Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jayakumar K S vs Smt. G.R. Kavitha on 29 May, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
CRL.RP No. 97 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.97 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYAKUMAR K S
S/O SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
2. SRI SIDDARAMANNA
S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3. SMT KAMALAMMA
W/O SIDDARAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA NILAYA
HEMAVATHINAGAR
Digitally HASSAN CITY-57320
signed by
MALATESH ...PETITIONERS
KC (BY SRI H J ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. G.R. KAVITHA
W/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. MASTER NITHIN
S/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
CRL.RP No. 97 of 2020
3. KUM PREETHI
D/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED 11 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL ARE R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE,
MADIHALLY HOBLI, BELUR TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SOMASHEKARA.K.M, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 23.09.2019 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.A.NO.178/2019 AND
CONSEQUENT TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2018
PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
HASSAN IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2014 (OLD
CRL.MSIC.NO.252/2010).
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
CRL.RP No. 97 of 2020
ORDER
Heard Sri H.J. Ananda, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Sri K.M. Somashekara, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated
23.09.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.178/2019 on the file of V
Additional District and Sessions Court at Hassan, wherein, the
order dated 10.07.2018 passed in C.Mis.No.93/2014 on the file
of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Hassan, dismissing the
petition filed by the respondents under Section 12 of the
protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, is set aside.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the present revision petition are as under:
Respondents being the wife and children of revision
petitioner No.1, filed a petition under Section 12 of the
protection of women from Domestic Violence Act ('D.P.Act' for
the short) contending that she has married to the revision
petitioner No.1 and revision petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his
parents and they stayed in common house, which is termed as
shared residence.
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
4. However, the revision petitioner No.1 herein being the
husband, did not look after the respondents in proper manner
and they stayed in the shared residence and there was also
harassment which necessitated the respondents to file the
application under Section 12 of the D.V.Act.
5. Learned Trial Magistrate after considering the rival
contentions of the parties, dismissed the petition filed under
Section 12 of the D.V.Act.
6. Respondents being aggrieved by the said order filed an
appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.178/2018.
7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court secured the
records and presence of the revision petitioners and after
hearing the arguments, set aside the order passed by the
learned Trial Magistrate and allowed the petition filed under
Section 12 of the D.V. Act filed by the respondents and directed
that the revision petitioners shall pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs
within one month from the date of order.
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
8. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioners -
husband and parents are before this Court.
9. Reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, Sri
H.J. Ananda, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
vehemently contended that the marriage is now dissolved and
the revision petitioners are unable to pay the amount of Rs.2
lakhs, as is ordered by the First Appellate Court and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
10. He also pointed out that the order of the First Appellate
Court is based on surmises and conjunctures without properly
appreciating the material placed on record and sought for
allowing the revision petition.
11. He further contended that the learned Judge in the First
Appellate Court, exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the claim,
taking note of the fact that there was already proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court for establishing the restitution of
conjugal rights filed by the husband and thereafter divorce has
been granted by the newly constituted matrimonial Court and
therefore, the order of the learned Judge in the First Appellate
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
Court is suffering from legal infirmities and thus, sought for
allowing the revision petition.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports
the order passed by the First Appellate Court by contending
that the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has
discussed in detail about the previous proceedings between the
parties and then allowed the petition by directing to pay sum of
Rs.2 lakhs for the Domestic Violence, suffered by the
respondents, when the relationship was in subsistence and
therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
13. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the
material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal
clear that there is no dispute as to the relationship of the
husband and the respondents.
15. Very fact of filing the restitution conjugal rights by the
husband shows that there was no harmony in the matrimonial
tie.
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
16. Mere filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights
itself would not ipso facto result in an inference that there is no
Domestic Violence and it is not the husband and his parents
who were responsible for pushing the respondents out of the
matrimonial home.
17. If that were to be so, there was always possibility for the
husband and his parents to file a memo before the learned Trial
Magistrate that they are prepared to take back the respondents
to the shared residence and thereby the petition under Section
12 of the D.V., Act would have been brought to its logical end.
Instead the revision petitioner No.1 contested the claim of wife
tooth and nail before the learned Trial Magistrate.
18. However, the learned Trial Magistrate taking note of the
pendency of the matrimonial dispute, dismissed the petition
filed under Section 12 of the D.V.Act.
19. But, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court has
rightly discussed the pendency of the matrimonial dispute
among the parties and took into consideration the effect and
the consequences of such matrimonial proceedings and still
NC: 2024:KHC:18225
exercised jurisdiction vested in him under the provisions of the
D.V. Act, by exercising the appellate powers and re-appreciated
the material evidence on record and also took into
consideration that the matrimonial tie has been now severed
and allowed the petition only in a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as cash
compensation which is perfectly justified having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand, especially
respondents being the wife and minor children of the husband.
20. Under the circumstances, this Court under the limited
scope of revisional jurisdiction, does not find any good grounds
to interfere with the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
Accordingly, following:
ORDER
Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MR
