Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Narendra vs Smt N R Pushpa on 7 June, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1204 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI K N NARENDRA
SON OF MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT GOWRAMMA STREET,
CHANNAGIRI TOWN,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT N R PUSHPA
W/O K.N. NARENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESI DING AT DOOR NO.1675/58,
5TH CROSS, RANGANATHA LAYOUT
GARDEN GATE ROA,
VIDHYA NAGAR,
Digitally
signed by R DAVANAGERE
MANJUNATHA ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH COURT (BY SMT.JYOTHI S. KEMPEGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED
13.07.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.No.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DAVANAGERE AND ORDER DATED
29.11.2014 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.64/2014 BY THE JMFC-III
COURT, DAVANGERE AND TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CRL.R.P AND
DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT U/S 12 OF
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,
2015.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
CRL.RP No. 1204 of 2016
THIS CRL.RP, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel for
petitioner and Smt.Jyothi S.Kempegoudar, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. Revision petitioner is the husband of respondent who
suffered an order of maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.64/2014 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Davanagere,
confirmed in Crl. A.No.13/2015 dated 13.07.2016 on the file of
the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere.
3. Facts in brief unfold as under:
Revision Petitioner is hereinafter referred to as husband
and respondent is referred to as wife for the sake of
convenience.
Wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, ('Act' for short)
before the jurisdictional Magistrate which was registered as
Crl.Misc. No.64/2014. Upon issuance of notice, husband
appeared and filed detailed objection statement denying the
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
relationship of husband and wife and also denied his
responsibility to maintain her.
4. On contest, petition came to be allowed whereunder a
sum of Rs.3,000/- was ordered towards the maintenance of the
wife and Rs.1,000/- to the daughter born to the couple. Sum
of Rs.30,000/- was also ordered to be paid as compensation
towards mental agony caused to the wife, by exercising power
under Section 22 of the Act.
5. Being aggrieved by the said Order of the learned JMFC,
Davanagere, husband preferred an appeal before the District
Court in Crl.A.No.13/2015.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the
records and after hearing the arguments of both sides, passed
a detailed judgment considering every one of the contentions
raised on behalf of the husband, on 13.07.2016, whereby
appeal came to be dismissed.
7. A categorical finding was recorded by the learned Trial
Magistrate which was upheld by the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court as to the relationship so as to maintain a
petition under the Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
8. Being further aggrieved by the Orders passed by the
learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court, revision petition came to be filed by the
husband before this Court.
9. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband vehemently
contended that the course adopted by the learned Trial
Magistrate while recording the finding of existence of
relationship of husband and wife is incorrect, which has been
wrongly re-appreciated by the learned Judge of the First
Appellate Court and sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Learned counsel also pointed out that yet another
proceeding is pending in respect of maintenance and therefore,
ordering further maintenance by the learned Judicial Magistrate
is nothing but double benefit to the wife and therefore, the
orders under revision are incorrect and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
11. Per contra, Smt. Jyothi S.Kempegoudar, learned counsel
for the respondent supported impugned orders. She further
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
emphasized that relationship has been established and
daughter is born in the relationship and therefore learned Trial
Magistrate was justified in holding that there existed a
relationship of husband and wife, and rightly ordered the
maintenance to the wife and her daughter which is meager in
quantum, having regard to the cost of living and therefore,
sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. Having heard the parties, this Court perused the material
on record, meticulously.
13. On such perusal, it is found that the proceedings before
the learned Trial Magistrate was thoroughly contested by the
husband. With regard to the relationship, there is detailed
discussion by the learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned
order itself. Moreover, proceedings before the Magistrate is
summary in nature, therefore, the proof that is required to
establish the relationship of husband and wife is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
14. No effort has been made by the husband to further
advance the plea of non existence of the relationship of
husband and wife.
15. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated
the said aspect of the matter in detail in the judgment dated
13.07.2016 while answering point No.1. Learned Judge also
pointed out that, if at all if there is a serious dispute as to the
relationship between the parties and the daughter is not born in
the matrimonial relationship of husband and wife, the husband
should have resorted to DNA examination of the child which
would have conclusively decided the biological father and
mother of the child. But for the reasons best known to the
husband, he did not take such steps.
16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court re-appreciated
the documentary evidence placed on record by the husband
which are marked as Ex.R.1 to R.10 and also oral evidence of
R.W.2 and recorded a categorical finding that it was not
sufficient enough to advance the theory that was put forth on
behalf of the husband that there did not existed any
relationship of husband and wife.
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
17. When once the relationship was established, rest of the
allegations are consequential in nature inasmuch as,
admittedly, the wife and child were deserted by the husband by
not allowing them to live with him.
18. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis
that provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, is not in derogation of any other remedy that is
available to a wife, but, in addition to other remedies.
19. Therefore, pendency of the other proceedings or orders
that is passed therein would not come in the way of the learned
Trial Magistrate exercising his discretion in allowing suitable
compensation amount as well as the maintenance amount as
there is no possibility of allowing wife and child to live in the
shared residence with the husband.
20. Taking note of the fact of cost of living that existed at the
time of passing the impugned order and the present day,
quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Trial
Magistrate is also justified. In fact, it is on the lower side.
NC: 2024:KHC:20013
21. Thus, in the revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not
find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned Order
passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the first
appellate Court.
22. Resultantly, following:
ORDER
Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
