Karnataka High Court

Smt S V Shylaja vs Mr N A Anil Kumar on 30 May, 2024

                                         -1-
                                                CRL.RP No. 229 of 2022


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                       DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
                                      BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2022
                BETWEEN:
                   SMT S V SHYLAJA
                   WIFE OF MR. N.A. ANIL KUMAR
                   DAUGHTER OF Y. VENKATASWAMY
                   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                   RESIDING AT: NO. 1239/1
                   OPPOSITE POLICE QUARTERS
                   SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK
                   BANGALORE - 562 125.
                                                           ...PETITIONER
                (BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL
                   FOR SRI. C JAGADISH, ADVOCATE)

CHANDRASHEKAR   AND:
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI          MR. N.A. ANIL KUMAR
                   S/O R. ALLAPPA
HIGH               AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          R/O: MATHRUKRUPA, NO. 172
                   8TH CROSS, GANGOTRHRI ROAD
                   SIT EXTENSION
                   TUMKUR CITY - 572 102.
                                                          ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE)

                     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
                PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AMOUNT
                GRANTED     VIDE    ORDER     DATED    07-08-2020  IN
                CRL.A.NO.5004/2020 BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
                SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT ANEKAL,
                FROM RS. 5000/- (NOW REDUCED TO RS. 4000/- BY THIS
                HON'BLE COURT) RS. 75,000/- PER MONTH AND ETC.,

                     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN
                HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2024, COMING ON FOR
                PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
                THE FOLLOWING:
                                     -2-
                                             CRL.RP No. 229 of 2022


                                ORDER

1. This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner,

being aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2020 in

Crl.A. No.5004/2020 on the file of the III Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District sitting at Anekal.

2. The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court will be

considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their

marriage was solemnized on 19.10.2014 as per Hindu rites and

customs. After the marriage, the petitioner joined her husband

and started living in her matrimonial home which is situated at

Tumakuru. Initially, all was well and she had been treated well.

4. It is further stated that the respondent started

demanding the petitioner to bring property by way of dowry

from her parents and her father-in-law also joined with the

respondent and started demanding the property in the form of

dowry from the petitioner.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner refused to

bring dowry and tried to convince the respondent and his father

that they should not demand dowry as they themselves are rich

enough to maintain the entire family. Further, the petitioner

had also been harassed by the respondent and her in-laws that

she should not go out of the house without the company of the

respondent. Though, she tried to convince that she being a

junior Advocate had to attend the office of her senior counsel

and requested them to permit her to work as an advocate,

however, it was denied.

6. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was

unable to forbear the turmoil of the matrimonial home, she

informed the said harassment and torture to the family

members. The family members and relatives conducted

panchayath to settle the issues. However, the respondent and

his parents imposed certain conditions to restore her

matrimonial house. The petitioner and her father were unable

to fulfill their demands, consequently, she was necked out of

the matrimonial home.

7. Being aggrieved by the ill-treatment and

harassment meted out in her matrimonial home, she

approached the Court and filed an application seeking for

maintenance on 21.11.2015. Initially, the Court of first instance

directed the respondent to pay the maintenance of Rs.2,000/-

per month till disposal of the petition. Being aggrieved by the

inadequacy of the maintenance, an appeal was preferred to the

Appellate Court for enhancement. The Appellate Court

enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to

Rs.5,000/- vide its order dated 07.08.2020 in

Crl.A.No.5004/2020.

8. The respondent herein being aggrieved by the order

of enhancement, filed an application for revision of the said

order before this Court. This Court vide its order dated

25.08.2021, in Crl.R.P.No.629/2020 reduced the amount of

interim maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/-.

9. The said order of interim maintenance attained

finality and therefore, there is no dispute in that regard. The

interim order passed by this Court by the Co-ordinate Bench is

not the subject matter of the petition. Therefore, the petitioner

restricted prayer No.3 for separate accommodation at her

matrimonial home.

10. Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel

for Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri. Nandish Gowda G.B., learned counsel for the respondent.

11. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel

that, the petitioner being the wife of the respondent, she is

entitled to have separate accommodation in terms of the

provision under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from the

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "D.V."Act).

12. It is further submitted that the respondent is the

only son residing along with his parents at Tumakuru in their

own house. The accommodation can be made in the same

building where the respondent is residing. The law of domestic

violence Act provides certain privileges to the destituted women

who are thrown out of the matrimonial house without any

reasons by their in-laws.

13. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a

well educated and practicing advocate has been necked out of

her matrimonial home without any basis. The petitioner has lost

her mother recently, and she has no permanent residence to

stay. The petitioner is trying to restore the matrimonial

obligations and therefore, she intends to stay in the same

building where the respondent is living.

14. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in catena of judgments reiterated that women who

approached the Court by invoking the provision under the D.V.

Act are entitled to have separate residence where the

respondent is living and her residential order should be

protected. Further, the leaned Senior Counsel to substantiate

her contention relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of SATISH CHANDER AHUJA VS. SNEHA

AHUJA1 & PRABHA TYAGI VS. KAMALESH DEVI2.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the respondent is not residing with his parents and

he is residing along with his aunt at Tumakuru. Further submits

that he is ready to provide rental accommodation at Tumakuru

and also submits that the maintenance order passed by the

Court has regularly being paid to the petitioner.

16. It is further submitted that the respondent even

though did his Engineering Degree, he is unemployed and he is

AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 5397

AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 2331

leading his life on the income of his parents. Even the

respondent is facing difficulty to pay the maintenance,

however, being a husband, somehow managed to adhere the

order of this Court. Making such submissions, learned counsel

for respondent prays to dismiss the petition.

