- 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, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, SHANKARA ASHRAMA 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 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 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- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13397 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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 CRL.RP No. 793 of 2023 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50