Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun vs The State And Anr on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332
CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200386 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN
S/O LAKAPPA TALWAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KALLAHANGARAGA,
TQ. JEWARGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585310.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE THROUGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA WOMEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI-585102.
(REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH).
2. SUREKHA
W/O MALLIKARJUN TALWAR(COMPLAINANT),
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O KALLAHANGARAGA, TQ. JEWARGI,
DIST. KALABURAGI,
NOW AT KUSNOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332
CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024
HC-KAR
BEHIND GULBARGA UNIVERSITY,
KALABURAGI-585106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. J.M.F.C. AT KALABURAGI IN
C.C. NO.281/2022 OF RESPONDENT WOMEN POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323,
504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.281/2022 arising out of Crime No.172/2021 of Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. The second respondent/wife lodged a complaint on 21.07.2021 alleging that her husband had subjected her to harassment and ill-treatment, referring to an incident said to have occurred on 16.01.2021. It is significant to note that the complaint was filed nearly six months after the alleged incident. The said complaint was entertained by the jurisdictional Police Station, which culminated in the registration of a crime. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has now filed a charge sheet. It is also pertinent to note that, though duly served with notice issued by this Court, the second respondent/wife has chosen not to contest the present proceedings.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Before adverting to the allegations of cruelty as reflected in the charge-sheet materials, it becomes necessary to take note of the parallel proceedings initiated between petitioner/husband and respondent No.2/wife. The records disclose that petitioner had instituted M.C. No.08/2023 before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition came to be allowed by judgment and order dated 19.06.2024. Since the findings recorded by the Family Court in the said judgment bear a direct nexus to the allegations of harassment and ill- treatment now under consideration, it would be appropriate to extract paragraph No.17 of the said judgment, which reads thus:
"17. In this case the petitioner has contended that even now also he is confident that if once they resumed their matrimonial life then marital life will be come on right path. The respondent though appeared through her counsel and even attended the conciliation sitting but the respondent has not offered any explanation for her withdrawal from the society of her husband nor shown any reasonable excuse. On the other hand the petitioner husband is desperate to marital life with the respondent-wife even though she filed maintenance and police complaint against him and his family members.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR When the petitioner being the husband is ready to continue his matrimonial life with the respondent, the respondent has to lead marital life with him as a dutiful wife. Further she has not shown any reasonable or excusable grounds to refuse to live with the petitioner. After going through the entire material on record and evidence of the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds and proved that the respondent being his wife has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without having any reasonable excuse. As such the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in the affirmative."
5. It would be also apposite to advert to the findings recorded by the Family Court in MC No.399/2023. In MC No.399/2023, second respondent/wife sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2025. Paragraph Nos.15, 20 and 21 of the said judgment would be relevant and same are extracted below:
"15. In this case, the petitioner has contended that after the marriage on 06-05-2018, she had lived in the house of the respondent for about two months and thereafter, she lived with the respondent for another one month in November 2018. The respondent has denied this contention of the petitioner. According to him, he and the petitioner -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR lived together only for about 25 days. It is the case of the respondent that after issuance of notice on 11- 12-2018, the petitioner had given a reply to the said notice and as per the said reply notice, he has brought the petitioner to his house, but she has not stayed with him and within four days, she had went back to her parents' house. It is the case of the respondent that he has again got issued another notice on 23-02-2019 asking the petitioner to join his company within 15 days from the date of service of notice and thereafter, the petitioner given a reply to that notice on 06-03-2019 by making false allegations and also stated that she is ready to perform marital obligation, but she has not lived with him. Further, it is the case of the respondent that he has filed MC No.08/2023 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Jewargi, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights decree. He has contended that the petitioner has filed this petition after coming to know the filing of said MC No.08/2023 by him. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has willfully refused to perform the marital obligation and she has filed a false case without there being any grounds.
20. POINT NO.2: As per the provision under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, "any marriage solemnized, whether before or after commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnization of marriage, deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. Further, as per the explanation provided to this Sub-Section, the expression "desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR expressions shall be construed accordingly. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176, it is held that "if a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. It is further held that, "For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned:
(1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid."
21. In this case, the petitioner has alleged that since February, 2019 she is residing in her parents house and the respondent has not her brought back to his house. The petitioner has contended that immediate cause of action was arisen on 15.11.2023, when the respondent has denied to take her back. This petition has been filed on 22.11.2023, within two years from the date of the alleged desertion. In addition to this, on careful evaluation of the pleadings and evidence while appreciating the case of the petitioner regard to alleged cruelty, I am of the view that the petitioner has not proved any willful desertion by the respondent. In fact, the petitioner only has not joined the company of the respondent even after the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights in MC 08/2023 filed by the respondent. In my considered view, the petitioner has not made out a case to grant divorce decree on the ground of desertion. Therefore, I have answered the point No.2 in negative." -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. On a careful perusal of the extracted portions from both the divorce and restitution proceedings, it becomes manifestly evident that the second respondent/wife, in her pleadings before the Family Court, has categorically admitted that she has been residing at her parental home since February 2019. Her sole grievance, as reflected in those proceedings, was that the petitioner/husband had allegedly failed to bring her back to the matrimonial home. However, the record in M.C. No.08/2023 (petition for restitution of conjugal rights) unmistakably reveals that the husband had made bona fide efforts to resume cohabitation, which were met with consistent refusal by the wife. Despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights having been granted in favour of the husband, the wife did not choose to comply with the decree and continued to reside separately.
7. The findings recorded by the Family Court in the divorce proceedings, particularly paragraph No.15, further demonstrate that the marital cohabitation between -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR the parties lasted for only about 25 days after marriage. The Family Court, upon appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the wife had voluntarily withdrawn from the company of her husband without reasonable cause and that she had failed to substantiate her allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment. These concurrent findings of fact recorded by a competent court of civil jurisdiction are significant and bear directly upon the present criminal prosecution.
8. In the backdrop of these unequivocal findings, if the complaint lodged by the second respondent/wife on 21.07.2021 is examined in its proper perspective, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegation of cruelty under Section 498-A IPC cannot be re-agitated in a criminal forum. The Family Court, in two independent proceedings one seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the other concerning dissolution of marriage has, after full-fledged adjudication, negated the allegations of cruelty and recorded a categorical finding that it was the wife who
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR had deserted the husband without any justifiable cause. Once the competent Family Court has determined that the wife was the defaulting spouse and that no act of cruelty stood proved, the continuation of a criminal prosecution on the same set of facts would amount to re-litigation of an issue already settled by judicial determination.
9. On the contrary, the findings in the restitution proceedings specifically record that the wife had deserted her husband without reasonable cause, while the findings in the divorce case reinforce that the allegations of ill- treatment and harassment were unsubstantiated. Therefore, the twin findings, first, that the wife is guilty of desertion, and second, that the charge of cruelty is unfounded clearly demolish the substratum of the prosecution case. When such judicial determinations by a competent Family Court subsist, the continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, read with Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332 CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024 HC-KAR Dowry Prohibition Act, would not only be redundant but would also constitute a gross abuse of the process of law.
10. It is also relevant to note that the petition filed by the in-laws seeking quashing of the proceedings on identical allegations has already been allowed by this Court, and the proceedings against them have been quashed. In view of these developments, and particularly in the light of concurrent findings of the Family Court holding that the wife was at fault and that there was no cruelty attributable to the husband, permitting the prosecution to proceed further would serve no legal purpose and would only subject the petitioner/husband to unwarranted harassment, humiliation, and hardship. This Court, therefore, finds it a fit case to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6332
CRL.P No. 200386 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings pending against the
petitioner in C.C. No.281/2022, arising out of Crime No.172/2021 of Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of the I Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi, are hereby quashed.
iii. Consequently, all interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15 CT:SI