- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1306 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1449 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O CHINNASWAMY @ SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO.392, NEW NO.111, BHAVANI NAGAR, SLUM AREA 7TH MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VISHALAKSHI W/O BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT OLD NO.392, NEW NO.111, BHAVANI NAGAR SLUM AREA 7TH MAIN ROAD BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURYANARAYANA N., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF COMPENSATION OF RS.4,00,000/- PASSED ON 19.08.2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.154/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1306 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2019 MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-IV, BENGALURU AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED ON 12.09.2019 IN CRL.A.NO.1284/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY CCH-66 AND ALLOW THE SAME. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Court given an opportunity to the counsel for respondent to address his argument, but he fails to appear before this Court. 3. The Trial Court having taken note of the material available on record, granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation that is towards the marriage expenses of 2nd daughter and claim under Section 18 and 19 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are rejected. Though claimed Rs.10,00,000/- for marriage, Rs.6,00,000/- for marriage expenses. The Trial Court granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1306 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2019 towards performing the marriage of the daughter, no dispute with regard to the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the petitioner herein. The Trial Court in paragraph No.15 taken note of having claimed Rs.6,00,000/- towards marriage expenses of petitioner No.2, but considering the material on record, ordered to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The First Appellate Court also while re-considering the material on record, taken note of the marriage expense is claimed by the petitioner in paragraph No.10 and also in paragraph No.12 taken note of the fact that petitioners have no property except the house wherein they are residing and also it is admitted that application appellant is running an auto driver and he is running business and he has undergone eye operation and he is a diabetic patient. However, the First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that he has not denied that marriage of the 2nd petitioner is yet to be performed. The petitioner is also not having any source of income atleast the appellant should contribute to the marriage expense and considering the material on record, there are - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1306 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2019 no reasons to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Now, the counsel for revision petitioner would contend that the revision petitioner is aged about 70 years. But, at the time of filing the revision petition, age is mentioned as 66 years and in the criminal miscellaneous case, the age is mentioned as 50 years and when the revision petition was filed in the year 2012, age would be 62 years and in the appeal also, the age is mentioned as 64 years and the age of the petitioner cannot be ground to deny the bounden duty of the revision petitioner to pay the marriage expenses of his daughter. The Trial Court rejected the claim made under Section 18 and 19 of the Act, but ordered to pay only marriage expenses and that too an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but the same has not exorbitant. 4. The very contention of the revision petitioner’s counsel that he is not having any source of income cannot be accepted and categorically admitted that he is running an auto and earlier he was having 8 auto rickshaw and now having one auto and when such material available on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1306 CRL.RP No. 1449 of 2019 record, no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and hence, no ground to admit the revision petition. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The Revision Petitioner is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43