- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.556 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KUM. BHAVANA N D/O SRI. NAGARAJU S, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1/9, SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, NEAR BALDWIN SCHOOL, MUNESHWARA NAGAR, HEROHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 091 ALSO AT NO.466, 2ND 'C' MAIN ROAD, MARILINGAPPA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.CLIFTON D' ROZARIO FOR SMT.SRUTI.C.CHAGANTI, ADVOCATES) AND: SRI. NAGARAJU S S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 002 RESIDING AT NO. 1420/A, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SANDESH.J.CHOUTA, SR.COUNSEL AND SRI.ABHISHEK.K, ADVOCATE) - 2 - THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-60) AT BENGALURU, IN CRL.A.NO.121/2025 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-N AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI C.A.V ORDER This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is by the daughter of respondent, challenging judgment and order dated 12.02.2025 in Crl.A.No.121/2025 on the file of 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said appeal filed by respondent came to be allowed, by setting aside the order dated 04.12.2024 in Crl.Misc.49/2024 on the file of MMCT-III Bengaluru (Trial Court for short). 2. By order dated 04.12.2024 the trial Court granted maintenance @ 15,000/- pm, in favour of the petitioner from the date of order till disposal of the petition. - 3 - 3. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the impugned order passed by the sessions Court is unsustainable in law and on facts. The learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself on the ratio in the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Crl.R.P.Nos.795/2015 C/w 103/2015 (Kalasegowda Vs. Netravathi). It was a petition filed by the wife seeking maintenance for herself and on behalf her children. While interpreting the word child as define in Section 2(d)of the protection of women from domestic Act ('DV Act' for short) it was held that it would not include major unmarried daughter. However, it was not held that an unmarried major daughter is not an aggrieved person. 3.1 The learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself of the ratio in the judgment of Naimulla Sheik and came to the wrong conclusion that maintenance cannot be granted to unmarried and adult daughter under Section 20 of DV Act. In fact, on a thorough reading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts it is held that the relief under DV act was supplementary to and not - 4 - in derogatory to the reliefs available to the aggrieved person and that an unmarried adult daughter is entitled to monetary reliefs under Section 20 of DV Act. 3.2 The right of a daughter to seek maintenance from her father even after attaining majority until her marriage has statutory force in the light of the Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act. Consequently, petitioner being an aggrieved person is entitled to maintain petition under Section 12 of DV Act. 3.3 The Sessions Judge also completely ignored the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi. He has also completely misdirected himself as to the object and scope of DV Act, which is provided for protection for married women from the domestic violence from husband and relatives of her husband. The Sessions Judge has also erred in holding that petitioner is not entitled for maintenance as neither she nor her mother were residing with the respondent after divorce of respondent and the mother of the petitioner. The Sessions Judge has also erred in reversing the order passed by the trial Court and hence the petition. - 5 - 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: i) Church of South India Trust Association Vs. Sampangiraman (Church of South India Trust Assn.)1 ii) Sri.G.Kalasegowda Vs. Smt.N.K.Nethravathi (G.Kalasegowda)2 iii) Nagshetty Vs. Aruna (Nagshetty)3 iv) Naimulla Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Ors. (Naimulla Sheikh)4 v) Samsur Uddin Laskar Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.(Samsur Uddin Laskar)5 vi) Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Prabha Tyagi)6 vii) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (Rajnesh)7 viii) Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Anr.(Union Territory of Ladakh)8 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that petitioner filed Crl.Misc. 49/2024 under Sections 12, 18 to 20 and 22 of the DV Act, seeking several reliefs, including maintenance. she 1 1978 SCC Online Kar 268 2 Crl.RP.No.795/2015 c/w Crl.RP.No.1031/2015 Dt:23.08.2023 3 2018 SCC Online 2998 4 2024 SCC Online All 163 5 MANU/GH/1099/2023; (2024) 214 PLR 32 6 (2022) 8 SCC 90 7 (2021) 2 SCC 324 8 2023 SCC Online SC 1140 - 6 - also sought for interim maintenance. The marriage of Dhanalakshmi the mother of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 12.12.1999. Initially they stayed in the house of brother of respondent at Guddahalli for 2 years. Later they shifted to the maternal house of Dhanalakshmi at Sunkadakatte. Through the wedlock petitioner and a son Darshan were born. They have secured divorce in MC No.1421/2011. In G and WC No.208/2011, the custody of children were given to the respondent. After the divorce both Dhanalakshmi and respondent remarried other persons and settled. 5.1 Alleging that after the Second marriage of Smt.Dhanalakshmi, petitioner and her brother are living with her grandparents, petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.49/2025 under the provisions of DV Act and secured an order of interim maintenance, which came to be set aside by the Sessions Court against which this petition is filed. 5.2 In the petition under the provisions of DV Act filed by the petitioner there are no allegations of domestic violence against the petitioner by the respondent. The entire allegations are with regard to her mother - 7 - Dhanalakshmi which are baseless. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person and as such the provisions of DV Act are not applicable. Petitioner is a major and practising advocate and she is having sufficient income to maintain herself. Respondent is having a minor daughter through his second marriage. 5.3 Petitioner has also filed O.S.No.373/2024 before the Family Court, Bengaluru under Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance and marriage expenses. Petitioner and her mother filed Crl.Misc.No.245/2023 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance. It was dismissed for non prosecution. The said fact is not disclosed by her in the petition. The directions in Rajnesh are also not followed. 5.4 The mother of petitioner has executed a gift deed dated 18.01.2019 in respect of agriculture land in Sy.No.235/2. In order to project as though she is not living with her mother, petitioner executed gift cancellation deed dated 10.06.2019. In all these records, the husband's name of Dhanalakshmi is stated as Shivakumar. In the present petition, petitioner is - 8 - projecting as though she became aware of her mother second marriage with Shivakumar in 2023. The photographs produced by the respondent clearly indicates that petitioner and her brother are living with their mother. In fact in Crl.Misc.No.245/2023, petitioner has clearly stated that she is living with her mother and brother. These proceeding are initiated by the petitioner and her mother to harass the respondent. As a major daughter petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs under the provisions of DV Act and pray to reject the petition. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the following decisions: i) Abhilasha Vs. Parkash (Abhilasha)9 ii) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (Rajnesh)10 iii) Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary (Mary Pushpam)11 iv) Leonard Xavier Valdaris Vs. Jitendra Ramnarayan Rathod (Leonard Xavier Valdaris)12 7. Heard arguments and perused the records. 9 (2021) 13 SCC 99 10 (2021) 2 SCC 324 11 (2024) 3 SCC 224 12 2024 SCC Online All 163 - 9 - 8. The undisputed facts are that the marriage between respondent and Dhanalakshmi, the mother of petitioner was solemnized on 12.12.1999 and petitioner and her brother were born through the said wedlock. It is contended by the respondent that he purchased a site measuring 50 x 33 ft in the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi and constructed 6 houses, out of which 5 houses are let out and Dhanalakshmi is collecting the said rent. Respondent has alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage, Dhanalakshmi developed illicit relationship with one of her tenant Shivakumar (who was a married person) and married him. Petitioner and her brother are residing with them. 9. It is also alleged by the respondent that when he came to know about their illicit relationship, Dhanalakshmi chose to file a false complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in S.C.No.236/2013 and ultimately, he was acquitted. Only when the mother and wife of Shivakumar lodged complaints against Shivakumar, respondent came to know - 10 - about the illicit relationship. He has also filed suit in O.S.No.201/2010 against Dhanalakshmi, restraining her from alienating the said property. He has also secured a decree of divorce in M.C.No.1421/2011 and remarried. He has also secured custody of petitioner and her brother in G & WC.No.208/2011, which was an ex-parte order. Misc.No.30/2023 filed for recalling the said order came to be dismissed on 30.07.2024 as it was barred by limitation, i.e, filed after 3660 days. However, he could not take the physical custody of their children as they refused to go with him. According to the respondent Crl.Misc.No.240/2023 filed by petitioner, her brother and mother Smt.Dhanalakshmi against respondent is dismissed for non-prosecution. 10. In this backdrop, in O.S.No.373/2024 filed under Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, petitioner has sought maintenance at Rs.30,000/- p.m., Rs.30 lakhs as marriage expenses and Rs.50 lakhs as compensation towards mental agony and it is pending. Petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.49/2024 under D.V Act and - 11 - secured ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and at the final disposal of the said interim applications, interim maintenance is granted at Rs.15,000/- p.m. However, the Sessions Court allowed Crl.A.No.121/2025 filed by respondent against this order and thereby the order passed by the trial Court came to be set aside, mainly on the ground that as per the decision in Naimullah Sheikh, if an issue does not pertain to maintenance, the independent rights are available to the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the D.V Act and in the matter of maintenance to unmarried or adult member, the DV Act is not applicable. 11. The Sessions Court also held that in Kalase Gowda, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that Section 20 of the DV Act is applicable only to aggrieved person and children and an adult or unmarried daughter is not entitled for the said relief. 12. The object of DV Act is to provide for more effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind - 12 - occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 13. Section 2(a) defines the term 'aggrieved person' as any women who is/or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. In other words, the main relief that could be granted under the DV Act is to a women who comes under the definition of 'aggrieved person'. 14. Section 2(b) defines the term 'child' as a person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child. 15. Similarly, Section 2(f) defines the term 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. - 13 - 16. Section 2(q) defines the term 'respondent' means any adult male person who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the D.V Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner. 17. Section 3 defines the term 'domestic violence', which reads as under: "3. Definition of domestic violence.—For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it— (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section,— - 14 - (i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes— (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested; (iv) “economic abuse” includes— (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.—For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration." - 15 - 18. The plain reading of the above provisions makes it evident that under the DV Act, an aggrieved person is always a women and the respondent is necessarily to be a male with whom the aggrieved person is or was in a domestic relationship. 19. Section 12 of the DV Act makes provision for an aggrieved person to get various reliefs viz., protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19, Monetary reliefs under Section 20, custody orders under Section 21 and compensation orders under Section 22. 20. However, under Section 20 of the DV Act, while claiming monetary reliefs, the aggrieved person is also entitled to claim such monetary reliefs not only on her behalf, but also on behalf of her children. This Section makes it clear that while granting monetary relief, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggreved - 16 - person, as a result of domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to, - (a) loss of earnings; (b) medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance of the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or any other law for the time being in force. ………….. 21. This aspect is to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the children may be both daughters and sons. But for this provision, the children would not have been entitled for monetary reliefs, more particularly, under the head medical expenses and maintenance, as son being male, cannot be an aggrieved person. 22. Of course, as soon as the son attains majority, he would not be entitled for the reliefs under Section 20 of the DV Act. However, a daughter as soon she attains majority, fall under the definition of women and as such - 17 - may become an aggrieved person, if she is able to establish that she is subjected to domestic violence as defined under Section 3. Therefore, a son after attaining majority may not be entitled for the monetary reliefs under Section 20, but a daughter on whose behalf monetary reliefs were sought, on attaining majority, falling under the definition of aggrieved person would be entitled for the monetary reliefs. 23. It is also relevant to note that when petitioner filed the petition under Section 12 r/w 18, 19, 20 and 22 of DV Act, she has already attained majority. In the petition he has specifically alleged that respondent not only harassed his wife Smt.Dhanalakshmi, i.e., the mother of petitioner, but also petitioner was subjected to domestic violence. Ultimately, unable to bear the harassment, when they left the house of respondent and started living with the parents of Smt.Dhanalakshmi, respondent failed to take care of them including medical, educational, maintenance expenses and also deprived them of his love and affection. In the light of these allegations, the petition - 18 - filed by the petitioner being the daughter of respondent under Section 12 r/w 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act is maintainable. 24. Appreciating these aspects, the trial Court rightly granted maintenance to the petitioner. However, the Sessions Court has set aside the said order on the ground that under DV Act, a daughter is entitled for maintenance, so long as she is a child. Since, the impugned order granting maintenance is at the interim stage, at the trial, it is for the respondent to establish that petitioner does not come under the definition of aggrieved person and therefore after attaining majority, she is not entitled for any monetary reliefs. In the result the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the following: ORDER 1. Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2025 in Crl.A.No.121/2025 on the - 19 - file of LIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, Crl.A.No.121/2025 is dismissed. 3. The order dated 04.12.2024 in Crl.Misc.49/2024 on the file of MMCT-III, Bengaluru is restored and confirmed. 4. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court as well as Sessions Court forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR