Karnataka High Court
Manjunath Girimallappa Jali vs Smt. Bhagavva W/O Majunath Jail on 24 February, 2025
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100158 OF 2022
[397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)]
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH GIRIMALLAPPA JALI
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. BSF SERVICE,
R/O. MUTTALADINI, BILAGI,
BAGALKOTE-587101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. BHAGAVVA W/O. MAJUNATH JALI,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MUTTALADINNI, BILAGI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101.
... RESPONDENT
Digitally
(BY SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE FOR
signed by
MALLIKARJUN
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)
KALMATH Date:
2025.02.24
17:37:09
+0530
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.81/2013, DATED 24.07.2017, BY
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE
REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.06.2013, BY THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI, AT BILAGI AND CONSEQUENTLY
CONFIRMED THE ORDER IN CR.MISC.NO.109/2011, DATED
20.06.2013, BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BILAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)
Challenging judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed
by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal
Appeal no.81/2013, this revision petition was filed.
2. Sri RH Angadi, learned counsel for petitioner
submitted brief facts leading to this revision petition were that
respondent was claiming to be wife of petitioner had filed
application before Child Development and Project Officer, Bilagi
(CDPO) on 24.08.2011 alleging domestic violence by petitioner
and his family members and seeking various reliefs. On being
forwarded to Court, it was registered as application under
Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, (for short 'DV Act') as Crl.Misc.no.109/2011 and notice
issued.
3. On appearance, petitioner filed objections and
opposed application as false and frivolous and not maintainable
on ground that she was not his legally wedded wife. In view of
above, subjecting respondent to any domestic violence. It was
stated that father of petitioner and mother of respondent were
brother and sister. Being daughter of maternal uncle,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
respondent was claiming to be petitioner's wife, without actual
marital relationship. It was stated as petitioner was serving in
Military and having only 15 days of leave a year, with intention
to grab his money, she had filed false application. Her assertion
that her marriage with petitioner had taken place during their
childhood was vehemently denied.
4. It was further stated that alleging petitioner had
committed dowry harassment, respondent and her family
members had filed complaint on 06.09.2010 before Bilagi Police
Station, which was registered as CC.no.26/2011.
Simultaneously, it appears she had filed application before
CDPO. It was further submitted respondent's mother had filed
O.S.no.107/2010 for partition. Disturbed by it, respondent had
filed false application with sole intention of harassment.
Hence, sought rejection of application.
5. Based on objections, Domestic Court framed following
points for consideration:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that petitioner
and respondent live in a shared household and
the relationship in the nature of marriage as
alleged?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that she is
entitled for maintenance, compensation,
protection as well as residential orders as
claimed?
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
3) What order?
6. To substantiate her case, petitioner examined herself
and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6.
In rebuttal, respondent examined himself as RW-1, but did not
mark any documents.
7. On consideration, points no.1 and 2 in negative and
point no.3 in dismissing petition. Aggrieved, respondent filed
Crl.Appeal.no.81/2013 under Section 29 of DV Act, on various
grounds. Based on same, Appellate Court framed following
points:
1. Whether the appellant/petitioner proves that the
trial Court has committed serious error in
dismissing the petition?
2. Whether the interference of this Court is required?
3. What order?
8. On consideration, it answered points no.1 and 2 in
affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition, setting aside
judgment passed by trial Court and directing petitioner herein
to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from date of
petition. Aggrieved, present Revision Petition was filed.
9. At outset, it was submitted revision petition against
divergent findings. While, trial Court had on proper appreciation
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
of material on record had dismissed application filed by
respondent herein, Appellate Court had without justification
allowed appeal and reversed findings.
10. Admittedly, there was serious dispute about existence
of marital relationship between petitioner and respondent and
even when respondent failed to establish same by cogent
material, there was no justification for appellate Court to allow
appeal. It was submitted, only material produced by
respondent was Ex.P1 - Record of Rights, Ex.P2 - House
Extract, Exs.P3 and P4 - Hakkupatras of plot no.A-717 and B-
159 were merely a property records. Whereas, respondent
produced Ex.P5 - Identity Card of respondent and Ex.P6 -
Voter's list of Muttaladinni Gram Panchayat. But, same would
not corroborate of contention of respondent about marriage.
11. It was submitted, though respondent had examined
priest as PW.2, but there was no well worth statements of
witness about marriage, therefore, statement of said witness
was not sufficient to come to conclusion about marriage
between respondent and petitioner. It was submitted that even
believing version of respondent about marriage but none of
relatives were examined nor any single photos were produced
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
to substantiate same. It was submitted that even respondent
has also failed to examine any independent witness of villagers
either to substantiate her case but failure to establish with
supportive material would create suspicion and doubt about
marriage.
12. It was submitted in order to wreck vengeance for
having denial of share to her mother, present case was filed.
Apart from above, several other cases were also filed in order
to make petitioner and their family members run from pillar to
post. It was submitted, when petitioner denied marriage with
respondent, burden to establish same would be on respondent
as it would be a jurisdictional aspect.
13. While allowing appeal, Appellate Court wrongly cast
said burden upon petitioner, same resulted in passing of
impugned order. Further, during her cross-examination, she
categorically admitted her ignorance about date of marriage
and had also failed to produce marriage certificate or invitation
card to corroborate her claim. Even failure to examine any
relative or resident of village ought to have attracted adverse
inference.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
14. It was submitted that there were no evidence
produced to substantiate about petitioner and their family
members had either ill-treated or harassment. It was submitted
appellate Court was not justified in coming to conclusion by
granting maintenance without appreciating material on record.
It was submitted criminal case filed against petitioner, came to
be acquitted on ground that respondent failed to establish her
marriage with petitioner. That apart, without any material
about petitioner married respondent was without any substance
and claim for maintenance was unsustainable.
15. It was lastly submitted, respondent herein had filed
complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections
498(A), 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC
against petitioner in C.C.no.26/2011, had while giving finding
on allegation of dowry harassment, held marriage of petitioner
with respondent was not proved. And that said finding had
attained finality. And said finding would bind parties in these
proceedings as well. On above grounds sought for allowing
petition and setting aside impugned judgment.
16. On other hand Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned
counsel appearing for Shivaraj S. Ballolli, advocate for
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
respondent opposed petition, contending there was no dispute
that father of petitioner was brother of respondent's mother. It
was submitted petitioner married respondent when she was
fifteen years of age, which claim was corroborated by
deposition of PW-2, who stated that he witnessed her marriage
with petitioner. In case, petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to
have sought declaration. As petitioner or family members failed
to look after her and instead ill-treated her, she filed application
before CDPO.
17. It was submitted trial Court dismissed petition without
appreciating evidence on record. Whereas, Appellate Court on
detailed consideration reversed same. While passing impugned
judgment, Appellate Court observed though marriage was in
contravention of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, but as PW.2
had deposed about marriage with respondent and at instance of
elders cannot be considered invalid or declared null and void.
18. It was submitted, appellate Court observed as per
Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act, performance of marriage
during minority merely attracts penal consequences and held
respondent as legally wedded wife of petitioner. It was
submitted, even to substantiate about respondent residing with
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
petitioner, she produced Exs.P.5 - Identity card and Ex.P.6 -
Voters list. But during cross-examination there was neither
suggestion nor any documents produced to discredit statement
of respondent or Exs.P.5 and P.6. Even same would establish
respondent was residing with petitioner. Since no such relief
was sought, there would be presumption in favour of valid
marriage.
19. It was submitted, considering contention of validity of
marriage and residence with respondent, appellate Court had
rightly allowed petition granting monthly maintenance of
Rs.3,000/-. Though on above grounds sought dismissal of
revision petition, learned counsel however fairly submitted that
judgment in proceedings under DV Act has attained finality.
20. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment
and order and records.
21. From above, point that would arises for consideration
is:
"Whether impugned judgment passed by
appellate Court calls for interference?"
22. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of CrPC assailing divergent findings in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act. While there would be
no dispute about summary, nature of enquiry in proceedings
under DV Act and that street proof of marriage would not be
necessary, as well as about extremely limited scope for
interference in revisional jurisdiction, it would be equally
principle of law that findings of Courts between same parties
would bind them in subsequent proceedings.
23. In this regard counsel for petitioner has sought to rely
upon order dated 14.10.2015 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi in
C.C.no.26/2011 to contend that finding was recorded on Point
no.4 that petitioner was not husband of respondent herein.
24. Point no.4 in said matter reads:
"4) Whether the prosecution proves that,
the accused No.1 being husband and
Accused No.2 to 5 being relatives of
husband subjected the complainant to
cruelty both mentally and physically and
thereby they have committed the offence
punishable U/sec. 498(A) of IPC?"
25. While passing final judgment it is held there was
failure to satisfactorily prove marriage between respondent and
petitioner herein. Said finding having been recorded in ancillary
proceedings would bind both parties, unless upset by
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732
CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022
declaratory findings in regular proceedings. Since counsel for
respondent was unable to demonstrate that findings
proceedings under DV Act were either questioned or upset by
declaratory findings in regular proceedings, would bind these
proceedings also. Hence, point for consideration requires to be
answered in affirmative. Consequently, following:
ORDER
Revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated
24.07.2017 passed by Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Appeal no.81/2013 is set
aside. Judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bilagi at Bilagi in
Crl.Misc.no.109/2011 is restored.
SD/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD,RH
CT:PA
