- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 111 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. LOKESHA, S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. BURUDAGHATTA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAMATHA W/O LOKESHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, C/O SIDDALINGAIAH MELEKALLAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 216. 2. SHIVANNA S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BURUDAGHATTA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.T VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R2-SERVED) Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2015 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AT TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.40/2013 THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI IN CRL.MISC.NO.93/2009 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.04.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.40/2013 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Sessions Judge' for short), whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.93/2009 dated 08.02.2013 by the Prl. Civil Judge And JMFC, Gubbi (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short). 2. The factual matrix of the case is that: Respondent No.1, being the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act') before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 seeking orders against the revision petitioner, prohibiting him from committing any act of domestic violence, restraining him from entering the place of her child's school, restraining him from alienating the assets and also praying for a direction to provide accommodation under Section 19(f) of the DV Act and to pay monetary relief under Section 20 and also compensation or damages under Section 22 of the DV Act. 3. To prove her case before the trial Court, respondent No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. However, the revision petitioner also examined himself as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4. 4. The trial Court, after assessment of oral and documentary evidence, passed the following order: "ORDER The complaint filed by the aggrieved person/complainant under: Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, is partly allowed. Acting, under Sec. 18 of the Act, the respondents are prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence, aiding or abetting in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 commission of acts of domestic violence, entering the place of her child's school or other places frequented by the aggrieved person, and alienating any assets and other properties, operating bank lockers and bank accounts. Acting under Sec19(f) of the Act, the respondent No. 1 is directed to provide accommodation at Gubbi or to pay a rent of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the aggrieved person. Acting under Sec.20 of the Act, the respondent No. 1 is directed to pay- a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- in addition to the maintenance amount awarded in C.Mis.117/08 to the aggrieved person and to her son Pranav. Acting under Sec.22 of the Act, the respondent. No. 1 is directed to pay compensation and damages of Rs.50,000/- to the aggrieved person. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost and expenses of this complaint. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.3,500/- from the date of complaint. The office is directed to supply free copy of the order to the parties, as provided under Sec.24 of the Act." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.40/2013. Learned Sessions Judge, after re-assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel Sri Nagaraja.S., for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. B.T.Venkatesh for the respondents. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court erred while considering the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- without any reliable evidence. Further, both the Courts below wrongly come to the conclusion that the income of the joint family of the revision petitioner as Rs.1 lakh per annum from 2 acres of agricultural land. He also contended that respondent No.1 is working and earning a handsome salary apart from the salary/income of their son. As such, he prays to allow the revision petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, after meticulously examining the entire evidence and the materials on record, passed the reasoned judgments, which do not call for any interference. He further contended that the relationship between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1 is undisputed. Further, it is also undisputed that respondent No.1 is residing separately in a rented house. As such, the trial Court rightly granted a compensation of Rs.3,000/- under Section 19(f) of the DV Act and Rs.3,500/- as maintenance under Section 20 of the DV Act apart from granting Rs.50,000/- compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act. Learned counsel further contended that at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that Rs.3,500/- per month is on higher end to maintain respondent No.1 and her son. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the oral and documentary evidence placed before us and also meticulously perused the material available on record including the trial Court records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 10. As could be gathered from the records, the revision petitioner has admitted his marriage with respondent No.1, however, he denied the allegations made in the complaint. Albeit, respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with Kora Police Station, which was registered in Cr.No.79/2008 dated 28.06.2008 against the petitioner for physical and mental harassment meted by him. In the said case, the police, after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioner. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner contracted second marriage and totally deserted respondent No.1. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is residing separately from 19 months prior to filing the miscellaneous case under the provisions of DV Act. In such circumstances, it is bounden duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and son by paying monthly maintenance so also arranging for accommodation or by paying monthly rent. Considering these aspects, the trial Court directed the petitioner to pay a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as rent and Rs.3,500/- as maintenance to respondent No.1. Further, directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the DV Act. In my considered view, the said compensation amount granted - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13535 CRL.RP No. 111 of 2016 in multiple heads are reasonable to maintain respondent No.1 and her son. I find no good reason to interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, revision petition lacks merits and liable to be dismissed. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16