- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100158 OF 2022 [397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)] BETWEEN: MANJUNATH GIRIMALLAPPA JALI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. BSF SERVICE, R/O. MUTTALADINI, BILAGI, BAGALKOTE-587101. … PETITIONER (BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. BHAGAVVA W/O. MAJUNATH JALI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUTTALADINNI, BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587101. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH UNDER SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.81/2013, DATED 24.07.2017, BY PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE REVERSING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.06.2013, BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BILAGI, AT BILAGI AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER IN CR.MISC.NO.109/2011, DATED 20.06.2013, BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BILAGI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.02.24 17:37:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI) Challenging judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Appeal no.81/2013, this revision petition was filed. 2. Sri RH Angadi, learned counsel for petitioner submitted brief facts leading to this revision petition were that respondent was claiming to be wife of petitioner had filed application before Child Development and Project Officer, Bilagi (CDPO) on 24.08.2011 alleging domestic violence by petitioner and his family members and seeking various reliefs. On being forwarded to Court, it was registered as application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short ‘DV Act’) as Crl.Misc.no.109/2011 and notice issued. 3. On appearance, petitioner filed objections and opposed application as false and frivolous and not maintainable on ground that she was not his legally wedded wife. In view of above, subjecting respondent to any domestic violence. It was stated that father of petitioner and mother of respondent were brother and sister. Being daughter of maternal uncle, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 respondent was claiming to be petitioner’s wife, without actual marital relationship. It was stated as petitioner was serving in Military and having only 15 days of leave a year, with intention to grab his money, she had filed false application. Her assertion that her marriage with petitioner had taken place during their childhood was vehemently denied. 4. It was further stated that alleging petitioner had committed dowry harassment, respondent and her family members had filed complaint on 06.09.2010 before Bilagi Police Station, which was registered as CC.no.26/2011. Simultaneously, it appears she had filed application before CDPO. It was further submitted respondent’s mother had filed O.S.no.107/2010 for partition. Disturbed by it, respondent had filed false application with sole intention of harassment. Hence, sought rejection of application. 5. Based on objections, Domestic Court framed following points for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner proves that petitioner and respondent live in a shared household and the relationship in the nature of marriage as alleged? 2) Whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for maintenance, compensation, protection as well as residential orders as claimed? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 3) What order? 6. To substantiate her case, petitioner examined herself and another as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6. In rebuttal, respondent examined himself as RW-1, but did not mark any documents. 7. On consideration, points no.1 and 2 in negative and point no.3 in dismissing petition. Aggrieved, respondent filed Crl.Appeal.no.81/2013 under Section 29 of DV Act, on various grounds. Based on same, Appellate Court framed following points: 1. Whether the appellant/petitioner proves that the trial Court has committed serious error in dismissing the petition? 2. Whether the interference of this Court is required? 3. What order? 8. On consideration, it answered points no.1 and 2 in affirmative and point no.3 by allowing petition, setting aside judgment passed by trial Court and directing petitioner herein to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- from date of petition. Aggrieved, present Revision Petition was filed. 9. At outset, it was submitted revision petition against divergent findings. While, trial Court had on proper appreciation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 of material on record had dismissed application filed by respondent herein, Appellate Court had without justification allowed appeal and reversed findings. 10. Admittedly, there was serious dispute about existence of marital relationship between petitioner and respondent and even when respondent failed to establish same by cogent material, there was no justification for appellate Court to allow appeal. It was submitted, only material produced by respondent was Ex.P1 – Record of Rights, Ex.P2 – House Extract, Exs.P3 and P4 – Hakkupatras of plot no.A-717 and B- 159 were merely a property records. Whereas, respondent produced Ex.P5 – Identity Card of respondent and Ex.P6 – Voter’s list of Muttaladinni Gram Panchayat. But, same would not corroborate of contention of respondent about marriage. 11. It was submitted, though respondent had examined priest as PW.2, but there was no well worth statements of witness about marriage, therefore, statement of said witness was not sufficient to come to conclusion about marriage between respondent and petitioner. It was submitted that even believing version of respondent about marriage but none of relatives were examined nor any single photos were produced - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 to substantiate same. It was submitted that even respondent has also failed to examine any independent witness of villagers either to substantiate her case but failure to establish with supportive material would create suspicion and doubt about marriage. 12. It was submitted in order to wreck vengeance for having denial of share to her mother, present case was filed. Apart from above, several other cases were also filed in order to make petitioner and their family members run from pillar to post. It was submitted, when petitioner denied marriage with respondent, burden to establish same would be on respondent as it would be a jurisdictional aspect. 