Sri. Syed Dildar vs Smt. Salma Taj
2023 Latest Caselaw 1797 Kant

                                              -1-

                                                       CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                         DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
                                              BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                                  CRL.R.P. No. 577 OF 2015
                BETWEEN:
                SRI SYED DILDAR
                S/O SYED MUSTAFA
                AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                R/AT NO.55/2, HADI MASJID
                ROAD, DEVASANDRA
                KRISHNARAJAPURAM
                BANGALORE - 560 036.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI S.A. AHMED, ADV.)
                AND:
Digitally
signed by B A   SMT. SALMA TAJ
KRISHNA         W/O SYED DILDAR
KUMAR           D/O A. BABU
Location:
High Court of   AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
Karnataka       R/AT DARGAH MOHALLA
                OLD POLICE STATION ROAD
                KRISHNARAJAPURAM
                BANGALORE - 560 036.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENT
                (BY SRI SHAIKA SAOUD, ADV.)


                      THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397(1) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
                ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED 13.2.2015
                PASSED BY THE P.O. & ADDL. S.J., F.T.C.-III, MAYO HALL,
                BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.25149/2014 AND DATED 12.8.2014
                PASSED BY THE P.O., MMTC-I, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE IN
                CRL. MISC. NO.305/2012.

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

                                            ORDER

This criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397

Cr.PC challenging the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I,

Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.305/2012 which has been confirmed

by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.25149/2014

vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2015.

2. Facts leading to filing of this revision petition as

revealed from the records are, the marriage of petitioner and

the respondent was solemnized on 03.02.2005 and from the

wedlock, the couple have a male child born on 08.01.2008. It is

the case of the respondent-wife that after the marriage, the

petitioner and his family members were ill-treating the

respondent and abusing and assaulting her on the ground that

she had not brought sufficient dowry. They were also

pressurizing her to bring additional dowry from her parents

house. In respect of one such incident on 01.07.2008, the

respondent had given a police complaint against the petitioner

and the petitioner had undertaken in the police station to take

care of his wife and child. Inspite of that, he had continued his

misbehaviour and on 10.11.2011, he had assaulted the

respondent and thrown her out of the house along with the

child. It is under these circumstances, the respondent was

constrained to take shelter in her parents house. It is the

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

further case of the respondent that the petitioner has thereafter

married another lady and is presently residing with her and he

has failed to provide any maintenance to the respondent and

her son and has completely neglected them. Under these

circumstances, the respondent had filed a petition under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act') before the Trial Court.

3. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had entered

appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections

admitting his marriage, but he had denied the other allegations

made against him. He has stated that the respondent was in

the habit of leaving the matrimonial house without there being

any reason and she had failed to take care of him and that as

per her demand, he had shifted his residence from Kaiwara to

Bengaluru and even in Bengaluru, she had fought with him and

left his company and had voluntarily taken shelter in her

parents house.

4. Before the Trial Court, the respondent had examined

herself as PW-1 and got marked 22 documents as Exs.P-1 to

P-22. On behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as RW-1

but no documents were marked in support of his case. The Trial

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

Court by its judgment and order dated 12.08.2014 had partly

allowed the petition filed by the respondent and had awarded

her the following reliefs:

"The respondent is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person under Section 18 of the Act.

The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) per month towards accommodation from the date of filing of this petition.

The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) per month as maintenance to the aggrieved person from the date of filing of this petition.

The respondent is herby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month fro the maintenance of the child from the date of filing of this petition till the child attains majority.

The respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation to the aggrieved person.

The aggrieved person is not entitled for other reliefs claimed in the petition."

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

5. The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the

judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in

Crl.A.No.25149/2014 was dismissed by the Appellate Court by

its judgment and order dated 13.02.2015. Being aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and

order passed by the courts below on the ground that the courts

below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on

record and the findings recorded by the courts below are not

supported with any evidence.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has

argued in support of the impugned judgment and order and has

prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. I have carefully appreciated the contentions put

forward by both the parties and also perused the material

available on record.

9. The marriage between the parties is not in dispute, so

also the fact that from the wedlock, the parties have a male

child born on 08.01.2008. It is the specific case of the

respondent that ever since the marriage the petitioner and his

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

family members were ill-treating and torturing her to bring

additional dowry. She has also narrated certain incidents of ill-

treatments and about the police complaint given by her. She

has further deposed before the Trial Court that on 10.11.2011,

herself and her child were thrown out of the matrimonial house

by the petitioner, and thereafter, she had taken shelter in her

parents house. In the petition filed by her under Section 12 of

the Act, she had also sought for reliefs under Sections 17, 18,

19, 20 & 22 of the Act. She has stated that her husband is a

scrap merchant and she also has stated that in the year 2011,

a property was purchased in his name. She has stated that

after 10.11.2011, the respondent has totally neglected her and

her minor child and he is not providing any maintenance or

shelter to them.

10. The petitioner who had examined himself as RW-1

has admitted that he is doing scrap business and he has also

admitted that in the year 2011, a property was purchased in

Bengaluru in his name. However, he has stated that the said

property was purchased by his father in his name. He has

further admitted during the course of his deposition that his

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

family was doing silk business at Kaiwara village. He has also

admitted that in the month of June 2012, he has re-married.

11. The respondent who has examined herself as PW-1,

has produced Exs.P-11 to P-14 to show that the minor child has

been suffering from ill-health and he has been under constant

treatment for prolonged period. It is not the case of the

petitioner that after 2011, he has provided any maintenance to

his wife and child and it is also not his case that his wife has

got independent source of income to maintain herself and the

child.

12. The Trial Court after appreciating all these aspects of

the matter has rightly partly allowed the petition filed by the

respondent-wife under Section 12 of the Act and has granted

her certain monetary reliefs which totally amounts to awarding

a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month to the wife and the child and an

additional sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the

respondent. This order passed by the Trial Court has been

confirmed by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the

petitioner.

CRL.RP No. 577 of 2015

13. The judgment and order passed by the courts below

which have been challenged by the petitioner are sound and

reasoned and the findings recorded by the courts below are

based on oral and documentary evidence that was placed on

record by the respective parties. This concurrent finding of fact

recorded by the courts below after appreciation of material

evidence available on record cannot be disturbed by this Court

in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless the petitioner is able

to point out that the judgment and order which has been

impugned herein either suffer from illegality or perversity. The

judgment and order passed by the courts below does not suffer

from any illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by

this Court. The revision petition is devoid of any merit, and

therefore, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK