[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Fakkirayya S/O Sangayya Hiremath vs Smt.Vasanta on 4 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
CRL.RP No. 100156 of 2019
C/W CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100156 OF 2019
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100157 OF 2019
IN CRL.RP.NO.100156/2019
BETWEEN:
FAKKIRAYYA S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
SHIGGAON, DISTRICT: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VASANTA
Digitally signed by
CALLING HERSELF AS
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN W/O FAKKIRAYYA HIREMATH D/O. MALLAPPA
KATTIMANI
Location: High
SULLIKERI,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RAJEEV NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING CALL FOR RECORDS
AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC II-COURT,
HUBBALLI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.243/2015, DATED 10.10.2017 AND
THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION IN CRL.A.NO.128/2017,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
CRL.RP No. 100156 of 2019
C/W CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2019
HC-KAR
DATED 19.03.2019, PASSED BY THE V-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHAWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI.
IN CRL.RP.NO.100157/2019
BETWEEN:
FAKKIRAYYA S/O SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
SHIGGAON, DISTRICT: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VASANTA
CALLING HERSELF AS W/O FAKKIRAYYA HIREMATH
D/O. MALLAPPA SULLIKERI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: RAJEEV NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING CALL FOR RECORDS
AND ALLOW THE PETITION AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC II-COURT,
HUBBALLI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.243/2015, DATED 10.10.2017 AND
THE JUDGMENT OF CONFIRMATION IN CRL.A.NO.122/2017,
DATED 19.03.2019, PASSED BY THE V-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, DHAWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
CRL.RP No. 100156 of 2019
C/W CRL.RP No. 100157 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for
the petitioners; and Sri.Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel
for respondents.
2. These two revision petitions are filed by the
husband challenging the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate and the first appellate Court granting
maintenance and compensation in lieu of shared residence
by exercising powers under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the
D.V. Act").
3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of
the present revision petitions are as under:
4. The petitioner married respondent on
24.05.1992. The matrimonial relationship between the
parties became strained. As a result, respondent
approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an
application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
HC-KAR
5. The petitioner was notified and, after due trial,
an order came to be passed by the learned Magistrate.
Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner
preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.122/2017. Likewise, the
respondent-wife also filed an appeal in Crl.A. No.128/2017.
6. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court
heard both the appeals jointly and passed a common order
allowing the appeal filed by the wife and dismissing the
appeal filed by the husband. The operative portion of the
order passed by the first appellate Court reads as under:
"ORDER
Appeal filed by the appellant in Crl.Appeal
No.128/17 is hereby allowed.
Appeal filed by the appellantin Crl.Appeal
No.122/17 is hereby dismissed.
The judgment and order of the trial court 10-10-
2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.243/15 is modified only to
the extent of compensation.
The respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/-to
the petitioner as compensation within 2 months from the
date of this order. No order as to costs.
A copy of judgment shall be kept in Crl.Appeal
No.128/2017.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
HC-KAR
Send a copy of this order to the trial court
forthwith for compliance along with lower court records."
7. Aggrieved by the same, the husband is before
this Court in the present revision petitions.
8. Sri A.M. Gundawade, learned counsel for the
petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in both the revision
petitions, contended that the learned Judge of the first
appellate Court misconstrued the scope and powers under
the D.V. Act while allowing the appeal of the wife and
dismissing the appeal of the husband.
9. He would further contend that the petitioner was
always willing for an amicable settlement, but it was the
wife who refused to settle amicably and was interested only
in harassing the petitioner. Hence, he sought for allowing
the revision petitions.
10. The parties were secured before this Court to
explore the feasibility of an amicable settlement. The offer
made by the husband was not found to be satisfactory and
was, therefore, rejected by the wife.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
HC-KAR
11. Thereafter, this Court heard the arguments on
merits. Upon perusal of the material on record, this Court
does not find any good grounds to interfere with the
impugned orders. The allegations against the petitioner
include having illicit relationships with several women and
neglecting to maintain the respondent and her son.
12. It is further specifically alleged that the petitioner
started living with Smt. Geeta and, thereby, has deserted
the respondent and her son entirely.
13. Taking note of the material evidence placed on
record, the learned trial Magistrate allowed the petition
partly. The first appellate Court, upon re-appreciating the
material on record, considered the probative value of the
documents and also took note that the petitioner is facing a
Sessions trial in SC No.21/2007. In the said proceedings,
the respondent-wife was examined as PW.17. She
specifically deposed regarding the conduct of the revision
petitioner.
14. While recording the statement of the accused in
the said case, the revision petitioner did not deny the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1599
HC-KAR
material evidence placed on record by the respondent-wife,
which clearly shows that he is maintaining company with
several women and is also residing with Smt. Geeta.
15. Taking note of these aspects, the first appellate
Court allowed the appeal of the wife by enhancing the
compensation to Rs.1,50,000/- as against Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the learned trial Magistrate and dismissed the
challenge to the maintenance amount.
16. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good
grounds to interfere with the orders of the trial Court and
the first appellate Court. Hence, following:
ORDER
The present revision petitions are devoid of merit and
are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC, CT:CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40
