- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100119 OF 2025 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SUBHAS S/O. VEMANNA KUMBAR @ CHOUDI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAVADI, TALUK: RON, DIST. GADAG-582209. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GIRIJA W/O. SUBHAS KUMBAR @ CHOUDI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YELBURGA, TALUK: YELBURGA, DIST. KOPPAL-583236. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REV PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 R/W. 442 OF BNSS 2023, SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, FTSC-1 AT KOPPAL IN CRLA. NO 16/2022 WHICH CONFIRMED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.05.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC YELBURGA IN DVP CRL.MISC NO. 79/2019 WHICH FILED UNDER SECTIONS 12, 18, 19 AND 20 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 AND DISMISS CRL.MISC NO. DVP CRL.MISC. NO. 79/2019 WHICH FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.R.H.Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Revision petition is filed by the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.79/2019 dated 10.05.2022. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: 3.1. Respondent and petitioner are wife and husband. Since the respondent was thrown out of the shared residence, she filed an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’ for short). 3.2. It is contended that on 10.02.1989, in Shri Adavi Siddheshwar Matha, Ankalgi, marriage of respondent and revision petitioner took place as per the rites and customs. Thereafter, in the wed lock, four children were born and of which, three are sons and one is daughter by name - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 Jayalakshmi. Jayalakshmi was married but she died in her matrimonial house. For the purpose of education of the children, a house was obtained on rent by the respondent and she was meeting the education expenses of the children. Revision petitioner used to visit the house once in 15 days. 3.3. It is alleged that revision petitioner is a rate drunkard and in the guise of obtaining LIC Policy (Life Insurance Corporation), petitioner has extracted signature of the respondent on blank papers under the threat of life. 3.4. It is also alleged that revision petitioner contracted second marriage with Shantavva D/o. Amarappa Kumbar, resident of Udamakkal Village of Gangavati Taluk on 03.06.2010 in Suremmana Kolla of Belagavi District. 3.5. In that regard, respondent has also lodged a criminal complaint which is now pending in CC No.91/2014 for the offence of committing Bigamy. 3.6. When the matter stood thus, revision petitioner herein failed to look after the respondent and therefore, action was sought under the DV Act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 4. On contest, petition came to be allowed by granting protection order and sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered as monthly maintenance, sum of Rs.10,000/- is ordered towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing the Domestic Violence. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petition filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.16/2022. 6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail and by considered judgment dated 18.09.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court, in this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly passed the impugned judgments resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgments. 10. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, relationship between the parties is not in dispute, so also the children born in the wed lock. However, according to the revision petitioner, since a false case was filed by the respondent for the offence of Bigamy, he is not obliged to maintain her. 12. It is also case of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that respondent voluntarily went out from her matrimonial house and therefore, there is no question of domestic violence nor respondent being pushed out from the shared residence and sought for allowing the revision petition. 13. To substantiate the said aspect of the matter, there is no material on record placed by the revision petitioner. 14. In fact, on contest, since the petition came to be allowed by the learned Trial Magistrate, taking into - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 consideration the pendency of the criminal case and also taking into consideration the oral testimony of P.W.2 and 3, who are the elder brother and a independent witness by name Sangameshwar, learned Trial Magistrate has ordered grant of maintenance and for proof of domestic violence and also compensation. 15. While so ordering the compensation, learned Trial Magistrate took into consideration the property held by the revision petitioner in Sy.No.269/1/2 of Savadi village. Therefore, order of the learned Trial Magistrate is just and proper. 16. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court not only upheld the order of learned Trial Magistrate but also supplemented reasons for sustaining the order of the learned Trial Magistrate by following the principles of law enunciated in the case of Bhuwan Mohan singh v. Meena and Others reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 3979 and Saygo Bai v. Chueeru Bajrangi reported in 2011 Crl.L.J.1007. 17. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court also took into consideration the principles of law enunciated by this Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 in the case of C.R.Manjunath v. Smt.Pushpa and Another reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3441 to the effect that even in case, when wife is voluntarily leaving the house, grant of maintenance cannot be denied. 18. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that grounds urged in the revision petition are hardly sufficient to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by both the Courts. Accordingly, revision petition needs to be dismissed. 19. However, the submission of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that petitioner is prepared to settle the land in favour of the respondent which would fall to his share, suitable directions are to be issued. 20. Thus, it is always open for the revision petitioner to make such an offer in the execution petition if any, filed by the respondent. 21. Reserving such liberty for the revision petitioner, following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6755 CRL.RP No. 100119 of 2025 ORDER Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 14