Sri. Revanna vs Smt. Hemavathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 4208 Kant

                       1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                    BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

     CRIMINAL PETITION No.7216 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI.REVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA
     M.G.ROAD, K.E.B NEAR TARIKERE
     TARIKERE TALUK
     CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 228

2.   SRI.SREENIVASA
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
     S/O LATE RAMADASAPPA

3.   SMT.PARVATHAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
     W/O LATE RAMADASAPPA

4.   SMT.LEELAVATHI
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     W/O R.SREENIVASA

5.   SMT.SARASWATHAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     W/O NAGARAJAPPA
                            2


    THE PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 ARE
    R/O.DORANAL, THRIKERE TALUK
    CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 228

                                 ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRABHUGOWDA B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O REVANNA
R/O DORANAL
THRIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALRU DISTRICT-577228
                                   ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.R.SREE PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

    THIS   CRIMINAL      PETITION   IS   FILED    UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT IN
CRL.MISC.NO.356/2016 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
U/S 12 OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.


    THIS   CRIMINAL      PETITION   COMING       ON   FOR
ORDERS,    THIS   DAY,     THE   COURT     MADE       THE
FOLLOWING:
                                        3


                                ORDER

Mediation report has been received and the

matter is not settled.

2. This criminal petition is filed by the

petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in

Crl.Misc.No.356/2016 filed by the respondent pending

on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Tarikere,

Chikmagalur district filed under Section 12 of the

Domestic Violence Act.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent

and perused the records.

4. The case of the petitioners is that, the

respondent is the wife of petitioner No.1, their

marriage was held 24 years back and thereafter, the

petitioner said to be harassing her physically and

mentally and also demanding money from the

respondent family. Petitioner No.2 who said to be elder

brother, Petitioner No.3 is the mother of petitioner

No.1, Petitioner No.4 said to be sister-in-law of

petitioner No.1, Petitioner No.5 is elder sister of

petitioner No.1, they were harassing her physically and

mentally. Therefore, she has approached the Protection

Officer by filing necessary complaint. Then the

petitioner No.1 was called to the conciliation and

thereafter he said to be informed that he will contest

the matter before the Court of law. Therefore, she has

filed the petition before the learned Magistrate under

section 12 of Protection of women from Domestic

Violence Act and also sought Rs.10,000/- as monthly

maintenance to her. Being aggrieved by the

petitioners, she is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that petitioner No.1 is 60 years old. He is

suffering from various ailments and recently he has

met with an accident and admitted in the hospital.

Petitioner No.2 is the blind, Petitioner No.3 is 80 years

old, now aged about 86 years. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5

are residing separately in some other place. Petitioner

No.1 and the respondent were stayed in one house.

Four years back, the petitioner left the house and

respondent is residing there. Such being the case,

dismissing the petition against the petitioners is not

correct. Further learned counsel also produced some

Accident report regarding petitioner No.1, who met

road traffic accident and sustained injuries. Hence,

prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent objected and contended that the petitioners

were harassing the respondent physically and mentally.

Being a wife, the petitioner's bounded duty is to

maintain his wife. The trial is held up and no

maintenance is granted to the respondent by the Court.

It is in pre-matured stage and hence, prayed for

dismissal of the petition. He has also relied on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

(2016) 2 SCC 702 between KRISHNA

BHATTACHARJEE Versus. SARATHI CHOUDHURY.

7. Having heard the arguments and perusal of

the records, it is not in dispute that petitioner No.1

presently aged 60 years and the marriage was held 30

years back. It is not in dispute that other petitioners

were residing separately from the house of the

respondent. The complainant herself stated in the

complaint made to the Protection Officer that, 4 years

back she tried to lodge the complaint when petitioner

No.1 left the house and she along with her children are

living in the house. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioners that they have two sons who

were working in Military army. It is also not in dispute

that the respondent staying in the house was allotted

by the Government under Ashraya Housing Schem,

however, petitioner No.1 left the house of the

respondent. The application filed before the Protection

Officer and they were called to the Protection office on

04.07.2015, 08.07.2015, 15.07.2015, 29.07.2015,

05.08.2015 and 12.07.2015 where the petitioners said

to have informed that she will get the reliefs in the

Court of law. Therefore, they dropped the proceedings

and the complaint has been forwarded to the learned

Magistrate. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate

registered the case against the petitioners. Ofcourse,

petitioner No.1 is not living along with the respondent

and section 498(A) complaint was filed by the

respondent, also said to be quashed by the High Court.

However, the respondent said to have complained and

residing separately from petitioner No.1. The complaint

made by the respondent also reveals that both

together have stayed and 4 years back due to quarrel,

he left the respondent and she is residing in the said

house. Admittedly, she is having shared house and she

is residing in the said house. However, Domestic

Violence Act is provided for seeking various reliefs

including maintenance, protection from the husband

and others. Such being the case, this Court cannot

make enquiry and decide the application filed by the

respondent under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.

It is the duty of the learned Magistrate to summon and

decide the matter even for granting any maintenance.

Ofcourse, the petitioner No.1 said to be aged person

now said to be met with an accident. If he has filed

any application claiming any compensation before

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and if he has stated any

income in the said petition, the same shall be

considered by the learned Magistrate while passing the

order of maintenance after the enquiry. However,

absolutely no case against petitioner Nos.2 to 5.

Therefore, the proceedings against Petitioner Nos.2 to

5 are required to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed in part.

The criminal proceedings against petitioner Nos.2

to 5 in Crl.Misc.No.356/2016 pending on the file of Civil

Judge and JMFC Tarikere, Chikmagalur district filed

under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are

hereby quashed. However, petitioner No.1 is directed

to appear before the learned Magistrate and file his

objections for the purpose of contesting the matter.

The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of

the matter within 6 months from the date of receipt of

the copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SKS