- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.850 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. P.R. RAMESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE J.P. RAVINDRAN, R/AT NO.37, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, V MAIN, SK GARDEN BENSON TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. A. KARPAGAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O P.R. RAMESH KUMAR, D/O K. ARUMUGAM, R/AT NO.37, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, V MAIN, SK GARDEN BENSON TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 046. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.R.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.06.2016 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.1050/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE AND THE ORDER DATED 23.07.2015 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.68/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MMTC-IV, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 BANGALORE CITY AND THEREBY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FORM DOMESTIVE VIOLENCE ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent herein before the Trial Court while seeking the relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short) is that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner herein on 06.02.1997 and in the said wedlock, a son by name Kiran was born on 14.02.2000. The respondent No.2 therein is her father-in-law, respondent No.3 is her mother-in-law, respondent No.4 is her brother-in-law and respondent No.5 is the wife of respondent No.4. It is contended that the respondents therein have indulged in inflicting mental, physical, verbal, economic or emotional abuse in the matrimonial house of the petitioner therein. In paragraph No.6 of the petition, details are given indicating the nature of sufferings undergone by the petitioner therein and by her son. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 It is contended that respondent No.1 married the petitioner only to make unlawful money out of the earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 insisted for withdrawal of the money from the bank account of the petitioner and was forcing her to issue cheques in his name. In this way the petitioner was subjected to extraction of her hard earned money exceeding Rs.7,50,000/- apart from physical abuse. The petitioner also sought a prayer for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- and also sought a restraint order from alienating, creating charge, mortgaging or in any manner whatsoever disposing of the schedule property and also for protection for herself and her child and sought for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to herself and her minor son. 3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings and objections of the respondent, allowed the parties to lead evidence and the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and examined her son as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 74. The respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.R1 to 34. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of the pleadings as well as the evidence and in paragraph No.34 taken note of the fact that both the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 petitioner and respondent No.1 lived together in Sultanpalya, Chinnappa Garden and had changed 3 to 4 rented houses. That during the above said period, the petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing in a rented house and subsequently differences arose between them. In paragraph No.35 discussed the contention of the petitioner and in paragraph No.38 discussed with regard to the allegation that the respondent always threatened the life and limb of the petitioner and her son. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission given by the petitioner and also the cases filed between both of them in Family Court in M.C.No.1189/2010 which was clubbed with M.C.No.772/2012. The petitioner admitted that she is earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but later on she says that she left the job soon after filing of the D.V. Act petition in 2009. The Trial Court also taken note the policies are taken in the year 2008, 2009, 1998 and 2007 and all the insurance documents reveals that the respondent is interested in taking care of the petitioner and her child and directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the petitioner and her son and passed a restraint order in respect of the residence, wherein the petitioner and her son are residing at property No.37. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 4. The same is challenged before the Appellate Court by filing an appeal and the Appellate Court re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and comes to the conclusion that the son of the petitioner is not made as a party to the proceedings and the source of income of respondent No.1 is also not proved by the petitioner and the petitioner prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/- per month for maintenance of herself and minor child and the same was taken note of and ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and her son by modifying the order of the Trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that both the Courts failed to take note of the material on record and even though the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any domestic violence, granted Rs.10,000/- per month to both of them on humanitarian ground. The learned counsel contend that the wife is earning more than this revision petitioner and also contend that the registration of the case under Section 498A of IPC is without any material on record. The learned counsel - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 contend that the divorce petition was filed after restitution petition was considered since wife did not join the matrimonial home of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel contend that the wife is working and earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month and hence there is no need of granting of any maintenance. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that though the son has attained the age of majority, he is still pursuing education and not earning. The learned counsel contend that the son is also entitled for maintenance till he gets the job even though he has attained the age of majority and the Court has to direct the revision petitioner to pay the maintenance in favour of the son also. The learned counsel contend that it is highly impossible to lead life at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month each for the son as well as wife. It is contended that the Court has to take note of the standard of living and cost of living. The learned counsel contend that the review petitioner himself has pleaded that he has taken care of the child and wife by getting the insurance and hence it is clear that he is earning and the same cannot be interfered. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the factual aspects of the case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the marriage of the review petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in 1997 and it is not in dispute that the son was born in the wedlock. Now the son has attained the age of majority. It is important to note that when the Trial Court granted Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondent herein and her son, the same was challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court modified the same directing to pay Rs.5,000/- per month each. The learned counsel for the respondent not disputes the fact that the son has attained the age of majority and hence the question of payment of maintenance to son does not arise. Now, the question before this Court is with regard to the quantum of maintenance payable to the respondent. The fact that when the Appellate Court interfered and reduced the maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and son, the said order has not been challenged by the respondent. Only the revision petition is filed by the husband and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contend that when the Appellate Court comes to the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 conclusion that there is no any domestic violence, the question of granting maintenance does not arise. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of SUNIL GANGADHAR KADAM AND OTHERS v. JAYASHRI SUNIL KADAM AND ANOTHER reported in CDJ 2023 BHC 419 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.7 and 9 of the said judgment, wherein discussion is made with regard to the domestic violence is concerned. It is held that the Domestic Violence Act is a law in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. 10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of JEYANTHI v. JEYAPAUL reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 603 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.26, wherein it is held that a perusal of Section 20 of Domestic Violence Act would go to show that monetary relief including maintenance can be given to the woman, who is proved to be the victim of domestic violence. In the absence of the proof regarding domestic violence, the wife is not eligible to claim maintenance. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 11. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, the Court has to take note of the grounds which have been urged in the petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that when the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is no any domestic violence, ought not to have granted the relief and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. This Court has to take note of the definition of “domestic violence” under Section 2(g) of the DV Act. “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Hence, the Court has to give a conjoint reading of Section 2(g) and Section 3 of the DV Act. The definition of “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act is, for the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it – (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I – for the purposes of this section includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Explanation II is also very clear that for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. 12. Having read Section 2(g) as well as Section 3 of the DV Act, it is very clear that “economic abuse” includes deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. In the case on hand, no doubt, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he is complying with the order of the Court. No doubt, the Trial Court considered the evidence and the Appellate Court re-assessed the same and comes to the conclusion that there is no any domestic violence and the very approach of the Appellate Court is not correct and the Court has to see the definition of Sections 2(g) and 3 of the DV Act and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 elaborate definition is given in respect of domestic violence is concerned and the same may be a physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and even economic abuse also. Other than harassment and causing of any harm, even non- payment of maintenance is also part of definition of domestic violence. No doubt, in the case on hand the respondent admits that she is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and also pleaded that the revision petitioner married her only in order to get the salary from her. But both of them have not placed any document with regard to the definite income is concerned. The wife admits that she is getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and the husband also not placed any material, but only contend that earlier he was working and subsequently he is not working. It has to be noted that the amount modified by the Appellate Court is only Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondent and her son and the fact that the son has attained the age of majority is not in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the son is not getting any income. But maintenance can be provided till he attains the age of majority and the very contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the same can be continued till he gets the job, cannot be accepted. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 13. Having taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court though not discussed in detail with regard to the capacity of the petitioner to make the payment and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month each to the respondent and her son. The same was reduced to totally Rs.10,000/- per month by the Appellate Court and the Court has to take note of the cost of living and standard of living as on today. The petitioner is bound to pay the maintenance in respect of son till the age of majority. In respect of wife is concerned, an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month was ordered though it is not specifically mentioned as Rs.5,000/- per month, but ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- totally for the respondent and her son. Having considered the factual aspects of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in re-assessing the material on record and the same does not suffer from legality and correctness and only if the finding is not legal then only the Court has to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and such circumstance is not warranted and hence there is no merit in the revision petition. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:5855 CRL.RP No. 850 of 2016 ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72