- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.170 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. B.N. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE NANJAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.211/15, BANAHALLI, SURYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, CHANDAPURA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, ATTIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU – 562 106. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. E.R.PANKAJAMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. NAGALAKSHMI. N W/O.B.N.SRINIVAS, NOW AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, GARDNER, FLOWRICAL SECTION, HOTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.K. SHIVA PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE IN CRL.A.NO.372/2017 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE M.M.T.C.-II COURT, BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.NO.413/2011 DATED 31.01.2017. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.372/2017 by the LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court thereby confirming the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.413/2011 by the Court of the MMTC – II, Bengaluru. 2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent, who filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘PWDV Act’) seeking maintenance, restraint orders, damages, etc., and other reliefs. The said petition having been contested by the petitioner, the Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 directing the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and further restrained / prohibited the petitioner from committing any act of domestic violence upon the respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the First Appellate Court which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 the impugned orders, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in order to establish her claim, the respondent examined herself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to P30 were marked on her behalf while the petitioner examined himself as RW1 and Exhibits R1 to R7 were marked on his behalf. The Trial Court took into account the pleadings and evidence of the parties, in particular, the unimpeached, uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with the various discrepancies, inconsistencies, contradictions and admissions in the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner in order to come to the conclusion that the respondent was partly entitled to the reliefs sought for by her by holding as under: “7. On basis of the above mentioned averments the following points do arise for my consideration: 1. Whether petitioner proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence upon her as alleged? - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 2. Whether the petitioner prove that she is entitled for the reliefs as sought for? 3. What order? 8. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P. 1 to 30. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.R. 1 to R.7. 9. I have heard both sides. Perused the entire records, my answer to the above framed points are as follows: Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final orders for the following: REASONS 10. Point Nos.1 & 2:- It is averred from the petition that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 28.10.2009 at KCS party hall, Anjaneya Nagar, Bengaluru. It is alleged that the respondent’s first wife expired in the year 2008, after her demise the respondent has got married with the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that they have started their marital life in the house of respondent where the children of the first wife children were also residing in the said house. The respondent and his first wife children used to harass the petitioner to bring more money from her parents and also gold articles. It was further alleged that the respondent used to abuse her in filthy language and tried to commit attempt to murder of the petitioner two times i.e., on 18.12.2009 and 23.5.2010. The respondent totally - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 neglected the petitioner to provide basic necessities for her livelihood. The respondent had thrown out the petitioner that she should bring the dowry of Rs. 1 lakh from her parents house. Thereafter the petitioner has lodged the police complaint on 2.6.2011 and 10.6.2011. The respondent has not bothered about the petitioner and simply keeping away from the petitioner. Hence all these grounds the petitioner approached this court seeking the relief under provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005. 11. In order to establish the petition averments the petitioner entered into the witness box and filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief and examined herself as PW-1. She has produced the copy of sale deeds which was the transaction taken place about the sale of property belongs to the respondent. The sale deed were executed by the respondents and his first wife’s son. These documents are produced to show that the respondent is having landed property and out of which he is selling the land for valid consideration and he is having financial capacity to pay the maintenance and compensation as claimed in the petition. That apart, the petitioner has also stated that the respondent is working as gardener at floricle section and getting monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and also getting rental income of Rs. 10,000/- per month and having landed property at Hindupura. 