Karnataka High Court
Smt Namra vs S Mohammed Sidiq on 6 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:67
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1175 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAMRA
D/O C ABDUL AZEEM
W/O S MOHAMMED SIDDIQ
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.998,
14TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK,
16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, NAGAWARA,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI J POOJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M S MOHAMMED SIDIQ
Location: HIGH S/O SUBHAN SAHIB LATE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT YAKHEEN APARTMENT,
NO.1, CHINANNA LAYOUT
R T NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560032
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAY K S, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:67
CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015
DATED 06.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25112/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-'B'
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is filed challenging the
judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed in
Crl.A.No.25112/2014 by the LVII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. The counsel for the respondent is absent. On
perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that inspite of
sufficient opportunity is given to the counsel for the
respondent, he is not pursuing the matter diligently and
not assisted the Court. Hence, taken as no arguments
from the respondent's counsel.
NC: 2025:KHC:67
3. This revision petition is filed against the
divergent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court. The Trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2014
allowed the Crl. Misc. No.346/2012 in part and granted
Rs.4,000/- per month as rent to the aggrieved person and
also granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the
aggrieved person and also granted Rs.5,000/- as
compensation to the aggrieved person in coming to the
conclusion that the petitioner has established the domestic
violence by taking into note of the material available on
record and the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of
the Trial Court.
4. The case of the petitioner before the Trial Court
is that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent
was taken place on 01.04.2012 and after the marriage,
the respondent started harassing the petitioner demanding
dowry and also assaulted her without any reason. In the
month of May 2012, the respondent and his family
members thrown out the petitioner from matrimonial
NC: 2025:KHC:67
house and the petitioner is staying along with her parents.
Hence, the petitioner filed the complaint before the police
stating that the respondent has committed domestic
violence to her and she has prayed for protection order,
residence order, monitory reliefs and compensation from
the respondent.
5. Per contra, the respondent appeared and
resisted the case of the petitioner filing statement of
objections stating that due to the torture of the petitioner
and her blackmailing nature, he has sent a legal notice on
06.10.2012 to the petitioner and he has not caused any
domestic violence.
6. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the
respective parties, allowed them to lead their evidence. In
order to prove the case of the petitioner, she herself
examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1
to P13. On the other hand, the respondent got himself
examined as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1
to R7. The Trial Court taken into note of the contention of
NC: 2025:KHC:67
the respondent that the petitioner has ill-treated him and
the same was denied by the petitioner and however, taken
into note of the documents at Ex.R3 and R4 which disclose
that petitioner has received all articles and comes to the
conclusion that the entire evidence of PW1 goes to show
that respondent had caused domestic violence to her. The
Trial Court comes to the conclusion that that there is no
dispute with regard to the marriage is concerned. Even
though, the respondent contends that there was a love
affair of the aggrieved person prior to the marriage and
during the cross-examination of respondent deposed that
the petitioner was taken to Vanivilasa hospital for
psychiatric treatment. Taking into note of ingredients of
Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act, the domestic violence
includes physical, mental, economic and sexual abuse.
The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that he has not
paid any maintenance towards her since she has left his
house. The Trial Court further comes to the conclusion
that the love affair prior to the marriage was denied by
PW1 and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of
NC: 2025:KHC:67
PW1 in this regard and considering the material available
on record, allowed the petition and directed to pay
maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, an
appeal is preferred by the respondent before the First
Appellate Court.
7. The First Appellate Court after considering both
oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to
the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in
coming to the conclusion that there is a domestic violence
but no such material is available before the Court with
regard to the domestic violence is concerned. The First
Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the
petitioner was ten years older compared to the age of the
respondent and relied upon the document of bio-data
wherein age of the petitioner is shown as 22 years and
completed BA. According to the respondent, the petitioner
has studied up to SSLC and her age is 32 years. Taken
note of the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the bio-
data, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
NC: 2025:KHC:67
that improper information is given about the bride and it is
nothing but cheating. However, this is not a forum to
discuss all these aspects. Now, the matter has to be
considered that whether the respondent has caused any
domestic violence in any modes and with regard to the
physical violence is concerned, there is no allegation of
assault made by the petitioner and belonging of the
petitioner was taken back by her father and mother. The
First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that an
attempt was made by the respondent to continue the
marital life with the petitioner because in the evidence he
had categorically stated that after conciliation in the police
station, they have taken her to the matrimonial house but
she resided only for a period of ten days. Having
considering the material available on record, the First
Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is no
domestic violence and hence, reversed the finding of the
Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by
the petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:67
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner before this Court is that the First Appellate
Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that
there is no domestic violence. The counsel contend that
the First Appellate Court ought to have taken into
consideration the definition of 'domestic violence' as
defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. The word 'domestic' reflects
something relating to the family or the household. The
word 'violence' signifies the use of physical force usually
accompanied by fury, vehemence or outrage. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court that the Trial Court
rightly considered the said definition of the domestic
violence. Section 3 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act defines the expression 'domestic
violence' in a fairly exhaustive manner where under the
expression takes within its fold harm, injuries,
harassment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and
emotional abuse, economic abuse, insults, humiliation etc.
