[Cites 35, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bhaskar Reddy vs Ms. Roshini on 29 January, 2026
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
CRL.RP No. 528 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 528 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI BHASKAR REDDY
S/O MUNI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 102, VENKATESHWARA
APARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 037.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
Ms. ROSHINI
D/O BHASKAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NO.102,
VENKATESHWARA APARTMENTS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA,
Digitally signed VARTHUR HOBLI,
by ANUSHA V BANGALORE - 560 087.
...RESPONDENT
Location: High
[BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE (PH)]
Court of
Karnataka
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGLAURU ON 19.07.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.42/2013 PARTIALLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DIRECTING PETITIONER HEREIN TO
PAY RS.15,000/- TO RESPONDENT HEREIN TILL MARRIAGE AND TO
PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- AND PERMANENT
ACCOMMODATION TO STANDARD OF HER STATUS, AND SET ASIDE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY LXXIII ADL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-74) ON 28.02.2025
IN CRL.A.25220/2023 CONFIRMING ORDER OF TRIAL COURT.
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 24.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
CAV ORDER
Challenging order dated 28.02.2025 passed by LXXIII
Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru
(CCH-74) (Appellate Court), in Crl.A.no.25220/2023 and
order dated 19.07.2023 by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic
Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, (DV Court) in
Crl.Misc.no.42/2013, this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Balakrishnan S., learned counsel for petitioner
submitted above revision arose out of Crl.Misc.42/2013 filed by
respondent under Section 12 of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, ('DV Act', for short) seeking for
protection order under Section 18, order of residence under
Section 19, monitory relief of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 20,
monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 22 of DV Act. And for sake of
convenience, parties referred as per their ranks in said petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
3. It was submitted in petition, it was stated,
petitioners i.e. Miss Roshini D/o Bhaskar Reddy (Petitioner
no.1) and Master Hitesh S/o Bhaskar Reddy (Petitioner no.2)
were children of Bhaskar Reddy (Respondent) and Late P.
Geetha. That during October, 2012, petitioner no.1 was
narrating to her mother about sexual acts that respondent and
others were indulging with her. Same was overheard by
respondent, who manhandled petitioner no.1 and her mother
and due to which, her mother died on 27.10.2012. When
maternal grandmother of petitioners (Ramadevi) came to
know about it, she filed complaint against respondent. It was
stated that petitioners were in custody of Ramadevi and needed
money for education, food, clothing etc., while respondent was
earning Rs.1,20,000/- per month as Software Engineer. It was
alleged, respondent was facing allegations of sexual abuse,
causing physical and mental harm. Therefore, petitioners were
entitled for relief.
4. On service of summons, respondent appeared and
filed objections denying petition claims by stating that on
18.10.2012, while he was at work, his wife fell in bathroom and
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
died during treatment on 27.10.2012. On 26.10.2012,
Ramadevi took his children away to Chennai and refused to
send them back. Therefore, he lodged complaint against
Ramadevi. She also lodged complaint against respondent and
TK Mallikarjun Reddy, Phani and Smt.Sunitha, who had treated
his wife. On 04.02.2013, Ramadevi also lodged complaint for
offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 ('IPC', for short) against respondent and his brothers.
She filed another complaint against respondent for offence
punishable under provisions of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO', for short). It was
specifically stated that allegations were contrary to Medical
Examination Reports. It was stated, respondent being natural
guardian was ready and willing to take care of his children and
sought dismissal of petition.
5. Based on same, DV Court framed following points
for consideration:
(i) Whether petitioners prove that respondent has
committed domestic violence upon the
petitioners?
(ii) Whether petitioners prove that they are entitled
for the reliefs as sought for?
(iii) What order?
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
6. To establish their claim, Ramadevi and petitioners
deposed as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P10. In
rebuttal, respondent deposed as RW.1 and got marked Exhibits
R1 to R16.
7. On consideration, DV Court answered point no.1 in
affirmative, point no.2 partly in affirmative and point no.3 by
allowing petition in part, directing respondent against
commission of any acts of domestic violence against
petitioners; to return stridhan of petitioners' mother to
petitioners; to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to
petitioner no.1 till her marriage; to pay compensation of Rs.10
Lakhs to petitioner no.1 and provide accommodation to
petitioner no.1 to standard of her status and living.
8. Aggrieved, respondent filed Crl.A.no.25220/2025 on
various grounds, based on which first appellate Court framed
following points for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned order requires to be set
aside?
2. What order?
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
9. It was submitted, after answering point no.1 in
negative, appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, this
revision was filed. It was submitted, marriage of petitioner and
his wife Geeta was solemnized on 04.04.2001. They led happy
marital life during which petitioners were born. It was
submitted, until 26.11.2012, petitioners were residing with
respondent and pursuing their studies. On 18.10.2012, his wife
fell down in bathroom and sustained injuries. She was
immediately got admitted to Yashomati Hospital on 18.10.2012
and later at Manipal Hospital on 20.10.2012. However, she died
on 21.10.2012, during treatment. Thereafter, her cremation
was performed as per prevailing customs at Tirupati.
10. Thereafter, when Ramadevi took his children away,
he filed complaint against her on 26.11.2012. As counterblast,
Ramadevi filed two complaints, one alleging offence under
Section 302 of IPC against respondent and others and another
for offence under Section 376 of IPC and POCSO. It was
submitted, medical examination of petitioner no.1 conducted on
02.02.2013 revealed fresh injuries to her private parts, which
could obviously be while petitioner no.1 was residing with
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
Ramadevi. Therefore, said injuries could not in any manner
implicate respondent or were caused to frame him.
11. With sole intention of vengeance, Ramadevi got
filed present petition under provisions of DV Act. It was
submitted, petitioner no.1 was born on 07.01.2002 and would
attain age of majority on 07.01.2020. It was submitted,
definition of 'aggrieved person' under Section 2 (a) of DV Act
would refer to a 'woman' and not to a 'child' defined under
Section 2 (b) of DV Act as being under age of 18 years. It was
submitted, until 07.01.2020, petitioner would be under age of
18 years and thus a child and as such would not fall within
definition of aggrieved person. Therefore, application by
petitioner no.1 would not sustain. Apart from above, award of
maintenance to petitioner no.1 till date of her marriage was
contrary to decision of this Court in G. Kalasegowda v. NK
Nethravathi, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 1611.
12. It was further submitted, definition of 'domestic
relationship' under Section 2 (f) of DV Act would mean
relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point
of time, lived together in a relationship of marriage in shared
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
household. Therefore, petitioner no.1 as daughter, could not
invoke provisions of DV Act. It was submitted, Section 12 of DV
Act provided only an aggrieved person, Protection Officer or any
person on behalf of aggrieved person to file application under
DV Act. Likewise, even Sections 20 and 22 of DV Act, provided
remedy to aggrieved person. It was submitted, admittedly,
there was no application filed under Section 23 of DV Act.
13. It was submitted, this Court in G. Kalasegowda's
case (supra), High Court of Nagpur in case of Koushik s/o
Anil Gharami v. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & Ors.,
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2398 and Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Abhilasha v. Parkash & Ors. reported in
(2021) 13 SCC 99, held award of maintenance beyond age of
majority was not justified. And in support of proposition that
only on proof domestic violence, reliefs can be granted under
DV Act, learned counsel relied on decision of this Court in case
of Ramesh BS v. Navaneetha, reported in
NC:2023:KHC:36044.
14. It was submitted, before DV Court, PW.1 -
Ramadevi admitted in cross-examination that she had filed
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
three cases against respondent, one rape case against 5-6
persons and another one rape case against three persons in
Madras. She admitted in both rape cases, victim was petitioner
no.1 and there was camera recording of incident, which would
arise suspicion. Her deposition in said cases was confronted and
on admission got marked as Ex.R6. She stated that her
daughter died on 27.10.2012, her body was cremated at
Bhakra, Tirupati and obsequies performed on 08.11.2012. And
after admitting that from 26.11.2012 till 27.01.2013, both
petitioners were with her, she stated that she filed rape
complaint against respondent on 27.01.2013. She admitted,
about not filing any complaint against respondent prior to death
of her daughter and also about not giving statement before
police about respondent murdering her daughter and that
complaint alleging rape was filed only after coming to know that
respondent had obtained bail in criminal case on first complaint.
And when confronted, she feigned ignorance about fresh injury
to private part mentioned in Medical Examination Report.
15. Besides, petitioner no.1 herein had deposed as
PW.2 in Spl.CC.no.163/2013, wherein she admitted that till
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
death of her mother (Geeta) her life in Bengaluru was happy
and pleasant. It was submitted, said statement was after
petitioner no.1 had returned to Bangalore, and cremation of her
mother's body at Tirupati. It was submitted, she further stated
that even thereafter, she was going to Chaitanya School,
Bengaluru, carrying lunch prepared by her father and that she
wanted to continue there itself. But, decided to stay at Chetan
lodge alongwith Ramadevi. She also admitted that Ramadevi
had taken both petitioners to lodge, when respondent was at
work. And further she was brought back to Bangalore only after
filing of complaint by respondent herein.
16. Thus, points requiring consideration were, whether
Ramadevi would be an 'aggrieved person'; whether without
cohabitation and proof of domestic violence, DV Act would be
attracted; whether without details/description blanket direction
for return of stridhan would be sustainable; whether direction to
pay maintenance till date of marriage of petitioner no.1 was
sustainable and whether present proceedings were an abuse of
process of law ?
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
17. On other hand, Sri Harish H.V., learned counsel for
respondent submitted, petition under Section 12 of DV Act was
filed by daughter and son of respondent aged 11 and 10 years
respectively due to their minority, represented by Ramadevi
maternal grandmother. It was submitted, petition was allowed
only insofar as petitioner no.1 and rejected insofar petitioner
no.2. It was submitted, petition was filed alleging incidents of
domestic violence i.e. murder of petitioners' mother and sexual
harassment of petitioner no.1, by respondent.
18. It was submitted, both Courts had passed impugned
order based on material produced by petitioners. It was
submitted, though respondent had cross-examined PWs.1 and 2
and filed affidavit examination-in-chief, but had failed to offer
himself for cross-examination, apparently to withholding best
evidence, calling for drawing of adverse inference. It was
submitted, reliance on depositions in proceedings that had not
yet concluded, would not be justified. Besides, marking of
entire deposition instead of specific portions of same by drawing
attention of witness, would be defective and in violation of
Section 145 of Evidence Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
19. It was submitted, since their mother had died and
they were making allegations against their father arrayed as
respondent, there was nothing wrong in Ramadevi - maternal
grandmother acting as guardian. It was submitted, petitioners
were not provided interim maintenance/travel expenses ordered
during pendency of proceedings, apparently with view to starve
them financially. Defence that respondent was in jail and
therefore unable was without evidence. It was submitted,
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 324, had held maintenance was to be paid from
date of petition and further submitted, since respondent was
admittedly a Software Engineer, had an independent house in
Bengaluru as per his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, direction
to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month till date of her
marriage, would be fully justified.
20. It was submitted claim for return of Stridhan was
based on pleadings in paras 7, 10 and 12 of petition. It was
submitted, in para 8 of objections, respondent stated that he
would keep jewelry in safe custody and therefore, respondent
cannot claim to be aggrieved by direction to return Stridhan. It
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
was submitted, while passing impugned judgment, both Courts
had not only referred to contents of Section 2 (a) of DV Act but
also Section 3 thereof. It was submitted, daughter was included
in Section 2 (a) of DV Act.
21. It was submitted, both DV Court as well as
Appellate Court had taken note of all contentions urged by
respondent herein, and after observing that there was no
attempt by respondent to establish that he had not subjected
petitioner no.1 to sexual/physical abuse, arrived at well-
reasoned conclusions and passed impugned order.
22. It was submitted, petition filed was clear about
incidents of physical/sexual abuse by respondent committed on
petitioner no.1, which would fall under Section 3 of DV Act.
Further, provisions of Section 2 (f) of DV Act would include any
incidents of domestic violence suffered by any of family
members. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha
Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90 clearly
held even a girl child cared for as foster child would be entitled
to invoke provisions of DV Act and filing of Domestic Violence
Incident Report ('DVIR') was not mandatory.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
23. It was submitted, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
case of Menti Trinadha Venkata Ramana v. Menti Lakshmi,
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine AP 2860, had held application
for maintenance under DV Act would survive even after age of
majority as for purposes of 'aggrieved person' under Section 2
(a) of DV Act, it was irrelevant whether woman was minor or
attained age of majority. It was submitted, in case of Noor
Saba Khatoon v. Mohd. Quasim reported in (1997) 6 SCC
233, reference was made to provisions of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and claim for
maintenance beyond age of majority upheld. Same was
reiterated in Naimullah Sheikh v. State of U.P., reported in
2024 SCC OnLine All 163 and in Ram Kumar Pandey v.
State of U.P. reported in 2025:AHC:89742, it was held,
definition of aggrieved person would include daughter/grand
daughter of aggrieved person, it was not mandatory application
under Section 12 of DV Act to be preceded by DVIR and it was
mandatory for domestic relationship to be subsisting. Further,
Section 12 (1) empowered any person on behalf of aggrieved
person to file application under DV Act. Therefore, petition filed
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
through guardian would be in accordance with law. Therefore,
none of contentions of petitioner were meritorious and sought
dismissal.
24. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied
upon various decisions. It was submitted Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Abhilasha v. Parkash reported in AIR 2020 SC
4355, had upheld claim for maintenance by Hindu unmarried
daughter, when she was unable to maintain herself as well as
for proposition that it would suffice if, aggrieved person had at
any earlier point of time was in domestic relationship with
respondent in shared household and there was no requirement
for prevalence of such status at time of filing application. For
same proposition, he also relied on decisions in case of Ajay
Kumar v. Lata, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 352; Jagadish
Jugtawath v. Manju Lata & Ors. reported in 2002 (5) SCC
422; Sumy Sreekumar & Anr. v. Rijesh Ram P. & Anr.
reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 581; Nagashetty & Ors.
v. Aruna reported in NC: 2024:KHC-K:4706 and Preethi
Correa & Ors. v. Vincent Correa reported in
2025:KHC:19938.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
25. It was submitted that in Juveria Abdul Majid
Patani v. Atif Iqbal Mansori & Anr. reported in 2014 (10)
SCC 736, it was held, even divorced muslim wife was included
in definition of aggrieved person under DV Act, in case of
incident of domestic violence occurred during subsistence of
shared household. It was also held, relief can be claimed in any
proceedings, even before Civil or Family Court.
26. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvin
Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain reported in 2025 (2) SCC 422 had
clarified about factors to be considered while granting
maintenance. Likewise on decisions in case of Jaiminiben
Hirenbhai Vyas & Anr. v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas
& Anr. reported in 2015 (2) SCC 385 and Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v. Meen & Ors. reported in 2015 (6) SCC 353, for
clarity regarding date from which maintenance has to be paid.
He also relied on decision in Hiral P. Harsora & Ors. v.
Kusum Narottamdas & Ors. reported in 2016 (10) SCC
165.
27. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned orders
and record.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
28. This revision petition is by respondent being
aggrieved by concurrent findings allowing petition filed under
Section 12 of DV Act filed by his daughter, granting protection
against domestic violence, monthly maintenance and
compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs.
29. As stated above, it is contended that petition under
Section 12 by minor daughter would not be tenable as definition
of aggrieved person under Section 2 (a) of DV Act would refer
to a woman and not a 'child' which is defined separately under
Section 2 (b) as person aged below 18 years of age.
30. However, in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha
Tyagi's case has held foster girl child could claim relief under
DV Act. In Menti Lakshmi's case, it is held it was irrelevant
whether woman was minor or attained age of majority and
claim for maintenance would survive.
31. Further contention that definition of domestic
relationship in Section 2 (f) of DV Act, contemplates aggrieved
person to be in relationship by marriage or in nature of
marriage, and therefore daughter cannot maintain application,
would run contrary to following phrase in said definition "or are
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
family members living together as a joint family" and therefore
rejected.
32. Next ground of challenge about requirement of
currency of cohabitation at time of filing application would
require to be rejected in view of ratio in case of Abhilasha,
Ajay Kumar, Jagadish Jugtawath, etc. (supra)
33. Even challenge of direction to pay maintenance till
date of marriage as being contrary to law would require
rejection in view of ratio laid down in Menti Lakshmi and Noor
Saba Khatoon, wherein direction to pay maintenance even
after attainment of age of majority has been upheld.
34. Insofar as direction for return of stridhan being
vague, though appearing substantial on first blush, a bare
perusal of objections filed by respondent before DV Court
especially in paragraph 8 reveals that respondent has
specifically stated that he would keep jewelry of his wife and
petitioners' mother in safe custody. Therefore, respondent
cannot claim ignorance of particulars of jewelry and other
valuable effects of deceased constituting stridhan. Hence,
direction issued would sustain.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
35. Insofar as challenge on ground of perversity of
findings of both Courts, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9
SCC 460 and in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu
and Ors., reported in 2023 (6) SCC 768, explained scope for
interference against concurrent findings in revision petition
under Section 397 CrPC. It was held revisional jurisdiction can
be invoked only where decisions under challenge are grossly
erroneous, there is no compliance with provisions of law, that
finding recorded is based on no evidence or material evidence is
ignored or judicial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or
perversely. It is also clarified that there cannot be re-
appreciation of evidence.
36. However, concurrent findings are susceptible to
challenge on ground that findings are based on no evidence or
are contrary to evidence on record. Therefore, material on
record would require reference only for this limited purpose.
37. In pleading, incidents of domestic violence alleged
in application filed under Section 12 are firstly with reference to
petitioner's mother being assaulted for dowry etc. and secondly
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
about sexual abuse of petitioners. Details stated are that on
one occasion of sexual abuse, petitioner no.1 suffered injury on
her private part, which she informed to her mother and when
questioned, respondent assaulting her. Thereafter, on one day
in October, while petitioner no.1 was confiding about sexual
assault, respondent overheard same, dragged her mother from
living room to bed room manhandled her and pushed her out of
house, that she fell on her face and broke her tooth. And after
she died in hospital, respondent claimed she fell in bathroom
and threatened petitioner no.1 against disclosing that he killed
their mother. It is alleged, after cremation petitioners informed
Ramadevi, who filed complaint.
38. In her affidavit examination-in-chief, petitioner no.1
stated that respondent sexually abused her by beating her with
belt and burning her hand with cigarette, took her to hotel and
sexually abused her. She also alleged, respondent had affair
with Dr.Sunitha, who along with Pani, Chandra and Mallikarjuna
Reddy took her to Hotel Nisarga at KR Puram, where she was
forced to drink beer and Dr.Sunitha removed her clothes and
she was blackmailed with releasing her videos on internet, if
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
she revealed about sexual abuse to anyone. She also stated
respondent came near her school and blackmailed her by
stating that in POCSO case, he was likely to be hanged, if she
revealed truth.
39. She specifically stated that on 18.10.2012,
respondent along with his brothers and uncle came home and
killed her mother with iron rod and shifted her to bathroom to
create evidence that she died there. When she threatened to
reveal it to Ramadevi, respondent had a neighbour to take her
mother to Yashomati Hospital, where respondent's lover -
Dr.Sunitha was working. And at hospital, respondent assaulted
her mother again in bathroom. Thereafter, as she was given
injections, she became unconscious and shifted to ICU. She also
stated that at Manipal Hospital, her mother slipped into coma.
When respondent informed her about her mother's death, she
went inside and found ventilator was removed.
40. In cross-examination, she admitted that she studied
7th Std. by staying in hostel at Vijayawada, for three years she
stayed hostel at Nelluru and prior to going to Vijayawada, she
stayed in hostel at Chennai. She admitted for last seven years,
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
she did not meet her father. She also admitted that while
residing in Chennai, she along with grandmother had lodged
FIR against three persons for sexual exploitation and about
lodging similar case against her father at Bengaluru. She admits
that her grandmother was present during cremation of her
mother's body at Bhakrapet near Tirupati and until then
respondent and Ramadevi were on good terms. In cross-
examination about assault of her mother by respondent 'at
hospital', she stated it was with curtain rod in computer room
and blood stains stretching from computer room to bathroom
and about manipulation of PM report by respondent.
41. Though, petitioner no.2 also deposed on similar
terms as PW.2, in cross-examination he stated that respondent
and his brothers assaulted his mother with curtain rod in
computer room 'at home' and there were blood stains from
computer room till bathroom. Suggestions about deposing
falsely to implicate respondent on instructions of Ramadevi,
were denied. They also admitted their respective depositions in
POCSO case.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
42. On other hand, respondent deposed as RW.1
denying all allegations against him, but failed to appear for
cross-examination. Thus his deposition was struck-off.
43. At same time, admittedly, Ramadevi stated that she
came to know about above incidents only on being informed by
petitioners. Thus, she would be hearsay witness and her
deposition would be useful for corroboration. In her affidavit -
examination-in-chief, there is virtual reiteration of contents of
application. She states that on petitioners narrating incidents to
her, she filed police complaints against respondent. She also
states that her daughter had gold jewellery of 150 Sovereigns,
silver articles weighing 5 Kgs. and she had given cash of
Rs.20 Lakhs at time of marriage and thereafter, claiming it
to be returned to petitioners.
44. In cross-examination, she admits that on
18.10.2012, after her daughter fell in bathroom due to
giddiness, she was taken to Yashomati Hospital and later to
Manipal Hospital, where she died on 27.10.2012. She admitted
that prior to death of her daughter, she had not filed any
complaint against respondent. She admits, she was informed
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
about respondent filing complaint, from Commissioner's Office
and that she filed complaint on 05.12.2012, in which she had
not mentioned about her daughter's murder. She admits Police
filing of B-Report. While denying suggestion that complaints
were filed only as respondent refused to return jewellery, she
admits, apart from three cases filed against respondent, one
rape case was registered against three persons in
Chennai wherein petitioner no.1 was victim and in both
cases, there was camera. She also admitted that from
26.11.2012 to 27.01.2013, petitioners were with her.
45. While passing impugned order, DV Court observed
about Ramadevi reiterating application averments and
producing copies of school certificates, complaints/FIRs. It
noted petitioners no.1 and 2 deposing as PWs.2 and 3
reiterating allegations of respondent murdering their mother, by
hitting her on back of her head with rod and thereafter, shifting
her to bathroom to create evidence that she died in bathroom
and respondent assaulting their mother in hospital and on
instructions of Dr.Sunitha, their mother being given injections
causing her unconsciousness and shift to ICU. They alleged
improper treatment by Dr.Sunitha and that their mother died
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
on 27.10.2012 at Manipal Hospital as respondent removed
ventilator connection. It noted failure by respondent to appear
for cross-examination.
46. DV Court rejected defense contentions that
petitioners being minors and petitioner no.2 being a boy would
not be aggrieved person defined in Section 2 (a) of DV Act, as
well as requirement of applicant being in domestic relationship
by referring to decision of this Court in Smt.NS Leelavathi &
Anr. v. Smt.Dr.R. Shilpa Brunda reported in ILR 2020 Kar
574. While arriving at conclusion about entitlement of
petitioners for relief, DV Court noted that respondent had
instead of establishing that he was not guilty of domestic
violence, had sought to establish that death of petitioners'
mother was an accident. Likewise he failed to establish that he
was having cordial relationship with petitioners. It also drew
adverse inference for failure to appear for cross-examination.
However, it is seen, except stating that Ramadevi had paid all
school fees and day to day expenses and respondent failing to
maintain petitioners despite having sufficient means, there are
no reasons assigned or basis disclosed for quantification of
relief.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
47. In appeal also Appellate Court held, respondent
failed to cross-examine petitioners' witnesses on allegation of
sexual abuse, which entitled them for relief.
48. However, it cannot be in doubt that in complaint
about respondent murdering petitioners' mother, police have
filed B-Report, while respondent herein is acquitted by
judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by L Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.C.no.163/2013,
leading to conclusion that respondent had not committed any
acts of sexual abuse of petitioner no.1. Apart from above,
pleadings about sexual abuse suffer from glaring absence of
particulars such as date and place of sexual abuse. Moreover,
when PW.1 admitted that from 26.11.2012 till 27.01.2013,
petitioners were with her. On other hand, there is specific
suggestion by respondent that due to refusal to return
jewellery, Ramadevi had filed complaints. Ex.R13 - deposition
of petitioner no.1 in POCSO case reveals clear admission that
until her death, her mother's life was happy and pleasant in
Bengaluru, corroborating admission by PW.1 that until death of
her daughter, she had not filed any complaint against
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
respondent. These materials would cast allegations of domestic
violence in serious doubt. Apart from above, it is not clarified,
whether filing of B-report in murder complaint and acquittal
case in POCSO case had not yet attained finality. It is also
observed that there are specific suggestions made by
respondent about allegations and complaints filed against being
false and as counterblast against his refusal to return his wife's
jewellery.
49. And lastly, there is no provision in DV Act casting
onus on respondent to disprove allegations of domestic
violence. Therefore, failure of respondent to appear for cross-
examination by itself cannot be a ground to hold incidents of
domestic violence established. Thus, impugned judgments
passed by DV Court and Appellate Court holding incidents of
domestic violence alleged by petitioners as established against
respondent, would be contrary to material on record or without
any basis. As such same, would require to be termed perverse,
calling for interference.
50. Consequently, Revision Petition is allowed and
judgment dated 19.07.2023 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4954
HC-KAR
Traffic Court-I, Mayohall Unit, Benglauru, in
Crl.Misc.No.42/2013 and judgment dated 28.02.2025 passed by
LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru (CCH-74) in Crl.A.no.25220/2023 are set-aside.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV/GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