17. After having heard learned counsel for the respective

parties, it is relevant to refer the definition of "domestic

relationship" as stipulated under Section 2 (f) of D.V. Act which

reads thus:

"2(F) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;"

18. Similarly, the word "domestic violence" has been

defined under Section 3 which reads thus:

"3. Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or

tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--

(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child;

and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;

(iv) "economic abuse" includes--

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared house hold and maintenance;

(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

- 10 -

                (c)     prohibition    or       restriction     to
                continued     access       to    resources      or

facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence"

under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration."

19. On conjoint reading of the above said provisions, it

can be inferred that the relationship between the two persons

who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a

shared household when they are related by consanguinity, or

marriage, or relationship in the nature of marriage. For the

purpose of defining the domestic violence, the Act itself

categorized four types of abuses viz., physical abuse, sexual

abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.

20. Section 2(s) of the Act defines "shared household"

which means a household where the person aggrieved lives or

at any stage, he has lived in a domestic relationship either

singly or along with the respondent in any form of residence,

the aggrieved person has right in the shared household.

- 11 -

21. Section 17 of the Act defines that "every woman in

a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the

shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or

beneficial interest in the same." Further, it defines, "the

aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the

shared household."

22. In the present case, the petitioner states that she

was residing with her in-laws along with the respondent in the

house situated at Tumakuru. It is also admitted fact that she is

the wife of the respondent. It is further noticed in the

averments of the petition that she has been subjected to

cruelty and harassment at the hands of respondent and her in-

laws. Further, it is stated in the petition that she had lodged a

complaint before the Sarjapura Police, Bangalore for the

offence under Section 498(A) read with 149 of IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police after

conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The

case is pending for adjudication.

23. Prima-facie, this Court is satisfied that the

petitioner has been subjected to cruelty as defined under

Section 3 of the Act and she is entitled for the protection order

along with residential order. Now, it is relevant to refer the

- 12 -

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sathish

Chander Ahuja as stated supra in paragraph number 43 which

read thus:

"43. Further, the expression 'family members living together as a joint family' is not relatable only to relationship through consanguinity, marriage or adoption. As observed above, the expression 'joint family' does not mean a joint family as understood in Hindu Law. It would mean persons living together jointly as a family. It would include not only family members living together when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or adoption but also those persons who are living together or jointly as a joint family such as foster children who live with other members who are related by consanguinity, marriage or by adoption. Therefore, when any woman is in a domestic relationship as discussed above, is subjected to any act of domestic violence and becomes an aggrieved person, she is entitled to avail the remedies under the D.V. Act. The further question is, whether, such a domestic relationship should be subsisting between the aggrieved person and the respondent against whom relief is claimed at the time of claiming the relief. Before answering the same, it would be useful to analyse the relationships noted in the D.V. Act as under:

(a) Any relationship by consanguinity is a lifelong relationship.

(b) Marriage is also a lifelong relationship unless a separation by a decree of divorce is ordered by a competent authority of law.

(i) If there is judicial separation ordered by a court of law, that does not put an end to marriage and hence the domestic relationship continues between the spouses even though they may not be actually living together.

(ii) In the event of a divorce, marriage would be no longer be subsisting, but if a woman (wife) is subjected to any domestic violence either during

- 13 -

marriage or even subsequent to a divorce decree being passed but relatable to the period of domestic relationship, the provisions of this D.V. Act would come to the rescue of such a divorced woman also.

(iii) That is why, the expression 'domestic relationship' has been defined in an expansive manner to mean a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by marriage. We have also interpreted the word 'live' or 'lived' in the context of right to reside in Sub-Section (1) of Section 17. The right to live in the shared household, even when the domestic relationship may have been severed for instance when a woman has been widowed owing to the death of her husband, entitles her to have remedies under the D.V. Act.

(iv) Therefore, even when the marital ties cease and there is no subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved woman and the respondent against whom relief is claimed but the acts of domestic violence are related to the period of domestic relationship, even in such circumstances, the aggrieved woman who was subjected to domestic violence has remedies under the D.V. Act.

(c) Even in the case of relationship in the nature of marriage, during which period the woman suffered domestic violence and is thus an aggrieved person can seek remedies subsequent to the cessation of the relationship, the only pre-condition is that the allegation of domestic violence must relate to the period of the subsistence of relationship in the nature of marriage.

(d) In the same way, when a girl child is fostered by family members living together as a joint family as interpreted above and lives or at any point of time has lived together in a shared household or has the right to reside in the shared household being a member living together as a joint family and has been ousted in any way or has been a victim of domestic violence has remedies under the D.V. Act.

- 14 -

In our view, the question raised about a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed must be interpreted in a broad and expansive way, so as to encompass not only a subsisting domestic relationship in presentia but also a past domestic relationship. Therefore, the Parliament has intentionally used the expression 'domestic relationship' to mean a relationship between two persons who not only live together in the shared household but 56 also between two persons who 'have at any point of time lived together' in a shared house hold."

24. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, it can be gathered that the expression 'family

members living together as a joint family' not only restricted to

the definition of the joint family as stated under the Hindu Law,

however, it includes the persons living together jointly as a

family in a shared household at any point of time along with the

aggrieved person.

25. In the present case, the petitioner has proved that

she was living with the respondent and her in-laws in the

matrimonial home for a considerable length of time. Therefore,

she is entitled for shared household in the matrimonial home.

26. In the light of the observations made above, I

proceed to pass the following:

- 15 -

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed in part.

ii. The petitioner is entitled to have residential

order as defined under Section 17 of the Act.

iii. The Trial Court is directed to take

appropriate measures to provide separate

residence in her matrimonial home and it is

needless to say that the order of residence

to be protected in terms of Section 18 of the

Act.