Soami Prasad vs Mrs. Ashitha Prasad
2022 Latest Caselaw 4243 Kant

                             1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

          CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.381/2021

BETWEEN:

SOAMI PRASAD,
S/O DAYAL PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3054, 2ND FLOOR,
SECTOR - 46, GURGAON 122 001.

ALSO AT: R/AT HOWLETT PACKARD (HP),
DLF, CYBER CITY,
2ND PHASE, SECTOR - XIV,
GURGAON 122 001, HARIYANA.                       ...PETITIONER

           (BY SRI V.S. HARISH, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

MRS. ASHITHA PRASAD,
W/O SOAMI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.A-004 LEVENDER APARTMENT,
5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, AKSHAY NAGAR,
YELLANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 068.                            ...RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI N. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTIONS 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE DICTUM OF JUDGMENT RENDERED IN CRL.A.NO.1233/2018
DATED 17.03.2021 BY LVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS     JUDGE,   BENGALURU      ARISING    OUT     OF
C.MISC.NO.184/2017 BY REGISTERING THE CASE AND ALSO
TAKING COGNIZANCE.
                                 2


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

                           ORDER

The order sheet reveals that the new counsel for the

petitioner filed the vakalath on 09.02.2022 and took time. On

05.03.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner was absent.

Noting the same, this Court gave one more opportunity to the

learned counsel for the petitioner to prosecute the matter.

Inspite of an opportunity was given, today also there is no

representation by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. On perusal of the material available on record, the

respondent had filed the petition under Section 31 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act 2005 ('the

said Act' for short) to enforce the order passed earlier by the

Trial Court, which was challenged and the appeal was filed and

the same was dismissed. The same was challenged in the

Supreme Court and SLP was also dismissed and thereafter for

execution of the order, directed the petitioner herein to pay an

amount of Rs.61,41,400/- taking cognizance of the complaint

and sought for enforcement of the order invoking Section 31 of

the said Act. The Trial Court passed an order issuing FLW and

the same has been challenged in Crl.A.No.1233/2018 praying to

set aside the order of issuance of FLW and the same is

dismissed. Against that order, the present revision petition is

filed.

3. Inspite of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

given sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel did not pursue

the matter and there is no any interim order passed by this

Court. When this matter is listed several times for admission,

the learned counsel for the petitioner not appeared before the

Court and not pursued the matter and when this matter is not

admitted, the question of considering the revision petition on

merits also does not arise. Considering the factual aspects of

the case and also the material available on record, it is not a

case for even admitting the petition since the matter already

reached highest Court of this country and confirmed the order

and consequently the petition was filed for recovery by issuing

FLW. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD