Karnataka High Court
Smt.Shruthi K vs Sri D.K. Narayana on 10 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
CRL.RP No. 429 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 429 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHRUTHI K.
W/O. D.K. NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST E MAIN ROAD,
GIRINAAR, 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UMA SHANKAR M.N., ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1. SRI D.K. NARAYANA
Digitally signed S/O KODANDARAM
by DEVIKA M
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI. D.K.KODANDARAM
S/O THAMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
3. SMT.M.K.KANTHAMANI
W/O D.K.KODANDARAM
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
1ST E MAIN ROAD,
GIRINAGAR, 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU-560 085.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
CRL.RP No. 429 of 2023
4. SMT.BHAVYA
D/O KODANDARAM
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
5. SRI.JAGATH
S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY
AGED 41 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.42
SACHIDANDANDA JOTHI,
2ND D CROSS, 3RD BLOCK,
BDA COMPLEX,
BEHIND NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE,
KOTTIGE PALYA WARD NO.73,
BENGALURU - 560 072.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE (PH))
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.01.2023, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.336/2022 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-64) AT BENGALURU AND ALSO THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT AT
BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.46/2022 DATED
14/03/2022 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
CRL.RP No. 429 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order of the
Trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner against
respondents No.2 to 5 and directing the office to delete their
names from the petition by carrying amendment and also a
direction was given to respondent No.1 or any person acting on
his behalf, not to disturb the petitioner from the schedule
property mentioned in the application without due process of
law and the said order has been challenged before the
Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.336/2022. The Appellate Court,
having considered the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated
the points, whether the petitioner proves that she has shared
household with respondents No.2 to 5?; whether trial Court has
erred in dismissing the petition under section 12 of the PWDV
Act?; and whether it requires an interference? and answered all
the points in negative and confirmed the order passed by the
Trial Court. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the present
revision petition is filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
3. The main contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner before this Court is that
both the Courts have failed to consider the definition of Section
2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005 ('the Act' for short) i.e., shared house and learned
counsel also read the entire Section 2(s) of the Act to contend
that the petitioner is living in one portion of the joint family
property. In fact, she was a member of the joint family.
Whether she is living in the first floor or any portion of the
building, the entire building has to be taken as 'shared house'.
The definition of shared house has been wrongly interpreted by
both the Courts while considering I.A.No.1. It is contended
that the word 'domestic violence' has definition itself in Section
3 of the Act and both the Courts below failed to take note of
Section 3. Section 3(b) clearly speaks that harasses, harms,
injuries 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 and both the Courts below have failed to consider the
definition of Section 3 also. Learned counsel vehemently
contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in
dismissing the application. Learned counsel, also during his
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
course of argument, would contend that even respondents No.4
and 5 are residing elsewhere and not in the shared house but
the fact that respondents No.1 to 3 are residing in very same
building and also specific allegations are made in the petition
and same is brought to the notice of this Court at para 8 of the
petition. When specific allegation is made against all the
respondents, even though not specifically pleaded against
respondents No.2 and 3, but the Trial Court and the Appellate
Court have segregated the same and considered allegation only
in respect of respondent No.1-husband and not in respect of
respondents No.2 and 3 and also respondents No.4 and 5.
Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court,
the orders passed by the Trial Court and also the Appellate
Court to contend that the Appellate Court has also committed
error in accepting the reasons of the Trial Court and hence,
requires interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently contended that it is nothing but
implication of family members while seeking the remedy and
admittedly, respondents No.4 and 5 are not residing in shared
house and also learned counsel submitted that when the
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
marriage took place in the year 2015 and they were cordial till
2022. Thereafter, the dispute arisen between the parties.
Learned counsel also vehemently contend that when the
problem started between respondents No.2 and 3, they began
to live together in ground floor and even accommodation was
given to the husband and wife at first floor and due to no
cordiality between the husband and the wife, the husband left
the house and never caused disturbance to the possession of
the wife at any point of time. The same is taken note by the
Trial Court while dismissing the application. The Appellate
Court, on re-appreciation of material on record, comes to the
conclusion that there is no error on the part of order of the Trial
Court. The petitioner along with her daughter staying on the
first floor, which cannot be considered as shared house of the
petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3 and also reason was given
that there is a separate door to the first floor, which
respondents No.2 and 3 have allegedly locked is nothing but a
false allegation made against respondents No.2 and 3. Hence,
it does not require any interference.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and also
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
looking into the definition of Section 2(s) as well as Section 3 of
the Act, and also the reasons assigned by the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court, the points that would arise for
consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Courts below committed an error in
dismissing and confirming the order of dismissal
of the application against respondents No.2 to 5?
(ii) Whether it requires interference of this Court
exercising the revisional powers? and
(iii) What order?
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in
dispute that marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1
was solemnized in the year 2015. It is also not in dispute that
subsequently, dispute aroused between the parties. Having
perused the averments made in para (c), it is contended by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondents
tormenting the petitioner everyday that she has given birth to a
baby girl. Respondents harassed the petitioner by forcing the
petitioner to sell her father's property and bring cash. It is also
averred that when the petitioner refused their demands,
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
respondent No.1 filed a divorce petition in the Family Court,
Bengaluru, in M.C.No.2649/2021 and the same is pending for
consideration. In para (d) also, it is stated that when the
petitioner strongly opposed the said matter, the respondents
moved the petitioner and her daughter to the first floor of the
matrimonial home to show that the petitioner has a separate
home. Thereafter, respondents No.2 and 3 filed injunction suit
against the petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction in
O.S.No.3430/2021 and interim order was also granted "not to
disturb the peaceful atmosphere at the house of the plaintiff in
the schedule property". Upon receiving this order, respondents
seized to provide daily necessities to the petitioner and her
daughter. The petitioner has since received help from her
father to manage daily needs of the family.
7. The Appellate Court has also extracted para (e)
wherein an allegation is made that on 17.02.2022, as usual,
the petitioner along with her daughter, came to her
matrimonial house and tried to open the door to enter the
house, the door was locked and it was then noticed that
respondents have deliberately changed the door lock to disturb
the petitioner. The petitioner then requested respondents No.1
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
to 3 to handover the key of the main door to enter the house,
but they refused and respondent No.1 told the petitioner to
return to her father's house, otherwise bring a sum of Rs.2
Crores and register her site to her sister's name. On the next
day i.e., on 18.02.2022, when the petitioner succeeded in
opening the main door, respondent No.1 assaulted the
petitioner where she sustained injuries on the private parts by
her husband. She was later admitted to Sri Bhagwan Mahaveer
Jain Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment at 5:00 P.M., on
18.02.2022 and also the case was registered under Sections
379, 498A of IPC read with section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Having taken note of this
pleading, no doubt, no specific allegation is made against
respondents No.4 and 5 and the same has been rightly
observed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court and with
regard to the allegations made against respondents No.1 to 3,
specific allegations are made in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e),
which amounts and also comes under the purview of Section 3
of Domestic Violence Act as well as Section 2(f) of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, with regard to the shared house is
concerned. The definition of shared house under Section 2(f) is
very elaborate and broad and both the Courts failed to take
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
note of averments made in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) in
respect of respondents No.1 to 3 is concerned. When the
specific allegation is made against respondents No.1 to 3 and
no doubt allegation of assault is made against the husband
only, but invoking definition of Sections 2(s) and 3 of Domestic
Violence Act is concerned, specific allegation is also made
against respondents No.1 to 3 and also respondents No.2 and 3
have filed a suit for injunction and also obtained an interim
order and the same is also pending for consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents has also
submitted that now they have also sought for an order for
evicting the petitioner herein and without due process of law,
they are not going to disturb the petitioner and the fact that
the wife i.e., the petitioner herein is residing in first floor is also
not in dispute and in order to go to the first floor, she has to
take access from the ground floor and also the specific
allegation is made with regard to locking of the main door also.
When such averments are made in the petition, the Trial Court
lost sight of the same and the Appellate Court also while
considering and re-assessing the materials on record, lost sight
of the specific pleading made by the petitioner with regard to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
the locking of the main door and entering the first floor with
great difficulty. When such averments are made, the Trial Court
as well as the Appellate Court have committed an error in
dismissing the petition against respondents No.1 to 3 and no
grounds are made out to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in
respect of respondents No.4 and 5. Admittedly, they are
residing separately and in the petition itself, different addresses
are given in respect of respondents No.4 and 5 and hence,
it requires interference of this Court since both the Courts
below have committed an error in considering material on
record and the reasons given by both the Courts below are not
legal and it suffers from the legal infirmity with regard to the
consideration of material on record and hence, it requires
interference of this Court. Hence, I answer the points as partly
affirmative.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the
following:
ORDER
(i) Revision petition is allowed in part;
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5837
(ii) Impugned orders passed by the Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court are set-aside in respect of
respondents No.2 and 3 and consequently,
application filed by the petitioner in respect of
respondents No.2 and 3 is also allowed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
AV
