Karnataka High Court
K Ganesh vs L R Jyothishri on 28 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 793 OF 2023
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
K GANESH
S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115, LBS NAGAR,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NATARAJ.H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
L.R.JYOTHISHRI
W/O K GANESH,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
signed by
REKHA R R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE,
Location: YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
High Court
of SHANKARA ASHRAMA
Karnataka BENGALURU-560064
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.DEVENDRA.N, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.04.2023 PASSED BY THE LVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57) AT
BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.1272/2022 AND ALSO TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2022 PASSED BY THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023
MMTC-VI AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.68/2021 BY
ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C, petitioner who is husband and respondent No.1
before the trial Court, has challenged the impugned order
passed by the trial Court granting maintenance and other
reliefs to the respondent/wife, which came to be confirmed
by the Sessions Court by dismissing the appeal filed by
him.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. Petitioner filed petition under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
seeking various reliefs including maintenance against
respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are her husband and parents-
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
in-law. It is contended by the petitioner that the marriage
between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on
02.11.2014. It was a love-cum-arranged marriage. It is
alleged that at the time of marriage, respondents
demanded and received dowry in the form of cash, gold
ornaments, silver articles, and clothes. Marriage was
performed by spending huge money.
3.1 After three years of marriage, respondent No.1
started neglecting the petitioner and harassed her for
trivial matters. She was made to work throughout the day
without any assistance from respondent No.3. They
started demanding money to start a photo studio and in
fact a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid. Despite the same,
the harassment did not stop. In the Panchayath, though
respondents undertook to take care of the petitioner, they
failed to fulfill their promise. Respondent No.1 has
developed illicit relationship with a woman. When
questioned, he assaulted the petitioner and expressed his
intention to marry the said woman. Despite complaint filed
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
by her, things did not improve. On the other hand
respondent No.1 started character assassination of
petitioner and ultimately on 17.10.2020, he threw
petitioner out of the matrimonial home. Since then she is
staying in her parental home. She has filed complaint on
20.10.2020 in Cr.No.173/2020 and it is pending.
3.2 Respondent No.1 is running photographic
business in name and style of Ganesh Studio and owning
two photo studio shops in Hunasemarenahalli and one in
Bagalur Cross. Out of this he is getting income of
Rs.80,000/- per month. He is also owning immovable
properties at Badadenahalli, Tamil Nadu and house
property and getting income of Rs.60,000/- per month. He
is also owning Maruthi car and 2 two wheelers. In all he is
getting income of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has completely
neglected the petitioner who is not having any income of
her own and hence, the petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
4. Notice of the petition was issued to the
respondents. However, despite service, they did not chose
to appear before the trial Court and contest the matter.
Therefore, trial Court proceeded against them ex-parte.
5. Before the trial Court, petitioenr examined
herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11.
6. The trial Court partly allowed the petition as
against respondent No.1 granting maintenance at the rate
of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of petition till
during her lifetime or till the subsistence of marriage
whichever is earlier. He is also directed to pay
compensation in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 filed
Crl.A.No.1272/2022, which came to be dismissed.
8. Against the concurrent findings of the trial
Court and Sessions Court, respondent No.1 is before this
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
Court contending that both Courts have failed to notice
that respondent No.1 is not residing in the address given
by the petitioner. On the other hand he is residing in the
address given in the cause title of the present petition.
Therefore, there is no service of notice and consequently,
opportunity was not given to respondent No.1 to contest
the matter. Both Courts have also failed to appreciate that
several false allegations are made by the petitioner. She
has not produced any evidence to prove the income of the
respondent No.1. In fact petitioner is running a beauty
parlour and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Suppressing
the said fact, she has filed the petition to make wrongful
gain. Even the Sessions Court has refused to provide
opportunity to respondent No.1 to put forth his defence. In
the above facts and circumstances, it is necessary to
remand the case to the trial Court to provide opportunity
to respondent No.1 and decide the case on merits and
hence, the petition.
9. Heard arguments and perused the record.
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
10. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is no
longer living with respondent No.1 and he is not taking
care of her. In the petition, the petitioner made specific
allegations that on account of dowry demand and other
reasons, she was harassed and ill treated by the
respondents and ultimately, she was driven out of the
matrimonial home. Since she is not having income of her
own, she sought maintenance and other reliefs.
11. The main grievance of respondent No.1 is that
notice is not served on him as well as respondent Nos.2
and 3 and therefore, they could not appear and resist the
petition. He has also contended that petitioner is running a
beauty parlour and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Oral
submissions were made that she is living in adultery.
12. Initially, one Lekha.V.S stated to be the second
wife of respondent No.1 was arraigned as respondent
No.4. Vide order dated 12.07.2021, the trial Court
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
dismissed the petition against her and issued notice to
respondent Nos.1 to 3, returnable by 19.08.2021. On that
day, since notices were not yet returned, the case was
adjourned to 30.08.2021, awaiting the notice.
13. On 30.08.2021, the order sheet states that
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are duly served. However, they
remained absent. The trial Court adjourned the case to
27.09.2021 to enable respondents to appear. However, on
27.09.2021 also, respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to appear
and therefore, they were placed ex-parte. Accordingly, the
matter was proceeded ex-parte. It is contended by the
respondent No.1 that he and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were
not residing in the address given by the petitioner.
However, before the Sessions Court as well as before this
Court also, respondent No.1 has given the same address
as stated in the petition. Therefore, his claim that notice is
not served on him or his parents is not correct. Even after
finding that respondents have not chosen to appear on the
hearing date, the trial Court instead of placing them ex-
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
parte then and there, has granted nearly a month's time
to enable their appearance. Despite the same, they have
not chosen to appear and contest the case.
14. In fact after finding that the allegations against
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not proved, the trial Court has
dismissed the petition against them and allowed the
petition so far as respondent No.1 is concerned. Based on
the evidence on record placed by the petitioner, the trial
Court has granted reasonable maintenance and also
compensation to the petitioner. After finding that there are
no reasonable grounds to interfere, the Sessions Court has
dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.1. This Court
also finds no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court.
15. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly
the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13397
ORDER
1. Petition filed by respondent No.1 (before
the trial Court) under Section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order dated
16.07.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.68/2021 on the
file of MMTC-VI, Bengaluru and judgment
and order dated 06.04.2023 in
Crl.A.No.1272/2022 on the file of LVI
Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-
57), Bengaluru are confirmed.
3. The Registry is directed to return the trial
Court as well as Sessions Court records
along with a copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
