Sri.Abhishek S/O Gopinath Raikar vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1722 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                   CRL.P NO 100378 OF 2016

BETWEEN

SRI.ABHISHEK S/O GOPINATH RAIKAR,
AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: PLOT NO.190/2B,SHIVAJI COLONY,
TILAKAWADI,BELAGAVI.
                                                ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M B GUNDAWADE , ADV.,)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH WOMANS POLICE STATION,BELAGAVI.

2 . SMT.MANALI W/O ABHISHEK RAIKAR,
AGE: 28 YERS,OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: PREMALAYA,2ND MAIN,
SADASHIVANAGAR,BELAGAVI.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
      SRI.RAJENDRA LATKAN, ADV. FOR R2 )

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF JMFC II-COURT BELAGAVI
AT C.C.NO. 1033/2015 FOR THE OFFENCES U/SECS. 498A, 323 AND
504 OF IPC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2




                             ORDER

1. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in C.C.No.1033/2015 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri.M.B.Gundwade, learned counsel for

petitioner and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for

respondent-State.

3. Facts as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:

Petitioner and the 2nd respondent tie a knot on

16/10/2013 and after the marriage, it transpires that the

petitioner-husband and the complainant-wife moved to

United States of America as the petitioner had his

employment in the United States of America.

It further transpires that the relationship between the

petitioner-husband and the respondent-complainant turned

sore and several proceedings were initiated mutually

against each other. One such complaint was registered

against the petitioner in a Crime No.33/2015, alleging the

offences as aforesaid. The police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet in the matter.

Certain analogous proceedings that are germane to

be noticed are, the petitioner-husband had instituted

proceedings for annulment of marriage invoking Section

13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in

M.C.No.244/2016. The Family Court by its judgment dated

1/9/2017 held that the husband was meted out with

cruelty by the wife and decreed the suit by dissolving the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. This

judgment and decree of divorce has become final.

4. Other proceedings initiated by the 2nd

respondent-wife in Crl.Misc.Nos.443/2015 and 48/2017. In

the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent-wife who wanted

to shift to Abu Dhabi, files a memo seeking withdrawal of

those cases. The memo in Crl.Misc.No.443/2015 reads as

follows:

MEMO

HEREIN, the memo submitted on behalf of the Petitioner is as under;

That after the filing of the top noted petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce and they are no longer husband and wife.

That the petitioner submits that in course of time the petitioner has shifted to Abu Dhabi and so as to put an end to the ruinous litigation between them has decided to no longer prosecute the top noted case unconditionally and in view of the same the said petition may kindly be dismissed as not pressed in the ends of justice and equity.

5. The memo in Crl.Misc.No. 48/2017 reads as

follows:

MEMO

HEREIN, the memo submitted on behalf of the Petitioner is as under;

That the petitioner has filed the top noted petition for recovery of the arrears of interim maintenance that was ordered in Criminal Misc. No.443/2015.

That after the filing of the top noted petition, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce and they are no longer husband and wife.

That the petitioner submits that in course of time the petitioner has shifted to Abu Dhabi and so as to put an end to the ruinous litigation between them has decided to no longer prosecute the top noted case unconditionally and in view of the same the said petition may kindly be dismissed as not pressed in the ends of justice and equity.

6. Both Crl.Misc.Nos.443/2015 and 48/2017 were

disposed of on the basis of the memos filed by the 2nd

respondent-wife. Therefore, three proceedings that were

mutually instituted against each other, one for dissolution

of the marriage has ended in favour of the husband and

other two proceedings in Crl.Misc.Nos.443/2015 and

48/2017 instituted by the 2nd respondent-wife has ended in

its withdrawal, in terms of aforequoted memos.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid

proceedings, the 2nd respondent-wife registers a case in

Crime No.33/2015 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of IPC. It is these

proceedings that are called in question in the subject

petition. The police after investigation have filed a charge

sheet while filing the charge sheet, names of the accused

Nos.2 and 3 are dropped. The trial is sought to be

continued only against the petitioner/husband. The basis of

the said trial is the complaint that was registered by the

complainant.

8. A Cursory perusal at the complaint would indicate no

offence which would touch upon the offences punishable

under Section 498-A of IPC against the husband. The entire

narration in the complaint is about the life of the husband

and wife and their problems in the United States of America.

Though certain instances of harassment is spelt out in the

complaint those would not touch upon the offences of

Sections 498-A or 323, 504 of IPC.

9. It is the petitioner-husband who had sought

annulment of the marriage on the ground of cruelty is

accepted by the Family Court in its judgment delivered on

1/9/2017. This judgment has become final. A few findings in

the judgment are germane for the consideration of the

present lis, are therefore extracted for the purpose of quick

reference.

"21. The learned counsel for the respondent is mainly relying upon Ex.R.1 which is an E-mail sent by the petitioner to his father-in-law wherein he has admitted about assaulting his wife. The learned counsel for the respondent has emphasized only two or three lines from the said mail. If we read the entire conversation between son-in-law and father-in-law, it appears everything was not OK since beginning of the marriage. Because there is a mention in Ex.R.1 that the respondent was not ready for marriage and she married on the force of her parents. In the mail there is also a mention about denying of sex by the respondent. Therefore, this document cannot be considered in favour of the respondent. On reading the document in entirety it goes to show that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent cannot be reestablished. The respondent has filed two criminal cases against the petitioner and his

parents. She has already taken all her golden articles and valuable articles. She has also returned to the petitioner which are belongs to him. She has stopped wearing mangal sutra.

Since Jan-2015 there is no physical relationship between them. She herself has sought for permanent alimony. All these circumstances go to show that the petitioner has proved the ground of cruelty.

23. As could be seen from the educational background of the respondent and her family background, I think it is not a fit case to award permanent alimony. The various circumstances narrated by me make the respondent dis-entitle for seeking permanent alimony. She is educated; she is healthy; she has experience in working earlier to marriage; her parents are rich. She is the eldest daughter of her parents. Her sister is in the company of her parents at Abudhabi. There are two houses at Belagavi purchased by the parents of the respondent. She is financially well placed. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the respondent before JMFC 4th Court, Belagavi in Domestic Violence Proceeding. Therefore, I am of the opinion that

it is not a fit case to award permanent alimony. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, Points No.3 & 4 are answered in the negative. In the result, I pass the following-

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 16.10.2013 at Belagavi, is dissolved forthwith. Accordingly, the marriage certificate which is marked at Ex.P.4 is cancelled forthwith.

Parties are directed to bear their own cost.

Draw decree."

10. In the light of the finding of the Family Court

and the subsequent memos filed by the

complainant/respondent-wife, and the complaint not

indicating any of the offences punishable under Sections 498-

A, 323, 502 of IPC, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to

the proceedings between the petitioner-husband and the

respondent-wife in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. failing which the proceedings would

result in miscarriage of justice.

11. For the aforesaid reasons the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings

against the petitioner in C.C.No.1033/2015 pending

before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi stands quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE Vb/-