- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1398 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PARTHA SARATHI SENGUPTA S/O SUBRATA SENGUPTA,AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 2084, SOBHA HRC PRISTINE APARTMENT, JAKKUR LAYOUT AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 092 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARU KATIYAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUSHA GANESAN, ADVOCATE) AND: MEDINI PANDEY W/O PARTHA SARATHI SENGUPTA AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A FLAT NO.V-301, JASMINE TOWER 5, ADARSH PALM RETREAT BELLANDUR BENGALURU - 560 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. TARUNN SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 03.04.2025 PASSED BY THE JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI) BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.MISC.NO.7/2025 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE COURT, BANGALORE CITY IN CRL.A.NO.774/2025 BY ORDER DTD 04.09.2025. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is against the order dismissing the application seeking stay of the order passed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act, 2005'). 3. The Trial Court in a proceeding under the Act, 2005 has allowed the application filed by the wife, who is the petitioner before the Trial Court and directed the respondent/husband to pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards rent, Rs.5,000/- per month towards the building maintenance and to pay Rs.3,60,000/- towards security deposit for the rental accommodation. 4. A direction is also issued to the respondent to pay electricity and water charges on production of bills till the disposal of the case. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Appellate Court is not justified in rejecting the application for stay of the aforementioned order. It is his submission that on 14.01.2025, the respondent-wife moved out of the residential accommodation where husband and wife lived till 10.10.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband had to move out of the premises in the month of October, 2024 on account of difference of opinion and incompatibility between the husband and wife and since, then he has been staying either in the hostel or with his sister in Bengaluru. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that thereafter, the wife continued to live in the residence where the husband and wife lived together till 10.10.2024 and thereafter, on her own wife left the accommodation and thereafter, she has filed a petition seeking financial assistance and the Trial Court without considering the contention as to whether the act of the husband amounts to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 domestic violence or not has allowed the application and passed the order. 8. It is also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Court has also not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in proper perspective and rejected the application for stay of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner per se has no objection to provide an accommodation but his grievance is in respect of order directing payment of Rs.30,000/- per month as ordered by the Trial Court towards rent. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent at present is staying in a charitable shelter home and she has no accommodation of her own and husband is under obligation to provide accommodation to the wife. It is his further submission that petitioner/husband has also filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage which is pending consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. To the pointed question put by the Court as to whether the respondent is having her own residence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no residence of her own but she is consistently visiting her former husband who has a residence. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent-wife is having two children from her former husband and the former husband is having visiting rights to visit the kids and as such, the wife often has to take her kids to the former husband in compliance of visiting rights. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that the children are with the former husband and the wife has visiting rights. 15. In any case, what emerges from the facts narrated above is that the respondent is not having a residence of her own and she has already divorced her former husband and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 terms of divorce do not provide for residence to the respondent/wife. 16. It is also noticed that petitioner has no grievance to provide accommodation but his grievance is only relating to the rent amount ordered by the Trial Court. 17. Again to the pointed question by the Court as to how much rent the petitioner was paying in respect of earlier accommodation where he stayed with the respondent-wife. It is submitted that the petitioner was paying Rs.1,35,000/- towards rent. 18. Considering the living standard of the petitioner and the respondent before separation, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court to pay rent of Rs.30,000/- to the wife and Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance and further direction to pay electricity and water charges, are not the orders which require interference, that too in a proceeding where the order rejecting the interlocutory application stay application is called in question before this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38571 CRL.RP No. 1398 of 2025 19. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31