Karnataka High Court
Sri Madahain vs Smt. S. Roopa on 4 April, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13950
CRL.RP No. 1436 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1436 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MADAHAIN
S/O KARNAN CHETTIAR
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SMT. AMBUJAMMA
W/O MADAIAN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O MARIKAMBA ROAD
KARGAL COLONY, KARGAL TOWN
SAGAR TALUK, TALAGUPPA HOBLI
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T SAGAR TALUK-577421
Location: HIGH ...PETITIONERS
COURT OF (BY SRI BIMBADHARA H M, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. S. ROOPA
W/O M. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
2. SRI MAHARANTH M. SHETTY
S/O LATE M. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13950
CRL.RP No. 1436 of 2023
3. KUM. ARVI M SHETTY
D/O LATE M MOHAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NO.112
NEAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE
G BLOCK, BOMMANAKATTE EXTENSION
SHIMOGA TOWN AND DISTRICT-577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PUNITH S, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REP. BY R1)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE
PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, SAGAR
IN CRL.MISC.NO.64/2021 DATED 11.04.2023 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order
dated 11.04.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No.64/2021 and the
said order is passed entertaining the memo filed by the
NC: 2024:KHC:13950
petitioner wherein the Court has given a direction to the
Officer in-charge of the jurisdictional police station i.e.,
CBI or PSI, Kargal to assist in implementation of the
protection order as per the order dated 17.11.2021. The
said order is also challenged before the First Appellate
Court in Crl.A.No.10024/2023 and the First Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion
that the order in appeal is on memo dated 11.04.2023
passed by the concerned Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Sagar in Crl.Mis.No.64/2021 being a supportive
order to I.A.No.1 filed under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act
and the First Appellate Court has not been discussed
anything about the said order as the appeal itself is not
maintainable since the original order was not challenged.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioner would
vehemently contend that the husband of the respondent
had executed a joint relinquishment deed and the question
of giving direction of residential order does not arise.
NC: 2024:KHC:13950
4. The counsel for the respondent would
vehemently contend that when the earlier original order is
not challenged, the question of entertaining this revision
petition does not arise and even revision petition itself is
not maintainable. The first appellate court also dismissed
the appeal in coming to the conclusion that the appeal
itself is not maintainable since the original order has not
been challenged. Hence, this revision petition is also not
maintainable.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, it is not in dispute that earlier order
was passed on I.A. No.1 filed under Section 23(2) of D.V.
Act and the said order was also an exparte order and the
same was not challenged and only the order passed on the
memo is challenged before the First Appellate Court.
Unless the very original order has not been challenged and
subsequent order passing of implementation of the earlier
order is challenged, the revision petition also not
maintainable and the First Appellate Court itself held that
NC: 2024:KHC:13950
very appeal is not maintainable. Such being the case, I do
not find any grounds to determine the issue with regard to
passing of an order of implementation of residential order
since the original order has not been challenged. Thus, I
do not find any merit in the revision petition to exercise
the revisional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Liberty is given to the revision petitioners to
challenge the original order. If it is challenged, consider
the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SN
