Karnataka High Court

Mrs Sharanya vs Mr Jayaprakash Rao B on 16 October, 2024

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                      -1-
                                                    NC: 2024:KHC:41960
                                                CRL.RP No. 599 of 2015
                                            C/W CRL.RP No. 760 of 2015
                                                CRL.RP No. 761 of 2015


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                    DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
                                    BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.599 OF 2015
                 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.760 OF 2015
                   CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.761 OF 2015

            IN CRL.RP No. 599/2015

            BETWEEN:

            1.    MR JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
                  AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                  S/O B RADHAKRISHNA RAO,
                  RESIDING AT "DURGAPRASAD"
                  NEAR BHARATH MAIDAN,
                  JEPPU, MANGALURU-575 001

            2.    MR RADHAKRISHNA RAO
                  AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
                  S/O RAMAYYA,
                  MASTER, R/AT "DURGAPRASAD"
                  NEAR BHARATH MAIDAN,
Digitally         JEPPU, MANGALURU-575 001
signed by                                        ...PETITIONERS
MALATESH  (BY SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
KC
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF  1. MRS SHARANYA
KARNATAKA     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                  W/O JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
                  R/AT "SADANANDA", SANKESH
                  NEAR KARNATAKA AGENCY,
                  KOTTARA CHOWKI,
                  MANGALURU-575 001
                                                       ...RESPONDENT
            (BY SRI ANIKETH K.V, FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATES)
                           -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:41960
                                    CRL.RP No. 599 of 2015
                                C/W CRL.RP No. 760 of 2015
                                    CRL.RP No. 761 of 2015


     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 AND 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
12.4.2014 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C.-(II COURT), MANGALURU
IN M.C.NO.81/2010 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT DATED
1.4.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J., D.K., MANGALURU IN
CRL.A.No.112/2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE
PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN M.C.No.81/2010 ON
THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.(II COURT), MANGALURU.

IN CRL.RP NO.760/2015


BETWEEN:


1.   MRS SHARANYA
     W/O JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
     AGED 33 YEARS,
     D/O LATE K.SADANANDA RAO
     R/O " SADANANDA"
     SANKESH KOTTARA
     DEREBAIL, ASHOK NAGAR POST,
     MANGALORE-575 006
                                          ...PETITIONER


(BY SRI ANIKETH K.V FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATES)


AND:


1.   MR JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
     S/O RADHAKRISHNA RAO
     AGED 44 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
     NEAR BHARATH MAIDHAN, JEPPU,
     MANGALORE-575 001

2.   MR.RADHAKRISHNA RAO
     S/O RAMAYYA MASTER,
     AGED 73 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
                           -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:41960
                                    CRL.RP No. 599 of 2015
                                C/W CRL.RP No. 760 of 2015
                                    CRL.RP No. 761 of 2015


     NEAR BHARATH MAIDHAN, JEPPU,
     MANGALORE-575001
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
1.4.2015 IN CRL.A NO.120/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
S.J., D.K., MANGALORE VIDE DOCUMENT No.1 AND ALLOW
THE CRL.A FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.

IN CRL.RP NO. 761/2015

BETWEEN:

1.   MRS SHARANYA
     W/O JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
     AGED 33 YEARS,
     D/O LATE K.SADANANDA RAO
     R/O " SADANANDA"
     SANKESH KOTTARA
     DEREBAIL, ASHOK NAGAR POST,
     MANGALORE-575 006
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI ANIKETH K.V FOR SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATES)


AND:


1.   MR JAYAPRAKASH RAO B
     S/O RADHAKRISHNA RAO
     AGED 44 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
     NEAR BHARATH MAIDHAN, JEPPU,
     MANGALORE-575 001

2.   MR.RADHAKRISHNA RAO
     S/O RAMAYYA MASTER,
     AGED 73 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT DURGA PRASAD,
     NEAR BHARATH MAIDHAN, JEPPU,
                                   -4-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:41960
                                            CRL.RP No. 599 of 2015
                                        C/W CRL.RP No. 760 of 2015
                                            CRL.RP No. 761 of 2015


    MANGALORE-575 001
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED
1.4.2015 IN CRL.A.No.112/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
S.J, D.K, MANGALORE TO THE EXTENT OF MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT DATED 12.4.2014 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C-II
COURT, MANGALORE IN M.C.No.81/2010 AND ALLOW THE
CRL.A FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.


     THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA


                           ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel for the

revision petitioners in Crl.RP No.599/2015, respondents in

Crl.RP No.760/2015 and Crl.RP No.761/2015 and Sri. Aniketh,

appearing for Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the

respondent in Crl.RP No.599/2015, revision petitioner in Crl.RP

No.760/2015 and Crl.RP No.761/2015 respectively.

2. Revision petition in Crl.RP No.599/2015 is filed by

the husband, challenging the orders passed in M.C.No.81/2010

granting sum of Rs.7,500/- p.m., as the monitory relief under

Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act ('D.V. Act' for short) and sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

cost of proceedings and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation which

was confirmed in Crl.A.Nos.112/2014 and 120/2014 except

that the amount of Rs.7500/- p.m., was ordered to be paid to

the minor children.

3. Crl.RP No.760/2015 and 761/2015 are filed by the

wife, seeking enhancement of the compensation and also

challenging the modification order passed by the learned Judge

in the First Appellate Court.

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the revision petitions are as under:

5. Smt. Sharanya being the wife of Sri Jayaprakash

Rao B., filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking

following reliefs:

"IV) Therefore the petitioner prays that the Hon'ble Court may take cognizance of the complaint and pass orders as prayed for hereunder and also pass such other and further reliefs as the court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

1. Pass protection order to the petitioner and her children as per Section 18(a), (b), (c), (e), (f) and

(g).

2. Pass an order as per Section 19(f) and 19(2) to (8).

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

3. Pass an order as per Section 20 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per month towards the petitioner and her two children.

4. Pass an order as per Section 22 directing the respondent No.1 to pay compensation a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to the petitioner.

5. Pass an order directing the respondent No.2 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for meting out mental and physical torture to the petitioner in India and abroad.

6. To Pass an Interim orders as the court deems just and proper in consonance with final orders sought for.

7. To Pass such orders as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

V) The orders required...

1. Protection order under Section 18 prohibiting an act of Domestic Violence by granting an injunction against the respondents from repeating any of the acts mentioned in the petition.

2. Directing the respondents to stay away from the children, brother and mother of the petitioner to prohibit the violence against them.

3. Directing the 1st respondent to secure same level of alternative accommodation for the petitioner and her children as enjoyed by her in the shared house hold or to pay a rent of Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.1,20,000/- as security deposit for separate accommodation.

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

4. To pass an order imposing additional conditions to protect or provide safety for the petitioner and her children.

5. To pass an order directing the respondents executing a bond with surety for prevention of committing of domestic violence.

6. To pass an order directing the Officer-in-charge of Urwa Rural Police Station to give protection to the petitioner or to assist her in the implementation of the order.

7. To pass an order directing the respondents to return the gold ornaments, dress materials, of the petitioners and also dress materials and other belongings of her children.

VI) Monetary reliefs...

1. To pass an order directing the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation for the petitioner in respect of her sufferings.

2. To pass an order directing the 1st respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the maintenance per month to the petitioner and her children from the date of petition.

3. To pass an order directing the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for meting out mental and physical torture to the petitioner in India and abroad.

4. To pass an order directing the respondents to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

5. And grant such and other reliefs as the court deems fit under the circumstances of the case."

6. It is her case that without proper grounds, she was

sent out of the matrimonial home and therefore, sought for

protection order as well as protection from domestic violence

and maintenance.

7. Couple had two children and there is no dispute as

to the same.

8. On contest, the petition filed by the wife under

Section 12 of D.V.Act was allowed. Operative portion of the

order in M.C.No.81/2010 reads as under:

"The application filed by the petitioner is partly allowed.

1) Protection Order under section 18 is passed here under

(a) The respondents are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner, children and family members of the petitioner.

2) Residence Order claimed under Section 19 is rejected.

3) Monitory relief under section 20 is passed here under.

(a) Respondent no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500 p.m to the petitioner.

(b) Respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5000/-

towards cost of the proceedings.

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

4) Compensatory order under section 22 is passed here under

(a) Respondent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation."

9. Being aggrieved by the amount of maintenance

ordered by the learned Trial Judge, wife filed an appeal in

Crl.A.No.120/2015 and husband challenged the grant of

compensation and monitory relief in Crl.A.No.112/2014.

10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the parties in detail and modified

the orders passed in M.C.No.81/2010 and dismissed the appeal

filed by the wife.

11. Operative portion of the First Appellate Court order

in Crl.A.Nos.112/2014 and 120/2014 reads as under:

"Criminal Appeal No.112/2014 filed by the appellants/respondents (husband and father-in-law) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is partly allowed.

Criminal Appeal No.120/2014 filed by the appellant/respondent (wife) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is dismissed.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

The order passed by the learned JMFC (II Court), Mangaluru, in M.C.No.81/2010 dated:12.04.2014 is modified and the respondent No.1 is hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence against the petitioner and her minor children. Further it is modified and the respondent No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- p.m., only to the minor children of the petitioner.

The remaining part of impugned order is confirmed.

Keep the original judgment in Criminal Appeal No.112/2014 and the copy thereof in Crl.A.120/2014, for record.

Send back the trial court records."

12. Being further aggrieved by the same, husband and

wife have filed these revision petitions on the following

grounds:

 The impugned orders are incorrect, improper and illegal.

 The learned Magistrate has not properly applied his mind to the facts and evidence of the case.

 The impugned orders are not sustainable either in law or on facts.

 The impugned orders are perverse and biased.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

 The learned Magistrate should have dismissed the petition.

 The wife has made false and baseless allegations against the husband and in-laws with the evil intention of making unlawful gain. The statements of the wife made in the complaint and thereafter in the Court are contradictory to one another and intrinsically untrustworthy. The statement of P.W.1 is totally unreliable, but the learned Magistrate has erred in accepting the same.

 The true facts are set out in the evidence of R.W.1. He has also stated the same in his objection statement filed before the lower Court in M.C.No.81//2010. The same may be read as part of this revision to avoid repetition. Lower court has failed to consider the objections and the evidence of the petitioners.

 The allegations of P.W.1 relating to dowry and harassment, etc., are false. Even the learned Magistrate has held that there is no evidence to show that husband had received any dowry from the wife/respondent herein. Thus, the allegations of P.W.1 that there was harassment and demand of dowry etc., are held to be false by the learned Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate erred in awarding Rs.7,500/- per month as monetary relief, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. No reason or basis whatsoever is assigned by the learned Magistrate for awarding such maintenance and compensation.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

 The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the entire evidence in the correct legal perspective. The observation of the learned Magistrate that there is incident of mental assault by the petitioners is false. The husband/Petitioner No.1 herein has clearly denied all these allegations. Allegations made by the wife are unnatural and unbelievable.

 Uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 which is filled with false, unnatural and contradictory versions, should have been rejected by the learned Magistrate.

 Respondent/wife has herself deserted the husband. She has herself withdrawn from the company of the husband without any valid ground.

 The finding of the learned Magistrate that she has suffered mental agony/domestic violence is without any basis and there is no reliable evidence to support this finding.

 Petitioner No.1 herein for the past two years is residing in Mangaluru as admitted by the respondent herein. At present Petitioner No.1 has no source of income. The respondent is going for job and drawing monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-.

 Granting compensation to respondent herein is illegal. There is no basis whatsoever for granting compensation/money to the wife in the present case.

 The respondent/wife has not produced any material much less any supporting evidence either of her relatives or her neighbours to support her case.

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

Uncorroborated testimony of the respondent is unreliable.

 The proceeding before the lower court is conducted in breach of the mandate of law. Filing of affidavit as evidence was not permissible in this case. Recording of evidence in this manner is improper and illegal. Entire proceeding before the lower court is vitiated and the same has resulted in serious injustice and miscarriage of justice.

 Without prejudice, it is further submitted that the quantum of monthly maintenance granted is exorbitant and very high, and beyond the capacity of the husband. Grant of permanent alimony/compensation is unjustified.

 The appellate Court has rightly held that respondent is capable of earning herself and hence question of granting maintenance does not arise at all. The Appellate Court has also held that allegation of cruelty made against the petitioners is not true as she has left Dubai. But the trial Courts erred in granting her compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

 Appellate Court's finding that acceptance of the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief by the Magistrate is permissible under Section 28(2) of the Act as the said provision mandates that the trial Court laid down its procedure. However, no such procedure has been laid down, but the learned Magistrate has straightaway accepted the affidavit as examination-in- chief without laying down any such procedure. Laying

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

down of the procedure in written permission should be informed to both sides before the commencement of the evidence.

 The Court below has committed error by granting a meagre compensation amount of Rs.5 lakhs against the Respondent. Having regard to the fact that there was a sufficient income on the part of the Respondent. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

 The Court below without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

 The Court below had ignored the fact that the Respondent No.1 was earning Rs.25 lakhs per month while he was working in Dubai and after he coming to India, he started various business by investing huge amount and getting income of Rs.4 lakhs per month. Under such circumstances, the Court below ought to have granted Rs.30 lakhs as compensation for the petitioner and her two minor children. Under such circumstances, the interference of this Hon'ble Court is required in the instant revision petition.

 The Court below without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act, wherein it was confirmed by

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

the Appellate Court. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

 The Court below committed an error in not appreciating the fact that the petitioner has got the 1/3rd right over the house of the Respondent. Under such circumstances, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioner as prayed for. Under such circumstances, the interference of this Hon'ble Court is required in the instant Revision Petition.

 The Court below had committed an error in not considering the evidence placed on record by the Petitioner in a proper perspective. Under such circumstances, the impugned Order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

 The Court below had committed an error in modifying the Judgment of the trial Court without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgment passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.  The Court below committed an error in modifying the Judgement of the trial Court, thereby only directing the Respondent No.1 from restraining or prohibiting in committing any act of Domestic Violence against the petitioner. Especially when the petitioner had established the fact that there is a Domestic Violence on the part of the Respondent No.2 also. Under such

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:41960

circumstances, interference of this Hon'ble Court is required in the instant revision petition.  The Appellate Court without considering the evidence placed by the Petitioner in a proper perspective, had committed an error in modifying the Judgement of the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgement passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

 The settled principles of law that the Appellate Court has got limited power to reverse the Judgement of the trial Court unless the Respondent make out a case that the Judgement of the trial Court is perverse, capricious, arbitrary. The Appellate Court lacks jurisdiction to reverse the finding of the trial Court. Merely on the ground that another view is possible, the Appellate Court cannot reverse the findings given by the trial Court. By overlooking the above settled principles of law, the Appellate Court had committed an error in modifying the Judgement of the trial Court.  The Appellate Court had committed an error in appreciating the evidence on record in proper perspective placed by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgement passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.  When the Petitioner is able to establish that there is a sufficient income on the part of the Respondent, the Court below had committed an error in not giving the mandatory relief as prayed for in the petition. Under such circumstances, the impugned Judgement passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.