Dismissed¶54

Sri Puttaswamigowda, v. Smt. Vinutha B.S.

Karnataka HC24 Feb 2026CRL.RP/1888/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025; decided 24-02-2026; Justice S Vishwajith Shetty; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Sections 12(1) and 29; Cr.P.C. Sections 397 and 401; domestic violence; monthly maintenance; residential accommodation; orders against husband alone; in-laws against whom no Magistrate order exists cannot seek setting aside; execution and coercive steps barred against petitioners; execution against respondent No.4 preserved; revision dismissed; Channapatna / Ramanagara.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; directions issued that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not take coercive steps against the petitioners while executing the Magistrate's order, which remains executable against respondent No.4. ¶54

Sri Puttaswamigowda, Vs Smt. Vinutha B.S. — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, against whom the learned Magistrate passed no order in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, can maintain a revision merely because execution of the Magistrate's orders is sought even as against them. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

As no order or direction was passed against the present petitioners by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against that order, under which only respondent No.4 was directed to pay monthly maintenance and provide residential accommodation.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Revision Petition does not merit consideration and is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners in the guise of executing the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021 dated 30.01.2024.ratio¶55
The present order will not come in the way of respondent Nos.1 to 3 executing the order passed by the learned Magistrate as against respondent No.4.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. by the husband's parents (petitioners) against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2025 in Crl.A.No.9/2024 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara) dismissing their appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and against the Magistrate's order in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, whereby respondent No.4 alone (husband) was directed to pay monthly maintenance and provide residential accommodation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 (wife and two minor children). Holding that no order or direction had been passed against the petitioners, who therefore could have no grievance, the court dismissed the revision; respondent Nos.1 to 3 were directed not to take coercive steps against the petitioners in the guise of executing the order, which may nonetheless be executed against respondent No.4.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1888 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PUTTASWAMIGOWDA, S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶9

SMT.CHIKKATHAYAMMA, W/O PUTTASWAMIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O PUTTASWAMIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: BRAHAMANIPURA VILLAGE, LALAGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 160

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAVISHA M G, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. VINUTHA B.S., D/O LATE SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

MASTER. SUMANGOWDA, D/O P.RAJU,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶21

MASTER. LALITHGOWDA, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, (RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 AREMINORS THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND/GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶22

R/AT BELAKERE VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 160.

¶23

SRI.P.RAJU, S/O PUTTASWAMIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BRAHAMANIPURA VILLAGE, LALAGHATTA POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 160.

¶24

SMT.BHAGYA, W/O SHIVAKUMAR.V.L, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶25

SRI.SHIVAKUMAR.V.L, S/O LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT NO.30242, SATHANURU ROAD, BESIDE TO MAHADESHWARA TEMPLE,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

SUNNAGHATTA, CHANNAPATNA TOWN AND TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 160.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1, SRI. B ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI.LOKESH K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND 6)

¶33

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.9/2024 BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA TO THE EXTENT OF RESIDENTIAL ORDER I.E., DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ETC.,

¶34

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

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Petitioners are before this Court in this Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 31.01.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021 by the Principal Civil Judge (J.R.) and JMFC, Channapatna and the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2025 passed in Crl.A.9/2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ramanagara.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein had initiated proceedings against respondent No.4 and the petitioners herein before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021. The learned magistrate, by judgment and order dated 30.01.2024, partly-allowed Crl.Misc.No.60/2021. The said judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021 was assailed by the petitioners, who were arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, by filing Crl.A.No.9/2024 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ramanagara, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 22.11.2025. It is under these circumstances the petitioners are before this Court.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.1, who is the wife of respondent No.4 herein. Though there is no order passed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners, attempt is being made to execute the orders even as against the petitioners. It

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this court.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has

¶49

argued in support of the impugned order and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶50

Perusal of the material on record will go to show that the learned magistrate has partly-allowed Crl.Misc.No.60/2024 and has directed respondent No.4 herein, who is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3, to pay monthly maintenance and also to provide residential accommodation to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.60/2024.

¶51

There is no order or direction passed against the present petitioners by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, which was partly-allowed on 30.01.2024. Under the circumstances, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, wherein respondent No.4 has been directed to pay monthly maintenance to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also to provide residential accommodation to them.

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11622 CRL.RP No. 1888 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

Under these circumstances, this Criminal revision petition does not merit consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed .

¶55

It is needless to state that respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners in the guise of executing the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021 dated 30.01.2024.

¶56

This order will not come in the way of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, executing the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate as against respondent No.4 herein.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Sri Puttaswamigowda, v. Smt. Vinutha B.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttaswamigowda, v. Smt. Vinutha B.S.

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

Munibachappa Vs the State of Karnataka by

Kamal Pasha Vs G Lokesh

Imran Husen Laskar Vs State of Karnataka

P S Srinivas Vs v Ramakrishna

Ratnakar T Suvarna Vs Oswald Rodrigues

Sri K Bharath Vs Sri B D Shivananda