismissed at the admission stage. ¶42

Smt. Gajalakshmi Vs Sri. T. Girigowda — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:25437 CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1632 OF 2024 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GAJALAKSHMI

¶10

W/O MR T GIRIG OWDA

¶11

AGED 62 YEARS

¶12

KUM G DEEKSHITHA

¶13

D/O MR T GIRIGOWDA

¶14

AGED 25 YEARS

¶15

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO:5296,10^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU CITY - 570 017 Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. V RANGARAMU.,ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

SRI. T. GIRIGOWDA

S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.C/9,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:25437 CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

11^TH CROSS, POOJA NILAYA, SECOND CROSS, KUMBARA KOPPALU, MAHADESWARA TEMPLE ROAD, MYSURU - 570 017.

¶25

AND ALSO R/AT KADEMANE ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLURU HOBLI, KALENAHALLI POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (FILED U/S 438 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT / ORDER DATED 17.04.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.950/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE COURT OF 5T JMFC AT MYSURU AND ALSO BE PLEASED TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS CLAIMS IN THAT CASE / PETITION FOR SEEKING AN ORDER OF COMPENSATION, MAINTENANCE ORDER, SUSTENANCE ORDER, MEDICAL EXPENSES WITH COSTS OF THE LITIGATION AND FOR SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:25437 CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This matter is listed for admission today i.e., 01.06.2026.

¶35

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for

¶36

the revision petitioner. This is the second round of litigation by the wife before the trial Court after the disposal of the case initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., against the husband and the decision of the trial Court has reached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RPFC.No.54/2008. The Appellate Court has also taken note of the observations made by this Court in RPFC.No.54/2008, wherein this Court has come to the conclusion that this is one such case where respondent husband had to leave residential premises because of petitioner-wife's cruel conduct. From the evidence and record, it is clear that the wife used to harass the respondent-husband frequently and due to such behaviour, he left the residential premises.

¶37

3. The records also disclose that when the earlier Criminal Misc.No.156/2003 has reached this Court in RPFC.No.54/2008, after the dismissal and confirmation order

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:25437 CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

passed by this Court, once again the petitioner-wife initiated the proceedings before the trial Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the DV Act') in Criminal Misc.No.950/2020. In the said criminal miscellaneous, the trial Court has also taken note of the fact in paragraph Nos.30 and 31 that petitioner has not made out any changed circumstances.

¶42

4. The allegations made in the present petition is already adjudicated by the trial Court as well as the Family Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in terms of Exs.R1 to R3, and once again this Court cannot adjudicate the same issue involved under Section 12 of the DV Act. The Appellate Court also while considering in the appeal, has taken note of the same in paragraph No.22 as read above and comes to the conclusion that no ground is made out to invoke the DV Act and the matter is already adjudicated by the trial Court from 2003. When such reasoning is given, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition and both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have taken note of grounds which have been urged and similar grounds have been considered by the

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:25437 CRL.RP No. 1632 of 2024

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

trial Court in the earlier round of litigation when the petition was filed under 125 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any ground

¶47

to admit this revision petition and the revision petition is

¶48

dismissed .

¶49