Sri Lokesha vs Smt. Mamatha
2025 Latest Caselaw 19 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Lokesha vs Smt. Mamatha on 1 April, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:13535
                                                          CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

                                              BEFORE

                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 111 OF 2016

                      BETWEEN:

                            SRI. LOKESHA,
                            S/O NANJUNDAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                            R/AT. BURUDAGHATTA VILLAGE,
                            KORA HOBLI,
                            TUMKUR TALUK
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    SMT. MAMATHA
                            W/O LOKESHA,
                            AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH                   C/O SIDDALINGAIAH
VINUTHA                     MELEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
KARNATAKA                   TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216.

                      2.    SHIVANNA
                            S/O NANJUNDAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                            BURUDAGHATTA VILLAGE,
                            KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK
                            TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI. B.T VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
                          R2-SERVED)
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC:13535
                                        CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
AT TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.40/2013 THEREBY DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2013 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2009
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                         ORAL ORDER

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

18.04.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.40/2013 by the VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as

'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned

Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the order

passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2009 dated 08.02.2013 by the Prl.

Civil Judge And JMFC, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as 'trial

Court' for short).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that:

Respondent No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the

revision petitioner, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of

the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(for short 'DV Act') before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

seeking orders against the revision petitioner, prohibiting him

from committing any act of domestic violence, restraining him

from entering the place of her child's school, restraining him

from alienating the assets and also praying for a direction to

provide accommodation under Section 19(f) of the DV Act and

to pay monetary relief under Section 20 and also compensation

or damages under Section 22 of the DV Act.

3. To prove her case before the trial Court, respondent

No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents

as Exs.P1 to P16. However, the revision petitioner also

examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents as

Exs.R1 to R4.

4. The trial Court, after assessment of oral and

documentary evidence, passed the following order:

"ORDER The complaint filed by the aggrieved person/complainant under: Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is partly allowed.

Acting, under Sec. 18 of the Act, the respondents are prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence, aiding or abetting in the

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

commission of acts of domestic violence, entering the place of her child's school or other places frequented by the aggrieved person, and alienating any assets and other properties, operating bank lockers and bank accounts.

Acting under Sec19(f) of the Act, the respondent No. 1 is directed to provide accommodation at Gubbi or to pay a rent of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the aggrieved person.

Acting under Sec.20 of the Act, the respondent No. 1 is directed to pay- a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- in addition to the maintenance amount awarded in C.Mis.117/08 to the aggrieved person and to her son Pranav.

Acting under Sec.22 of the Act, the respondent. No. 1 is directed to pay compensation and damages of Rs.50,000/- to the aggrieved person.

The respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost and expenses of this complaint.

The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- from the date of complaint.

The office is directed to supply free copy of the order to the parties, as provided under Sec.24 of the Act."

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner

preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in

Crl.A.No.40/2013. Learned Sessions Judge, after re-assessment

of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal filed

by the revision petitioner by confirming the order passed by the

trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri Nagaraja.S.,

for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel

Sri. B.T.Venkatesh for the respondents.

7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for

the revision petitioner is that the trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court erred while considering the monthly income of

the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- without any reliable evidence.

Further, both the Courts below wrongly come to the conclusion

that the income of the joint family of the revision petitioner as

Rs.1 lakh per annum from 2 acres of agricultural land. He also

contended that respondent No.1 is working and earning a

handsome salary apart from the salary/income of their son. As

such, he prays to allow the revision petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court,

after meticulously examining the entire evidence and the

materials on record, passed the reasoned judgments, which do

not call for any interference. He further contended that the

relationship between the revision petitioner and respondent

No.1 is undisputed. Further, it is also undisputed that

respondent No.1 is residing separately in a rented house. As

such, the trial Court rightly granted a compensation of

Rs.3,000/- under Section 19(f) of the DV Act and Rs.3,500/- as

maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act apart from

granting Rs.50,000/- compensation under Section 22 of the DV

Act. Learned counsel further contended that at any stretch of

imagination, it cannot be construed that Rs.3,500/- per month

is on higher end to maintain respondent No.1 and her son.

Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition.

9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the

oral and documentary evidence placed before us and also

meticulously perused the material available on record including

the trial Court records.

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

10. As could be gathered from the records, the revision

petitioner has admitted his marriage with respondent No.1,

however, he denied the allegations made in the complaint.

Albeit, respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with Kora Police

Station, which was registered in Cr.No.79/2008 dated

28.06.2008 against the petitioner for physical and mental

harassment meted by him. In the said case, the police, after

completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the

petitioner. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner

contracted second marriage and totally deserted respondent

No.1. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is residing

separately from 19 months prior to filing the miscellaneous

case under the provisions of DV Act. In such circumstances, it

is bounden duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife

and son by paying monthly maintenance so also arranging for

accommodation or by paying monthly rent. Considering these

aspects, the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay a meager

amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as rent and Rs.3,500/- as

maintenance to respondent No.1. Further, directed to pay

Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act.

In my considered view, the said compensation amount granted

NC: 2025:KHC:13535

in multiple heads are reasonable to maintain respondent No.1

and her son. I find no good reason to interfere in the orders

passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

Accordingly, revision petition lacks merits and liable to be

dismissed.

11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

VM