Karnataka High Court

Yallappa And Ors vs Shantabai And Anr on 30 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308
                                                    CRL.RP No. 200083 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                      KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                        CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200083 OF 2022
                                   [397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)]

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    YALLAPPA
                         S/O SHANKREPPA INGALESHWAR,
                         AGE:63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O. KOKATANUR, TQ. SINDAGI,
                         DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.

                   2.    KAMALABAI W/O YALLAPPA INGALESHWAR,
                         AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                         R/O. KOKATANUR, TQ. SINDAGI,
                         DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA         3.    KENCHAPPA S/O YALLAPPA INGALESHWAR,
SHERIGAR                 AGE:37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                 R/O. KOKATANUR,TQ. SINDAGI,
KARNATAKA                DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586101.

                   4.    JATTEPPA S/O YALLAPPA INGALESHWAR,
                         AGE:39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                         R/O. KOKATANUR, TQ. SINDAGI,
                         DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.

                                                                ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308
                                  CRL.RP No. 200083 of 2022


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   SHANTABAI W/O ASHOK INGALESHWAR,
     AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. KOKATANUR, TQ. SINDAGI,
     DIST. VIJAYAPUR,
     NOW AT MAGANAGERI VILLAGE,
     TQ. JEWARGI AND DIST. KALABURAGI-586101.

2.   PAVITRA D/O ASHOK INGALESHWAR,
     AGE: 5 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
     MOTHER R-1,
     R/O. KOKATANUR, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
     NOW AT MAGANAGERI VILLAGE,
     TQ. JEWARGI, AND DIST. KALABURAGI-586101.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VARUN PATIL, APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE V/O
 DTD. 29.03.2023 FOR R1;
 R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)

       THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78/2019, DATE
19.07.2021 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC SINDAGI DATED 15.10.2019 IN CRL. MISC. NO.132/2018
AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(A), (B), (F), (G),
19(1)(A)(D)(3)(5), 20 AND 22 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005, BY THE RESPONDENTS
BEFORE     THE   CIVIL   JUDGE    AND   JMFC,   SINDAGI   IN
CRL.MISC.NO.132/2018.
                                     -3-
                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308
                                           CRL.RP No. 200083 of 2022


 HC-KAR




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


CORAM:      HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA


                             ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are respondent Nos.2 to 5 in

Crl.Misc.No.132/2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge

and JMFC, Sindagi [for short, 'the Trial Court'] and

appellant Nos.2 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No.78/2019 on the

file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,

Vijayapura [for short, 'the First Appellate Court'], are

seeking to quash the judgment of the Trial Court dated

15.10.2019 allowing the petition filed by respondent No.1

herein under Sections 18 (A), (B), (F), (G), 19 (1) (A), (D)

(3) (5), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short, 'the D.V. Act'],

directing the respondents - the petitioners herein and

respondent No.1 therein to pay compensation of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

Rs.20,000/- and restraining petitioner Nos.1 and 2 from

alienating the land mentioned in the order.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, respondent

Nos.1 and 2 herein, as petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.

132/2018 before the Trial Court against petitioner Nos.1 to

4 herein and another under Sections 18 (A), (B), (F), (G),

19 (1) (A), (D) (3) (5), 20 and 22 of D.V. Act. It is stated

that respondent No.1 herein is the legally wedded wife of

Ashok Ingaleshwar who is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and

2 and brother of petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Their marriage

was performed on 05.11.2011. At the time of marriage

gold and other articles were given. For sometime they led

marital life and they begotten respondent No.2. It is

alleged that the husband was addicted to vices and he

treated respondent No.1 with cruelty. During 2016 she

was ousted form the matrimonial house. Since then

respondent No.1 was residing in her parents' house along

with respondent No.2. Since respondent No.1 was

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

subjected to domestic violence, without paying

maintenance, she filed the petition seeking various orders.

3. The petitioners herein have appeared before the

Trial Court and denied the contentions taken by the

respondents. The wife examined herself as PW-1,

examined PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. The

petitioners examined RW-1 to RW-3 and got marked

Exs.R-1 to R-11 in support of their contention. The Trial

Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on

record, passed the order dated 15.10.2019 by allowing the

petition against the petitioners and directing to pay

compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Further, petitioner Nos.1

and 2 herein were restrained from alienating the land

bearing Sy.No.332/1A measuring 5 acres and

Sy.No.334/2B measuring 8 acres situated at Kokatnur

village, Sindagi. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners have preferred Criminal Appeal No.78/2019.

The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of materials

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

on record, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

4. Heard Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Varun Patil Amicus Curiae for respondent

No.1. Perused the materials on record.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed invoking the power under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?"

My answer to the above point is 'partly in the

Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. The relationship between the parties is not in

dispute. Petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is

the mother and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

the husband of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the

daughter of respondent No.1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that the husband had filed M.C.No.13/2018 seeking

divorce which is still pending consideration before the

Family Court. Respondent No.1 herein had filed a

complaint registered in Crime No.27/2018 of Yadrami

Police Station now pending before the learned JMFC,

Jewargi in C.C.No.503/2018 for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 504, 506 of IPC. She has filed the

suit O.S.No.113/2018 for partition and separate

possession. In the meantime, Crl.Misc.No.132/2018 is

also came to be filed seeking relief under D.V. Act.

8. The only grievance raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioners is with regard to the order

restraining petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein from alienating

the land bearing Sy.No.332/1A measuring 5 acres and

Sy.No.334/2B measuring 8 acres situated at Kokatnur

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

village, Sindagi taluk. Regarding the other orders passed

by the Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has

not raised any objection as it pertains to the order not to

commit domestic violence or the order passed against the

husband of respondent No.1 herein.

9. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel

for the petitioners to Ex.R-5 the record of rights pertaining

to the lands referred to above. As per these documents

Sy.No.332/1A stands in the name of petitioner No.1 and

Sy.No.334/2B measuring 8 acres stands in the name of

petitioner No.2. It is the contention of petitioner Nos.1

and 2 that these properties are their self acquired

properties and the husband of respondent No.1 has no

right whatsoever over the same during their lifetime. The

impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court discloses

that the Court has referred to the record of rights Ex.P-5

and P-6 and observed that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein

are the owners of the said properties. But inspite of that

proceeded to pass the impugned order restraining them

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

from alienating the properties permanently. No other

reasonable grounds are assigned by the Trial Court or by

the First Appellate Court to sustain such order.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners places

reliance on the decision in the case of Vimlaben Ajithbhai

Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & others1 wherein,

the Apex Court considered the right of a wife to get relief

under D.V. Act. Referring to Sections 4 and 28 of Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, which is having an

overriding effect over the D.V. Act, the Apex Court has

held at para-24 as under:

"24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to

(2008) 4 SCC 649

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:4308

HC-KAR

maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise."

11. Thus, the position of law is very well settled.

The impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and by

the First Appellate Court restrain petitioner Nos.1 and 2

herein being the owners of the lands in question from

alienating the same, which is unsustainable. Hence, I am

of the opinion that, to that extent the impugned order

passed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate

Court, calls for interference. Accordingly, I answer the

above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass

the following: