- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1876 OF 2025 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R. SALKUTE, S/O LATE SRI. RAMBHAU SALKUTE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 301, 2ND FLOOR, PYRAMID MAHIKA SHIVANAHALLI, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU- 560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH RAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MRUNAL V SALKUTE W/O SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R SALKUTE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SRI. ASHUTOSH V SALKUTE S/O SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R SALKUTE AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. 3. SRI. AVANEESH V SALKUTE S/O SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR R SALKUTE AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 BEING MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMT. MRUNAL V SALKUTE, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 301, 2ND FLOOR, PYRAMID MAHIKA, SHIVANAHALLI, JAKKUR MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. INDRADHANUSH CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED LV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-56) DATED 17.09.2025 IN CRL.A.NO.1570/2024 AND ORDER DATED 19.08.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.50/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT VI) BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Rakesh Raj.G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Indradhanush Chavan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Husband who suffered an order of conviction under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.Misc.No.50/2023, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.1570/2024 is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Petitioner being the husband, had suffered an order before the jurisdictional magistrate after due trial. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "The I.A.No.1 filed by the petitioner under Sec.23(2) of PWDV Act is hereby allowed. The I.A.No.3 U/Sec.19(1)(e) & (f) of PWDV Act filed by respondent is hereby rejected. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 The respondent is hereby restrained from dispossessing the petitioners from suit schedule property i.e., No.301, 2nd Floor, Pyrmid Mahika Apartment, Shivanahalli Jakkur Main road, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru till further orders. The respondent is hereby restrained from alienating the suit schedule property till further orders. For petitioner's evidence. By 12.09.2024." 4. I.A.No.1 was filed in the said criminal miscellaneous matter with a prayer that the shared residence which is a flat bearing No.301, 2nd floor, Pyrmid Mahika Apartment, Shivanahalli Jakkur Main road, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru is restrained from alienation and application filed by the husband seeking permission to alienate the same was rejected. 5. Admittedly, petitioner, his wife-first respondent, his major son-second respondent and another son were residing in the said flat. 6. According to the petitioner, on account of imaginary domestic violence, a false case has been filed - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 against the petitioner which has not been properly appreciated by both Courts resulting in passing the impugned orders which has further resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that huge loan has been obtained on the said flat and petitioner is working as a Manager in a Government undertaking namely National Scheduled Castes Financial Developmental Corporation and is due to retire next year and still huge equated monthly installments are to be paid towards repayment of the loan and as such the orders passed by the learned trial judge and the learned judge in the First Appellate Court need to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order by contending that the retirement benefits can be made use of for the purpose of clearing the loan and the only intention of approaching this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 Court is to somehow evict the respondents from the said premises and thus sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 10. On such perusal of the material on record, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship among the parties so also the respondents residing in the aforesaid flat. 11. Learned trail judge and the learned judge in the First Appellate Court based on the material evidence placed on record passed the impugned orders. 12. If the relationship among the parties is not cordial, the forum lies elsewhere for the parties to work out their remedy. 13. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a major son and he is not entitled for any relief. But respondent Nos.1 and 3 are thus entitled for relief under the Protection of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14269 CRL.RP No. 1876 of 2025 Women from Domestic Violence Act, which has been granted by both the Courts after due consideration of material evidence on record placed by the parties. 14. Thus, reserving liberty for the petitioner to work out the remedy before the appropriate forum in respect of the prayers and also to provide alternate accommodation for respondent Nos.1 and 3, the present revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38