[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Dhananjay S/O Vittal Relekar vs Aishwarya W/O Dhananjay Relekar on 17 March, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100460 OF 2025
(397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI DHANANJAY S/O. VITTAL RELEKAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER,
R/O. HOUSE NO.4800, GURUKAL ROAD,
NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
TERADAL (TMC),
TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587315.
2. SMT. SEEMA S/O. VITTAL RELEKAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by R/O. HOUSE NO.4800, GURUKAL ROAD,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
TERADAL (TMC),
TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587315.
3. SHRI VITTAL S/O. RAMACHANDRA RELEKAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL ENGINEER,
R/O. HOUSE NO.4800, GURUKAL ROAD,
NEAR GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
TERADAL (TMC),
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2025
HC-KAR
TQ. RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT-587315.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KIRANKUMAR CHATTIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AISHWARYA W/O. DHANANJAY RELEKAR,
MAIDEN NAME: AISHWARYA,
D/O. SANJAY MAHENDRAKAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. PRESENTLY C/O. SANJAY MAHENDRAKAR,
BEHIND POLICE, DR. QUARTERS, 4TH CROSS,
VEERBHADRA NAGAR,
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI BUNTY R. KAPAHI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, R/W.
SECTION 438 R/W. SECTION 442 OF BNSS ACT, PRAYING TO
SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE V
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI IN
CRL.A.NO.144/2025 DATED 30/09/2025 AND CONFIRM THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC., II BELAGAVI IN
CRL.MISC NO.64/2025 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
CRL.RP No. 100460 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
The husband, mother in law and father in law of the
respondent have filed this criminal revision petition calling in
question the judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed in
Crl.A.No.144/2025 by the V Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Belagavi1, which reversed the judgment and order dated
22.04.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.64/2025 by the JMFC II,
Belagavi2. The Appellate Court has passed order granting
custody of the child, namely Likith Dhananjay Relekar, to the
mother. Hence, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent and petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the father and mother of petitioner No.1. The
respondent has filed an application under Section 21 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20053, before
hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court' for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short
Hereinafter referred to as the 'PWDV Act'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
HC-KAR
the Court of JMFC-II, Belagavi4, seeking interim custody of the
child by name Likhit Dhananjay Relekar. The learned Magistrate
has allowed the application in part by granting visitation rights,
but declined to grant interim custody of the child to the
respondent.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent, who is
the mother of the child, has preferred Criminal Appeal
No.144/2025 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi5. The learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal by
granting interim custody of the child to the respondent and has
granted visitation rights to the petitioners herein. It is
undisputed that the child is three and a half years old.
4. Section 21 of the Protection of Women and Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, reads as under:
"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
Hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Magistrate'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Sessions Court'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
HC-KAR
child or children to the aggrieved person or the
person making an application on her behalf and
specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit for
such child or children by the respondent:
Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion
that any visit of the respondent may be harmful to
the interests of the child or children, the Magistrate
shall refuse to allow such visit."
5. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has the jurisdiction
and power to grant interim custody of a child. The learned
counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the following
judgments:
a) Samiulla Saheb and Another vs. Mohammed
Sameer6;
b) Smt. Raziya w/o Riyazahamad Attar vs. The
State of Karnataka, Through P.S.I. Gokak
Town Police Station and Others7
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
an application for custody ought to have been filed under Section
W.P.No.6789/2023 decided on 22.04.2024
Criminal Petition No.101790/2017 decided on 27.03.2018
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
HC-KAR
9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 19778, and the application for
custody is not maintainable under the PWDV Act.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners
cannot be accepted, as Section 21 of the PWDV Act specifically
empowers the Magistrate to grant custody of a minor child.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has no
jurisdictional authority to pass such an order. The facts and
circumstances of the judgments relied upon by the petitioners
are distinguishable from the present case, and hence, they are
not applicable.
8. It is open either parent to seek custody under the
provisions of the HMG Act, or under the PWDV Act. In the
present case, the respondent has exercised her right under
Section 21 of the PWDV Act. Therefore, there are differences in
the factual matrix between the cases cited above and the
present case; hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners are not applicable in the present case.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1977'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4215
HC-KAR
9. The child is only three and a half years old. At such a
tender age, it is beneficial and welfare to the child to remain in
the custody of the mother. The learned Sessions Judge has
rightly appreciated this aspect and set aside the order of the
learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has also given
visiting rights to the petitioners. Therefore, no merit is found in
the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. The petitioners are directed to handover custody of the
child, namely Likhit Dhananjay Relekar, to the
respondent/mother within one week from today.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA, PMP /CT-AN
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