The counsel during his arguments relied upon the
NC: 2025:KHC:67
judgment reported in AIR 2015 KAR 21 in the case of
SMT. CHAMUNDAMMA & OTHERS vs SMT. LAKSHMI
AND OTHERS wherein an observation is made that he
relationship between two person who live or have at any
point of time lived together in a relationship in the nature
of marriage is a domestic relationship. The victims of
domestic violence are entitled for protection orders,
residence orders and monetary relief's from the erring
partner. The term 'domestic violence' is defined under
Section 3 of the said Act. Accordingly, depriving a woman
of economic and financial resource falls under the category
of domestic violence. The counsel referring this judgment
would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there
is no domestic violence. The counsel also brought to
notice of this Court the respondent relies upon the
document of bio-data but the petitioner in her cross-
examination, she denied that she has not given any such
bio-data and the Trial Court not accepted the said
document and the First Appellate Court committed an
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
error considering the contents of bio-data which is
disputed document and committed an error in allowing the
appeal.
9. Having considered the arguments of the learned
counsel appearing for the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the points that
would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the First Appellate Court committed
an error in reversing the finding of the Trial
Court in coming to the conclusion that there
is no domestic violence and whether it
requires exercising of revisional powers?
2. What order?
Point No.1:
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and also on perusal of the material
on record, it discloses that no dispute with regard to the
marriage is concerned between the petitioner and the
respondent. After the marriage, the petitioner had joined
to the matrimonial home. The petitioner also in her
evidence reiterated the averments made in the petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
Apart from that she has relied upon the documents at
Ex.P1 and P2 at the first instance. No doubt, in the cross-
examination of PW1, at the first instance itself a
suggestion was made that the petitioner has given bio-
data wherein her age is mentioned as 22 years and the
said document is disputed by the petitioner. On perusal of
Ex.R7 it discloses that it does not find any signature of the
petitioner. No doubt, wherein it is mentioned the details
of the petitioner such as her age is mentioned as 22 years
and her educational qualification is shown as BA. The First
Appellate Court ought not to have believed Ex.R7 since
PW1 denied the very said document in her cross-
examination at the beginning itself. The First Appellate
Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion
that the petitioner has given false information.
11. It is important to note that PW1 categorically
admitted in the cross-examination that she is aged more
than the respondent and same cannot be a ground to
come to a conclusion that it amounts to cheating. The
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that giving of
false information is nothing but cheating and reversed the
finding of the Trial Court. When PW1 has not admitted the
said document, the First Appellate Court ought not to have
relied upon the said document. Hence, the very approach
of the First Appellate Court is erroneous while considering
the definition of domestic violence.
12. The counsel for the petitioner had pleaded the
grounds as well as relied upon the judgment in the case of
CHAMUNDAMMA referred supra wherein in paragraph 20
discussed the relationship between two persons who live
or have at any point of time lived together in a relationship
in the nature of marriage is a domestic relationship. It is
also observed that the victims of domestic violence are
entitled for protection orders, residence orders and
monetary relief's from the erring partner. The term
'domestic violence' is defined under Section 3 of the said
Act. Accordingly, depriving a woman of economic and
financial resource falls under the category of domestic
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
violence. Hence, the very conclusion of the First Appellate
Court is erroneous.
13. No doubt, the evidence also very clear that no
financial assistance is given to the petitioner. The records
also discloses that the parties have approached the police
and respondent undertaken to take the petitioner back to
the matrimonial home and accordingly, he took her to his
house but contention is that she lived there only for a
period of ten days. The records also disclose that
subsequently, belongings of the petitioner also given to
her and she also admitted the same. Mere return of
belonging itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the
petitioner. Admittedly, no compensation is paid by the
respondent and maintenance is also not paid. Respondent
categorically deposed that he took the petitioner to the
Vanivilasa hospital for medical check up and the same is
also amounts to a domestic violence. The First Appellate
Court failed to take note of the said fact into consideration.
When such material is available before the Court, the First
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
Appellate Court ought not to have comes to the conclusion
that there is no domestic violence. The very approach of
the First Appellate Court is erroneous in coming to the
conclusion of cheating based on the bio-data when the
said document was disputed by the petitioner at the first
instance. No doubt, in the evidence of petitioner, it is
emerged that earlier, the marriage was fixed and the same
was not come through and the same cannot be a ground
to reject the claim petition of the petitioner. The
contention of the respondent that earlier, the petitioner
was having love affair but to prove the same, nothing is
placed on record and the same is not elicited in the cross-
examination of PW1. But the respondent says that when
differences raised between them, the said fact has been
revealed but to prove the said fact also there is no
material before the Court.
14. The Trial Court also taken note of all these
aspects while allowing the petition of the petitioner
however, the First Appellate Court exceeded its limit in
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
considering the material available on record particularly
taking note of the contents of the bio-data. Merely
because of age of the petitioner is more than the
respondent, the same is not a ground to reject the case of
the petitioner. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion
that the Trial Court rightly allowed the petition of the
petitioner considering the material available on record in a
proper perspective and the First Appellate Court
committed an error in considering the documentary
evidence placed before it which is dismissed. When the
parties have approached the police wherein the
respondent undertaken to take the petitioner back to his
home and thereafter the petitioner lived there only for
short period and again differences were arisen between
them and she came back to her parents house and
subsequently, articles of the petitioner also returned to her
and hence, no provision of residence was made by the
respondent and also not paid the maintenance to her.
When such material is available before the Court, the First
Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:67
finding of the Trial Court and thus, the very approach of
the First Appellate Court is erroneous and it requires
interference of this Court exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer the above point as
affirmative.
Point No.2:
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is allowed.
The judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed in
Crl.A.No.25112/2014 by the First Appellate Court is set
aside and the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 by the Trial Court is upheld.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
