- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1175 OF 2015 BETWEEN: SMT. NAMRA D/O C ABDUL AZEEM W/O S MOHAMMED SIDDIQ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.998, 14TH MAIN, 5TH BLOCK, 16TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, NAGAWARA, BANGALORE – 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI J POOJAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: S MOHAMMED SIDIQ S/O SUBHAN SAHIB LATE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT YAKHEEN APARTMENT, NO.1, CHINANNA LAYOUT R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VINAY K S, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 DATED 06.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25112/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-'B' AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.25112/2014 by the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent is absent. On perusal of the order sheet, it discloses that inspite of sufficient opportunity is given to the counsel for the respondent, he is not pursuing the matter diligently and not assisted the Court. Hence, taken as no arguments from the respondent’s counsel. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 3. This revision petition is filed against the divergent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court vide order dated 30.06.2014 allowed the Crl. Misc. No.346/2012 in part and granted Rs.4,000/- per month as rent to the aggrieved person and also granted Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the aggrieved person and also granted Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the aggrieved person in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has established the domestic violence by taking into note of the material available on record and the First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court. 4. The case of the petitioner before the Trial Court is that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was taken place on 01.04.2012 and after the marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner demanding dowry and also assaulted her without any reason. In the month of May 2012, the respondent and his family members thrown out the petitioner from matrimonial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 house and the petitioner is staying along with her parents. Hence, the petitioner filed the complaint before the police stating that the respondent has committed domestic violence to her and she has prayed for protection order, residence order, monitory reliefs and compensation from the respondent. 5. Per contra, the respondent appeared and resisted the case of the petitioner filing statement of objections stating that due to the torture of the petitioner and her blackmailing nature, he has sent a legal notice on 06.10.2012 to the petitioner and he has not caused any domestic violence. 6. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the respective parties, allowed them to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she herself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P13. On the other hand, the respondent got himself examined as RW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R7. The Trial Court taken into note of the contention of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 the respondent that the petitioner has ill-treated him and the same was denied by the petitioner and however, taken into note of the documents at Ex.R3 and R4 which disclose that petitioner has received all articles and comes to the conclusion that the entire evidence of PW1 goes to show that respondent had caused domestic violence to her. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage is concerned. Even though, the respondent contends that there was a love affair of the aggrieved person prior to the marriage and during the cross-examination of respondent deposed that the petitioner was taken to Vanivilasa hospital for psychiatric treatment. Taking into note of ingredients of Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act, the domestic violence includes physical, mental, economic and sexual abuse. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that he has not paid any maintenance towards her since she has left his house. The Trial Court further comes to the conclusion that the love affair prior to the marriage was denied by PW1 and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 PW1 in this regard and considering the material available on record, allowed the petition and directed to pay maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is preferred by the respondent before the First Appellate Court. 7. The First Appellate Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is a domestic violence but no such material is available before the Court with regard to the domestic violence is concerned. The First Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was ten years older compared to the age of the respondent and relied upon the document of bio-data wherein age of the petitioner is shown as 22 years and completed BA. According to the respondent, the petitioner has studied up to SSLC and her age is 32 years. Taken note of the age of the petitioner as mentioned in the bio- data, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 that improper information is given about the bride and it is nothing but cheating. However, this is not a forum to discuss all these aspects. Now, the matter has to be considered that whether the respondent has caused any domestic violence in any modes and with regard to the physical violence is concerned, there is no allegation of assault made by the petitioner and belonging of the petitioner was taken back by her father and mother. The First Appellate Court also comes to the conclusion that an attempt was made by the respondent to continue the marital life with the petitioner because in the evidence he had categorically stated that after conciliation in the police station, they have taken her to the matrimonial house but she resided only for a period of ten days. Having considering the material available on record, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence and hence, reversed the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence. The counsel contend that the First Appellate Court ought to have taken into consideration the definition of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The word ‘domestic’ reflects something relating to the family or the household. The word ‘violence’ signifies the use of physical force usually accompanied by fury, vehemence or outrage. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the Trial Court rightly considered the said definition of the domestic violence. Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act defines the expression ‘domestic violence’ in a fairly exhaustive manner where under the expression takes within its fold harm, injuries, harassment, physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, economic abuse, insults, humiliation etc. The counsel during his arguments relied upon the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 judgment reported in AIR 2015 KAR 21 in the case of SMT. CHAMUNDAMMA & OTHERS vs SMT. LAKSHMI AND OTHERS wherein an observation is made that he relationship between two person who live or have at any point of time lived together in a relationship in the nature of marriage is a domestic relationship. The victims of domestic violence are entitled for protection orders, residence orders and monetary relief's from the erring partner. The term ‘domestic violence’ is defined under Section 3 of the said Act. Accordingly, depriving a woman of economic and financial resource falls under the category of domestic violence. The counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the respondent relies upon the document of bio-data but the petitioner in her cross- examination, she denied that she has not given any such bio-data and the Trial Court not accepted the said document and the First Appellate Court committed an - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 error considering the contents of bio-data which is disputed document and committed an error in allowing the appeal. 9. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the finding of the Trial Court in coming to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence and whether it requires exercising of revisional powers? 2. What order? Point No.1: 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that no dispute with regard to the marriage is concerned between the petitioner and the respondent. After the marriage, the petitioner had joined to the matrimonial home. The petitioner also in her evidence reiterated the averments made in the petition. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 Apart from that she has relied upon the documents at Ex.P1 and P2 at the first instance. No doubt, in the cross- examination of PW1, at the first instance itself a suggestion was made that the petitioner has given bio- data wherein her age is mentioned as 22 years and the said document is disputed by the petitioner. On perusal of Ex.R7 it discloses that it does not find any signature of the petitioner. No doubt, wherein it is mentioned the details of the petitioner such as her age is mentioned as 22 years and her educational qualification is shown as BA. The First Appellate Court ought not to have believed Ex.R7 since PW1 denied the very said document in her cross- examination at the beginning itself. The First Appellate Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that the petitioner has given false information. 11. It is important to note that PW1 categorically admitted in the cross-examination that she is aged more than the respondent and same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that it amounts to cheating. The - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that giving of false information is nothing but cheating and reversed the finding of the Trial Court. When PW1 has not admitted the said document, the First Appellate Court ought not to have relied upon the said document. Hence, the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous while considering the definition of domestic violence. 12. The counsel for the petitioner had pleaded the grounds as well as relied upon the judgment in the case of CHAMUNDAMMA referred supra wherein in paragraph 20 discussed the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a relationship in the nature of marriage is a domestic relationship. It is also observed that the victims of domestic violence are entitled for protection orders, residence orders and monetary relief's from the erring partner. The term ‘domestic violence’ is defined under Section 3 of the said Act. Accordingly, depriving a woman of economic and financial resource falls under the category of domestic - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 violence. Hence, the very conclusion of the First Appellate Court is erroneous. 13. No doubt, the evidence also very clear that no financial assistance is given to the petitioner. The records also discloses that the parties have approached the police and respondent undertaken to take the petitioner back to the matrimonial home and accordingly, he took her to his house but contention is that she lived there only for a period of ten days. The records also disclose that subsequently, belongings of the petitioner also given to her and she also admitted the same. Mere return of belonging itself is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. Admittedly, no compensation is paid by the respondent and maintenance is also not paid. Respondent categorically deposed that he took the petitioner to the Vanivilasa hospital for medical check up and the same is also amounts to a domestic violence. The First Appellate Court failed to take note of the said fact into consideration. When such material is available before the Court, the First - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 Appellate Court ought not to have comes to the conclusion that there is no domestic violence. The very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous in coming to the conclusion of cheating based on the bio-data when the said document was disputed by the petitioner at the first instance. No doubt, in the evidence of petitioner, it is emerged that earlier, the marriage was fixed and the same was not come through and the same cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that earlier, the petitioner was having love affair but to prove the same, nothing is placed on record and the same is not elicited in the cross- examination of PW1. But the respondent says that when differences raised between them, the said fact has been revealed but to prove the said fact also there is no material before the Court. 14. The Trial Court also taken note of all these aspects while allowing the petition of the petitioner however, the First Appellate Court exceeded its limit in - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 considering the material available on record particularly taking note of the contents of the bio-data. Merely because of age of the petitioner is more than the respondent, the same is not a ground to reject the case of the petitioner. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court rightly allowed the petition of the petitioner considering the material available on record in a proper perspective and the First Appellate Court committed an error in considering the documentary evidence placed before it which is dismissed. When the parties have approached the police wherein the respondent undertaken to take the petitioner back to his home and thereafter the petitioner lived there only for short period and again differences were arisen between them and she came back to her parents house and subsequently, articles of the petitioner also returned to her and hence, no provision of residence was made by the respondent and also not paid the maintenance to her. When such material is available before the Court, the First Appellate Court committed an error in reversing the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:67 CRL.RP No. 1175 of 2015 finding of the Trial Court and thus, the very approach of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer the above point as affirmative. Point No.2: 15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 06.10.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.25112/2014 by the First Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in Crl.Misc.No.346/2012 by the Trial Court is upheld. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN