- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No. 705 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI OMAR SHARIFF S/O SULTHAN AKBAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 2. SMT. FARIDA PARVEEN W/O SULTHAN AKBAR SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT No.46 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGARA 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ASMA SULTHANA D/O SYED BABU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDENT OF N. KOTTHURU VILLAGE AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA – 563 125. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G M SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 Cr.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.11.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI IN CRL.A.No.37/2017 WHICH HAS PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINTAMANI IN D.V.C.No.2/2015 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed in Crl.A. No. 37/2017 by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura sitting at Chintamani whereunder the order dated 15.04.2017 passed in DVC No. 2/2015 by Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani has been partly affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 3. Respondent filed petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as the `D.V. Act’) seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the D.V. Act. Petitioners who were the respondents therein appeared through counsel and filed objections. 4. Case of the respondent herein before the trial Court was that she got married with petitioner No. 1 on 12.09.2010 at Chintamani and marriage expenses were borne by her parents and Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the petitioners herein. Apart from that gold ornaments of 500 gms were also given to petitioners and they were worth Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondent went to her matrimonial home and led happy life for one year and gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, petitioners started ill treating the respondent without any justifiable reason, assaulted her and demanded more dowry of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchasing a house at Bengaluru. Petitioners did not provide food and other necessities and in that regard - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 panchayat was held and petitioners were advised by the panchayat members. Panchayat was also held in Jamiaya Masjid on 20.03.2014 and petitioners did not advert to the advice of panchayatdars and deserted the respondent. Thereafter, respondent started residing with her son in her parents’ house. 5. Respondent claimed maintenance stating that her husband is a businessman and being a Samsung Mobile Executive Officer at Bengaluru is earning Rs.30,000 – Rs.50,000/- per month. Petitioners herein have opposed the petition by filing objections and denied the allegation made by respondent except the relationship and marriage. Petitioners have also denied holding of panchayat etc., and commission of any domestic violence. Petitioner No. 1 has contended that he is a sales executive and getting only Rs.10000 – Rs.12,000/- per month. Petitioners contended that as the respondent did not join her husband, he pronounced and gave `talaq’ and therefore, respondent is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 in view of the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 6. Respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. Petitioner No. 1 has been examined as R.W.1, petitioner No.2 has been examined as R.W.2 and one witness is examined as R.W.3 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.17. Considering the evidence on record, hearing arguments and appreciating the evidence on record the trial Court has allowed the petition of the respondent herein and directed the petitioners herein not to commit any sort of domestic violence, awarded Rs.2,500/- per month as rent for separate accommodation, Rs.7,000/- per month as monthly maintenance, Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with legal expenses of Rs.5,000/- and directed petitioners to return golden ornaments to the respondent as contemplated under Section 21 of D.V. Act. Petitioners challenged the said order before the Sessions Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 Crl.A. No. 37/2017. After hearing arguments on both sides the Sessions Judge has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and only reduced monthly maintenance from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. 7. Considering the contention of learned counsel for petitioners the following two points arise for consideration: I. Whether the maintenance awarded by the appellate Court (after reducing maintenance) is on higher side? II. Whether the Magistrate has power to pass order for return of the golden jewelry to the respondent herein under Section 21 of D.V. Act? 8. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence and the appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence on record and rightly held that there was domestic violence and therefore, respondent herein is entitled to maintain the petition under the D.V. Act seeking reliefs. Petitioner No. 1 has produced his pay slips at Ex.R.1 to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 Ex.R.12 which indicate that he is drawing salary of Rs.12,801/- per month. Considering the income of petitioner No.1 – husband, the trial Court has ordered maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month in addition to the interim maintenance granted in C.Misc. No. 686/2014. Both counsel submitted that Rs.2,500/- has been awarded as interim maintenance in C.Misc. No. 686/2014 and said matter is still pending. The trial Court has awarded Rs.7,000/- in addition to interim maintenance granted in C.Misc. No. 686/2014. The appellate Court has reduced the said maintenance from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The appellate Court has taken into consideration that petitioner No.1 is getting income of Rs.12,801/- per month and held that maintenance granted by the trial Court at Rs.7,000/- per month is on higher side and reduced the said maintenance awarded. The respondent has not challenged the judgment passed by the appellate Court under which maintenance has been reduced. Maintenance awarded by the appellate Court (after - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 reduction), in a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month is based on the income of petitioner No. 1. In addition to the said maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month respondent is also entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month which is awarded in C.Misc. No. 686/2014. In C.Misc. No. 686/2014 interim maintenance has been awarded to respondent in a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.750/- to her child. Considering the said aspect as per the appellate Court’s judgment the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs.4,000 + Rs.1,500/-. Considering the said aspect and income of petitioner No.1 it cannot be said to be on higher side. Accordingly point No. I is answered. 9. Respondent has claimed return of golden ornaments given at the time of her marriage to the petitioners. Petitioners herein have taken up the defence that golden ornaments mentioned in Ex.R.17 have been returned by the petitioners herein to the brother of respondent and he has given endorsement to that effect - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 as per Ex.R.17. Said endorsement as per Ex.R.17 has been disputed by the respondent herein. Considering the said aspect the trial Court has ordered for return of golden ornaments by exercising power under Section 21 of the D.V. Act. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that Section 21 of the D.V. Act does not provide for passing of order directing petitioners for return of gold ornaments. Said provision only pertains to custody of child. It is relevant to extract the said Section 21 of the D.V. Act and it reads thus: “21. Custody orders.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent: Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that any visit of the respondent may be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 harmful to the interests of the child or children, the Magistrate shall refuse to allow such visit.” 11. On meticulous reading of Section 21 of the D.V. Act it does not provide for passing of any order for return of gold ornaments. Said Section deals with custody of child or children. Learned Magistrate has passed the said order for returning of golden ornaments by referring to Section 21 of D.V. Act. As Section 21 of the D.V. Act does not provide for return of golden ornaments, learned Magistrate has erred in ordering return of golden ornaments. The appellate Court also did not meticulously consider the said aspect and erred in affirming the said order for return of golden ornaments. Therefore, the said order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court to that extent requires to be set aside. Respondent has to be given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court/forum seeking return of golden ornaments against the petitioners. Accordingly, point No. II is answered. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27423 CRL.RP No. 705 of 2022 12. In view of foregoing reasons, the following; O R D E R I. Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. II. The order passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court in respect of directing the petitioners herein to return the golden ornaments is set aside. III. Other reliefs granted by the trial Court and affirmed/ modified by the appellate Court shall remain undisturbed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE LRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 Ct.sm