12. The PW-1 has been cross examined, it was suggested that the first wife son of respondent is residing at Karthriguppe. Further she has admitted that the daughter of the respondent is also residing at Kakkadasapura. Further, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 the respondent alone residing separately. The petitioner though stated that the respondent first wife’s children have also harassed her for want of dowry, but same cannot be acceptable because the respondent’s first wife son is residing separately along with his family and her daughter is also residing separately in her husband’s house. When they are residing in their respective houses, it is impossible accept the allegation made by the petitioner that they have also harassed the petitioner for want of dowry that too the petitioner has got married the respondent after demise of first wife of respondent. Under such circumstances, the children of the respondent both were grown up and they have married. Therefore, at no starch of imagination that they have harassed the petitioner. 13. Further it was suggested to the PW-1 in the cross-examination that even the respondent is ready to take back the petitioner to lead marital life, but the petitioner has expressed that the respondent has already taken her for two times by assuring that he will look after her well, but he failed to maintain and provide basic necessities to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has not ready to go back along with him. 14. PW-1 has also produced the copy of complaint which was lodged before Girinagar police on 28.11.2011 and FIR of Hebbagodi police in Cr. No. 511/2012 and charge sheet filed by the Hebbagodi police against the respondent for dowry harassment. These documents prima facie establish that the petitioner somehow subjected to harassment at the hands of the respondent. On the other - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 hand, the respondent is examined as RW-1 and also stated that he never harassed the petitioner as alleged by her. Even he has clearly stated to her at the time marriage except his job he is not having any property. The petitioner herself harassed the respondent stating that the house which was taken on rent from his son has to be transferred to her name. When the respondent refused to get the house to her name, the petitioner started to harassing the respondent saying that she will file false complaint and she will tried to commit suicide by saying that she will make the respondent and his children to stand on the street. The petitioner is again and again filing false complaint to spoil the future of the respondent and his children. Now the respondent is residing alone and due to his ill health he remained absent to his job. Hence, the department had compulsorily retired him on 9.4.2015. Even today the respondent is ready to lead married life with the petitioner. 15. The RW-1 has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he has admitted that he is having property at Sy. No. 15, measuring 28 guntas at Banahalli, but denied the suggestion that he is also having landed property at Andra Pradesh Marakashira, but he states that the said property is belongs to his daughter and son which was inherited by them to a will. Further admitted that presently he is working as Poojari at Anjaneya temple, Bennahalli village. But denied the suggestion that he is getting Rs. 30,000/- per month as remunarization. Further it is elicited form the cross-examination that he has sold out the site for Rs. 75 lakhs in Sy. No. 51, Banahalli village. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 Further it is also elicited from the photo Ex.P.27 that the respondent is also doing purohit job. Though the respondent has stated that the house appears in Exs.P. 27 to 29 belongs to his brother, but it is not acceptable because the name of the respondent is affixed on the wall of said house. Even otherwise if the house is belongs to brother of the respondent, the respondent has to provide accommodation maintenance to the petitioner for her basic necessities. Considering all the documents available on record, it appears that the petitioner was deserted and the respondent is not paying any maintenance for her livelihood which clearly goes to show that the respondent has caused Domestic Violence upon the petitioner. 16. Point No.2: The present petitioner in this case has sought for to pass protection order against the respondent not to insult, abusive languages, disturbing the petitioner at her residential house or sending message through phone or calling the petitioner through phone, to pass monthly maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- to the petitioner, damages of Rs. 5 lakhs to return all the jewelleries, cash and other articles and litigation expenses of Rs. 1 lakh. 17. The petitioner has produced 30 documents. However, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that the respondent is receiving rental income of Rs.10,000/- and also drawing salary of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner has produced the copy of sale deed to show that the respondent sold his properties and earned money. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent is now retired from his service that too compulsory retirement. However, the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 respondent is doing Poojari job and also sold landed properties through various sale deeds. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable if Rs. 10,000/- per month is ordered in favour of the petitioner towards food, clothes, shelter, medication and other basic necessities and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental and emotional distress caused by the respondent. Hence, I answer the point no.2 partly in affirmative. 18. Point No.3: In view of the reasons and discussions made above, the petitioner is entitled for the following reliefs. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act-2005 is hereby disposed of as follows: The respondent is hereby directed to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand only) per month including food, clothes, shelter, medication, rent and other basic necessities to the petitioner from the date of petition till her lifetime. The respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1 lakh within one month from the date of this order. The respondent or their men are hereby prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner. The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioner in enforcing the order. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 The office is directed to issue free copy of the order to both parties.” 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court will also indicate that the various contentions of both sides and material on record were properly and correctly considered and appreciated by the First Appellate Court, which also confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and accordingly proceeded to dismiss the appeal by holding as under: “8. Now, following are the points arising for determination: 1. Whether appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring this appeal within the period of limitation? 2. Whether impugned order is sustainable in law? 3. Whether interference of this court is warranted/necessitated? 4. What Order? 9. It is answered for the aforesaid points as under:- Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: As per final order below, for the following:- R E A S O N S 10. POINT NO. 1:- Perused the application filed U/s.5 of Limitation Act. In the application, appellant contended that, appellant being aged unable to keep track on the case and could not contact his advocate to know about - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 pronouncement of impugned order. Due to applying and obtaining certified copies, to make financial arrangements to prefer appeal, there was delay in filing this appeal. Even though the grounds stated in the application is not supported by any documents, to provide an opportunity to the appellant to exhaust his right to prefer an appeal, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Hence, I.A.No.I filed U/s.5 of Limitation Act deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, point No.1 answered in the affirmative. 11. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- These points are taken together to avoid repeated discussions. 12. Perused the entire order sheet, petition filed U/s.12 of PWDV Act, affidavit of petitioner, written arguments of petitioner and respondent, counter filed on behalf of the 7 Crl.A.No.372/2017 respondent, evidence of petitioner and the respondent, documents marked on behalf of the petitioner and respondent. Perused the Domestic Incident Report submitted by the Protection Officer. 13. In the petition filed U/s.12 of PWDV Act, petitioner prayed monthly maintenance of Rs.12,000/-, damages of Rs.5,00,000/-, litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- and direct to return all the jewelleries, cash and other articles, and other reliefs. 14. To prove the allegation made in the petition, petitioner examined herself as Pw.1, produced documents exhibited at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. To disprove the allegation made by the petitioner against the respondent, respondent examined himself as Rw.1 and got marked 7 documents at - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7. Considering the ingredients of exhibited documents, trial court directed the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner for food, cloth and shelter, rent and other basic necessities to the petitioner from the date of petition till her life time. Respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. A protection order is passed, prohibiting the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner, as well prohibited from aiding or abetting any act of domestic violence upon the petitioner. The jurisdictional police are directed to assist the petitioner in enforcing the order. 15. Perused the reasons assigned by the trial court to arrive for the conclusion. Compared the same with the allegations made in the memorandum of appeal. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, weighing documentary evidence produced by the both the parties, trial court disposed of application filed by the appellant. Impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is perfectly justifiable as same is passed by keeping the object behind enacting PWDV Act. Women has to be protected from all type of domestic violence. Considering the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and considering his source and earnings, respondent is directed to pay maintenance and compensation. Husband is liable to pay maintenance to his wife, even though she is earning. In this case, respondent has not produced any document to show that, petitioner is employed. There is no merit in the allegation made by the appellant against impugned order of the trial court. Hence, direction of the trial court is not called - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 for any interference by this court. Impugned order of the trial court is sustainable in law. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 in the Negative. 16. POINT NO.3 :- In view of findings on the above points No.1 and 2, this appeal is to be dismissed. Hence, following order is made: O R D E R Criminal Appeal filed U/Sec.29 of PWDV Act R/w. section 386 and 397 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. Consequently, impugned order dated 31.1.2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.413/2011 on the file of II- MMTC.,Court, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. Trial court is hereby directed to take steps as per Section 20(3)(4) of PWDV Act, 2005 by sending copy of this judgment to the in-charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdictional petitioner resides. Office is directed to send back L.C.R. along with certified copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.” 7. Upon re-consideration, re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in the present - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6177 CRL.P No. 170 of 2023 petition. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in the present petition and that the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27