Karnataka High Court

Sri Omar Shariff vs Smt Asma Sulthana on 21 July, 2025

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:27423
                                                        CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022


                      HC-KAR




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                            CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 705 OF 2022
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SRI OMAR SHARIFF
                            S/O SULTHAN AKBAR SHARIFF
                            AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

                      2.    SMT. FARIDA PARVEEN
                            W/O SULTHAN AKBAR SHARIFF
                            AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

                            BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.46
                            3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGARA
                            1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
                            BENGALURU - 560 011.

                                                                  ...PETITIONERS

                      (BY SRI MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by   AND:
LAKSHMINARAYANA
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH              SMT. ASMA SULTHANA
COURT OF                    D/O SYED BABU
KARNATAKA
                            AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
                            RESIDENT OF N. KOTTHURU VILLAGE
                            AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI
                            CHINTAMANI TALUK
                            CHIKKABALLAPURA - 563 125.

                                                                  ...RESPONDENT

                      (BY SRI G M SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:27423
                                       CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022


HC-KAR




     THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH
SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 18.11.2020 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL      DISTRICT    AND    SESSIONS    JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA      SITTING    AT   CHINTAMANI    IN
CRL.A.No.37/2017 WHICH HAS PARTLY CONFIRMED THE
ORDER DATED 15.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN
D.V.C.No.2/2015 AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                       ORAL ORDER

1. This revision petition is directed against the

judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in Crl.A. No. 37/2017

by II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani whereunder the

order dated 15.04.2017 passed in DVC No. 2/2015 by

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani has been

partly affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and

learned counsel for respondent.

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

3. Respondent filed petition under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(for short hereinafter referred to as the `D.V. Act')

seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the

D.V. Act. Petitioners who were the respondents therein

appeared through counsel and filed objections.

4. Case of the respondent herein before the trial

Court was that she got married with petitioner No. 1 on

12.09.2010 at Chintamani and marriage expenses were

borne by her parents and Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the

petitioners herein. Apart from that gold ornaments of 500

gms were also given to petitioners and they were worth

Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondent went to her matrimonial home

and led happy life for one year and gave birth to a male

child. Thereafter, petitioners started ill treating the

respondent without any justifiable reason, assaulted her

and demanded more dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- for

purchasing a house at Bengaluru. Petitioners did not

provide food and other necessities and in that regard

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

panchayat was held and petitioners were advised by the

panchayat members. Panchayat was also held in Jamiaya

Masjid on 20.03.2014 and petitioners did not advert to the

advice of panchayatdars and deserted the respondent.

Thereafter, respondent started residing with her son in her

parents' house.

5. Respondent claimed maintenance stating that

her husband is a businessman and being a Samsung

Mobile Executive Officer at Bengaluru is earning Rs.30,000

- Rs.50,000/- per month. Petitioners herein have opposed

the petition by filing objections and denied the allegation

made by respondent except the relationship and marriage.

Petitioners have also denied holding of panchayat etc., and

commission of any domestic violence. Petitioner No. 1 has

contended that he is a sales executive and getting only

Rs.10000 - Rs.12,000/- per month. Petitioners contended

that as the respondent did not join her husband, he

pronounced and gave `talaq' and therefore, respondent is

not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

in view of the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of

Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

6. Respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and got

examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got

marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Petitioner No. 1 has been

examined as R.W.1, petitioner No.2 has been examined as

R.W.2 and one witness is examined as R.W.3 and got

marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.17. Considering the evidence on

record, hearing arguments and appreciating the evidence

on record the trial Court has allowed the petition of the

respondent herein and directed the petitioners herein not

to commit any sort of domestic violence, awarded

Rs.2,500/- per month as rent for separate

accommodation, Rs.7,000/- per month as monthly

maintenance, Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with

legal expenses of Rs.5,000/- and directed petitioners to

return golden ornaments to the respondent as

contemplated under Section 21 of D.V. Act. Petitioners

challenged the said order before the Sessions Court in

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

Crl.A. No. 37/2017. After hearing arguments on both sides

the Sessions Judge has confirmed the order passed by the

trial Court and only reduced monthly maintenance from

Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-.

7. Considering the contention of learned counsel

for petitioners the following two points arise for

consideration:

I. Whether the maintenance awarded by the

appellate Court (after reducing maintenance) is

on higher side?

II. Whether the Magistrate has power to pass order

for return of the golden jewelry to the

respondent herein under Section 21 of D.V. Act?

8. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence

and the appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence

on record and rightly held that there was domestic

violence and therefore, respondent herein is entitled to

maintain the petition under the D.V. Act seeking reliefs.

Petitioner No. 1 has produced his pay slips at Ex.R.1 to

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

Ex.R.12 which indicate that he is drawing salary of

Rs.12,801/- per month. Considering the income of

petitioner No.1 - husband, the trial Court has ordered

maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in addition to the

interim maintenance granted in C.Misc. No. 686/2014.

Both counsel submitted that Rs.2,500/- has been awarded

as interim maintenance in C.Misc. No. 686/2014 and said

matter is still pending. The trial Court has awarded

Rs.7,000/- in addition to interim maintenance granted in

C.Misc. No. 686/2014. The appellate Court has reduced

the said maintenance from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The

appellate Court has taken into consideration that petitioner

No.1 is getting income of Rs.12,801/- per month and

held that maintenance granted by the trial Court at

Rs.7,000/- per month is on higher side and reduced the

said maintenance awarded. The respondent has not

challenged the judgment passed by the appellate Court

under which maintenance has been reduced.

Maintenance awarded by the appellate Court (after

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

reduction), in a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month is based on

the income of petitioner No. 1. In addition to the said

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month respondent is also

entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month

which is awarded in C.Misc. No. 686/2014. In C.Misc. No.

686/2014 interim maintenance has been awarded to

respondent in a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month and

Rs.750/- to her child. Considering the said aspect as per

the appellate Court's judgment the respondent is entitled

to maintenance of Rs.4,000 + Rs.1,500/-. Considering the

said aspect and income of petitioner No.1 it cannot be

said to be on higher side. Accordingly point No. I is

answered.

9. Respondent has claimed return of golden

ornaments given at the time of her marriage to the

petitioners. Petitioners herein have taken up the defence

that golden ornaments mentioned in Ex.R.17 have been

returned by the petitioners herein to the brother of

respondent and he has given endorsement to that effect

NC: 2025:KHC:27423

HC-KAR

as per Ex.R.17. Said endorsement as per Ex.R.17 has

been disputed by the respondent herein. Considering the

said aspect the trial Court has ordered for return of golden

ornaments by exercising power under Section 21 of the

D.V. Act.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

that Section 21 of the D.V. Act does not provide for

passing of order directing petitioners for return of gold

ornaments. Said provision only pertains to custody of

child. It is relevant to extract the said Section 21 of the

D.V. Act and it reads thus:

"21. Custody orders.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent: