- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102501 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. TAHERA W/O. LATE RIYAZ NAIK, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. #2043, NEHARU CHOWK, SAMADHAN HOTEL, NIPPANI-591 237. 2. IMRAN S/O. LATE RIYAZ NAIK, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #2043, NEHARU CHOWK, SAMADHAN HOTEL, NIPPANI-591 237. 3. ABID S/O. LATE RIYAZ NAIK, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #2043, NEHARU CHOWK, SAMADHAN HOTEL, NIPPANI-591 237. 4. SAJID S/O. LATE RIYAZ NAIK, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #2043, NEHARU CHOWK, SAMADHAN HOTEL, NIPPANI-591 237. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. WAQAR AHMED SHAHPURI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NOORJAHAN W/O. LATE NAZIRAHMED NAIK, AGE. 80 YEARS, SENIOR CITIZEN R/O. HER DAUGHTER SMT. FATIMA W/O. RIYAZAHMED SHAIKHALI, HOUSE BEARING CTS NO.10384, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 010, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.2043, NEHRU CHOWK, SAMADHAN HOTEL, NIPPANI (RURAL) SUB-DISTRICT CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 237. 2. SMT. FATIMA W/O. RIYAZ SHAIKHALI D/O. LATE NAZIR AHMED NAIK, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, CTS NO.10384, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVAR NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 010. 3. SMT. NAZEEMA W/O. IQBAL NANDNIWALE D/O. LATE NAZIR AHMED NAIK, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. 16/402, TEEN BATTI CHAR RASTA, ICHALKARANJI-416 415, DIST. KOLHAPUR. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.K. ATHAANI AND SRI. M.J. PEERJADE, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC. NO.243/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II JMFC COURT BELAGAVI FOR THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.243/2025 pending on the file of II JMFC Court, Belagavi, initiated under Section 12 of the Protection - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘D.V.Act’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner no.1 is the daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 and petitioner nos.2 to 4 are the sons of petitioner no.1. Respondent nos.2 & 3 are the daughters of respondent no.1. 4. The respondents have initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V.Act against the petitioners herein before the court of jurisdictional Magistrate at Belagavi which is pending consideration in Crl. Misc. No.243/2025. With a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that respondent no.1 has already initiated two separate suits in O.S.No.193/2023 and O.S.No.213/2023 seeking declaration of title and also for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. He submits that respondent no.1 had initiated separate proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and in the said proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order for change of mutation entries in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of the said suits, and the said order has been set aside by this Court in W.P.No.107635/2024. Thereafter, the present proceedings has been initiated under the provisions of the D.V.Act solely with an intention to harass and coerce the petitioners having failed to obtain favourable interim orders in the pending suits. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondent nos.2 & 3 have joined respondent no.1 in the present proceedings only to support their old aged mother. After the death of respondent no.1’s son, who was the husband of petitioner no.1, attempt is made to oust respondent no.1 who is in possession of a portion of the residential accommodation which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. He refers to Section 26 of the D.V.Act and submits that notwithstanding the fact that other proceedings are initiated, the aggrieved person can always invoke the provisions of D.V.Act and seek - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 appropriate relief depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He submits that in the present proceedings, an application under Section 23 of the D.V.Act, seeking interim relief was filed and as an interim measure, the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioners to provide an alternative accommodation to respondent no.1. The said order has not been questioned by the petitioners nor they have provided the alternative premises, on the other hand, they have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings. He submits that taking into consideration that respondent no.1 is not provided with any maintenance by the petitioners, and on the other hand, she was neglected by them after her son had died, in W.P.No.107635/2024, while reserving liberty to respondent no.1 to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, this Court has recorded that a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month is to be paid to respondent no.1 from the date of disposal of W.P.No.107635/2024. He submits that the petition filed under Section 12 of the D.V.Act by the respondents is accompanied by an affidavit and the Domestic Incident Report, which clearly shows the hostile attitude of the petitioners towards respondent no.1. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 7. Section 12 of the D.V.Act provides for making application to the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate by an aggrieved person or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person or a Protection Officer seeking necessary reliefs as provided under the D.V.Act. The Magistrate before whom such an application is filed, before passing any orders on such application, is required to take into consideration the domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. 8. Section 3 of D.V.Act provides for definition of ‘Domestic Violence’. For the purpose of the said Section, any commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute Domestic Violence not only if the same amounts to physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, etc., but even economic abuses including deprivation of any financial resources to the aggrieved person, for which he/she is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of the Court or otherwise. 9. In the case on hand, a reading of the domestic incident report which is filed along with the petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act would go to show that allegations are made about - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 deprivation of properties belonging to respondent no.1 who is the aggrieved person assisted by her daughters who are arrayed as respondent nos.2 & 3 to the proceedings. It is stated that respondent no.1 is the co-owner of the residential-cum- commercial property bearing CTS No.2043 situated near Market at Nippakni and is the owner of the bungalow situated in property bearing Sy. No.39/4B at Nippani. 10. The allegation against the petitioners is that respondent no.1 is deprived of enjoying the bungalow, of which she is the absolute owner and also deprived of the rental income from the properties which have been leased out to various commercial entities. It is under these circumstances, application under Section 23 of the D.V.Act, was filed supported by the affidavit of respondent no.1, wherein specific allegations are found to the aforesaid effect, and it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court has partly allowed the said application filed by the respondents and has directed the petitioners herein to provide an alternative premises for the purpose of residential accommodation of respondent no.1. It is not in dispute that the said order has not been questioned by the petitioners, and on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 the other hand, the present proceedings is initiated with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings before the Trial Court. 11. Section 26 of the D.V.Act, reads as under: “26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.- (1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal Court. (3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.” 12. A reading of sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the D.V.Act would go to show that any relief referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the D.V.Act, may be sought for in addition to and along with the other reliefs that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceedings pending before the Civil or Criminal Court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained since the respondents have already initiated two separate suits claiming relief in respect of properties which are the subject matter of the impugned proceedings, does not merit consideration and in view of Section 26 of the D.V.Act, pendency of such suits cannot be a bar to seek appropriate relief under the provisions of the D.V.Act. 13. It is also relevant to take note of the fact that in W.P.No.107635/2024 which arose from the order passed by the competent authority under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, this Court taking into consideration that the petitioners herein had not provided necessary maintenance to respondent no.1, has recorded the undertaking of the petitioners that they shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent no.1 from the date of order passed in W.P.No.107635/2024 and subject to the said payment, liberty was reserved to respondent no.1 herein to initiate proceedings in accordance with law against the petitioners. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 14. The petitioners have already appeared before the Trial Court through their advocate and the application filed by the respondents under Section 23 of the D.V.Act seeking interim relief was opposed by them by filing objections and the Trial Court by order dated 01.07.2025 has allowed the said application in part and directed the petitioners herein to make alternative arrangement of separate residence to the petitioner in Nippani other than the property bearing No.2043 and has also directed the petitioners to pay security deposit and rentals of the separate residence if the alternative arrangement is made on rental basis. The alternative residential arrangement made to respondent no.1 is in addition to the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month which is required to be paid by the petitioners herein in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.107635/2024. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI VS VIDHI RAWAL – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, in paragraph 35, has observed as under: “35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11392 CRL.P No. 102501 of 2025 to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.” 16. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26