13. While allowing appeal, Appellate Court wrongly cast said burden upon petitioner, same resulted in passing of impugned order. Further, during her cross-examination, she categorically admitted her ignorance about date of marriage and had also failed to produce marriage certificate or invitation card to corroborate her claim. Even failure to examine any relative or resident of village ought to have attracted adverse inference. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 14. It was submitted that there were no evidence produced to substantiate about petitioner and their family members had either ill-treated or harassment. It was submitted appellate Court was not justified in coming to conclusion by granting maintenance without appreciating material on record. It was submitted criminal case filed against petitioner, came to be acquitted on ground that respondent failed to establish her marriage with petitioner. That apart, without any material about petitioner married respondent was without any substance and claim for maintenance was unsustainable. 15. It was lastly submitted, respondent herein had filed complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections 498(A), 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC against petitioner in C.C.no.26/2011, had while giving finding on allegation of dowry harassment, held marriage of petitioner with respondent was not proved. And that said finding had attained finality. And said finding would bind parties in these proceedings as well. On above grounds sought for allowing petition and setting aside impugned judgment. 16. On other hand Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel appearing for Shivaraj S. Ballolli, advocate for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 respondent opposed petition, contending there was no dispute that father of petitioner was brother of respondent’s mother. It was submitted petitioner married respondent when she was fifteen years of age, which claim was corroborated by deposition of PW-2, who stated that he witnessed her marriage with petitioner. In case, petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have sought declaration. As petitioner or family members failed to look after her and instead ill-treated her, she filed application before CDPO. 17. It was submitted trial Court dismissed petition without appreciating evidence on record. Whereas, Appellate Court on detailed consideration reversed same. While passing impugned judgment, Appellate Court observed though marriage was in contravention of Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, but as PW.2 had deposed about marriage with respondent and at instance of elders cannot be considered invalid or declared null and void. 18. It was submitted, appellate Court observed as per Section 18 of Hindu Marriage Act, performance of marriage during minority merely attracts penal consequences and held respondent as legally wedded wife of petitioner. It was submitted, even to substantiate about respondent residing with - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 petitioner, she produced Exs.P.5 – Identity card and Ex.P.6 – Voters list. But during cross-examination there was neither suggestion nor any documents produced to discredit statement of respondent or Exs.P.5 and P.6. Even same would establish respondent was residing with petitioner. Since no such relief was sought, there would be presumption in favour of valid marriage. 19. It was submitted, considering contention of validity of marriage and residence with respondent, appellate Court had rightly allowed petition granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-. Though on above grounds sought dismissal of revision petition, learned counsel however fairly submitted that judgment in proceedings under DV Act has attained finality. 20. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and order and records. 21. From above, point that would arises for consideration is: “Whether impugned judgment passed by appellate Court calls for interference?” 22. This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC assailing divergent findings in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act. While there would be no dispute about summary, nature of enquiry in proceedings under DV Act and that street proof of marriage would not be necessary, as well as about extremely limited scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction, it would be equally principle of law that findings of Courts between same parties would bind them in subsequent proceedings. 23. In this regard counsel for petitioner has sought to rely upon order dated 14.10.2015 by Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi in C.C.no.26/2011 to contend that finding was recorded on Point no.4 that petitioner was not husband of respondent herein. 24. Point no.4 in said matter reads: “4) Whether the prosecution proves that, the accused No.1 being husband and Accused No.2 to 5 being relatives of husband subjected the complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically and thereby they have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 498(A) of IPC?” 25. While passing final judgment it is held there was failure to satisfactorily prove marriage between respondent and petitioner herein. Said finding having been recorded in ancillary proceedings would bind both parties, unless upset by - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3732 CRL.RP No. 100158 of 2022 declaratory findings in regular proceedings. Since counsel for respondent was unable to demonstrate that findings proceedings under DV Act were either questioned or upset by declaratory findings in regular proceedings, would bind these proceedings also. Hence, point for consideration requires to be answered in affirmative. Consequently, following: ORDER Revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Criminal Appeal no.81/2013 is set aside. Judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi at Bilagi in Crl.Misc.no.109/2011 is restored. SD/- (RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD,RH CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51