- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1942 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ANUP HARKUNI S/O BASAVARAJ HARKUNI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A FLAT No.204, PLOT NO.18, 19, SARAF COLONY, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. BANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAVITA, D/O BASAVANTHRAI MADANUR, AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT No.2081, SAI SADAN, HIGH STREET, GANESHPUR, AT: BELAGAVI CITY-591108. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 04.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.25008/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JMTC-I, AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE PASSED IN Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 CRL.MISC.NO.52/2016 FILED BY RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present criminal revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings recorded in Crl.Misc.No.52/2016 by the Trial Court and in Criminal Appeal No.25008/2025 by the Appellate Court. By order dated 18.12.2024, the Trial Court, while considering the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the "DV Act"), awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent herein. The said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court by judgment dated 04.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.25008/2025. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and the confirmation, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition seeking to set - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 aside the orders passed by both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to with their ranking assigned before the Trial Court. 4. The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner while seeking the relief of compensation under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Trial Court is that, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was held on 27.01.2015 and immediately after the marriage, the petitioner had joined the matrimonial home. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.1. The respondent No.4 is the sister of respondent No.1 and respondent No.5 is the uncle of respondent No.1 and brother-in-law of respondent No.3. It is stated that the petitioner and respondent No.1 got engaged on 07.09.2014 at Lokmanya Bhavan at Belgavi. The marriage was also registered on 03.02.2015. The parents of the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for engagement and for performing the marriage, spent an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-, including the gold jewellery, silver articles and other household articles given at the time of marriage. After the marriage, they - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 stayed in the petitioner’s parents’ house for 8 days as per the customs. Their marriage was consummated. The petitioner and respondent No.1 led a happy married life for a period of two months. 5. Within few days of the marriage, respondent No.1 set up their matrimonial home at No.1170, 2nd Floor, D-Block, 6th Main Road, AECS Layout, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru. The petitioner and respondent No.1 stayed together as husband and wife for a period of 8 months. After few days of the marriage, respondent No.1 changed his character and started acting differently. Respondent No.1 fought with the petitioner at the instigation of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The respondent No.5 being the uncle of respondent No.3 and the grandfather of respondent No.1 was unnecessarily interfering in the personal and marital life of the complainant. The respondents demanded additional 50 sovereigns of gold and insisted the property to be transferred in her name and started physical and mental harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner was prevented by her parents from filing a complaint against the respondents for harassment and cruelty meted out to her during her stay in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 matrimonial house causing lot of physical and mental torture only in order to save the marriage. The respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 instead of advising respondent No.1, tried to find fault with the complainant and used to comment and pinprick the petitioner with regard to her physique and other household items that were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage and demanded more gold jewelries and instigated respondent No.1 to harass the complainant and treat her with cruelty. 6. It is also stated in the petition that many times she was asked to go out of the matrimonial house. On 16.09.2015, when the complainant had been to her native place Belagavi for Ganesha festival, she stayed in her in-laws’ house and went to her parents’ house for one day and she was asked to come on the next day morning. Since there was an arrangement for getting alliance for her brother, she informed respondent No.1 and his parents that she will be coming late. When the father of the complainant went to her in-laws’ place in the evening, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were very rude to the complainant’s father. They abused the complainant and her father in filthy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 languages. That on 28.03.2015, she was driven out of the matrimonial house. She was asked to go to her mother’s place and pushed her out of the house and the neighbours rescued her. Again on 07.06.2015, she was driven out of the matrimonial house and she had to stay in her brother’s room. The complainant restrained herself from giving a complaint to the jurisdiction police only with an intention to save the marriage. The respondent No.1 and his family members were sufficiently paid towards dowry and gold jewellery, silver articles, costly clothing at the time of marriage and the marriage was celebrated in lavish manner. The respondent demanded for more dowry. The complainant expressed inability to get further dowry of 50 sovereign gold and cash. The parents also expressed their inability to meet the demand made by them. The respondent No.1 and his family members were not bothered to pay anything towards maintenance, after driving the complainant from the matrimonial home. The respondent No.1 is a B.E. Electronics and Communication graduate and employed in Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and earning Rs.1,70,000/- per month in 2016. The respondent No.1 has vacated the matrimonial house at AECS layout and has not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 informed his whereabouts. He did not respond to the calls of the complainant. The complainant unable to continue her employment due to the mental shock, left the job and is presently unemployed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 own apartment and 3 sites at Belgaum. The complainant has no other source of income to take care of herself. Hence, filed the petition. 7. In pursuance of the notice, the respondents appeared and filed their objection statement admitting the marriage with the petitioner, but denied the averments made in the petition with regard to subjecting her for harassment and also demanding additional dowry and jewelry and contended that the parents of the petitioner/complainant not spent any huge amount for performing the marriage. It is contended that the petitioner was always screaming and scrabbling and shouting on respondent No.1. She used to watch crime based serials and used to quarrel with respondent No.1 on one or the other reason. She refused to go to her in-laws’ house as she does not like them. She harassed respondent No.1 physically and mentally. She demanded for diamond earnings and when - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 respondent No.1 sought time to buy the same, she kept pestering the same. The respondent No.1 tried to understand the petitioner. Due to insane behaviour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 failed to maintain a cordial relationship with the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is sober. The petitioner ill- treated respondent No.1 and his parents and made the allegation against the respondents. The respondent No.1 never restricted the petitioner and he has given a free hand to the petitioner to visit her parents’ house. The petitioner has not disclosed the true facts. That on 21.09.2015, when respondent No.3 asked the petitioner why she was late, she caught hold her cheek and slapped on her face. She made a galata in front of her father. The petitioner and her father both assaulted and humiliated respondent Nos.1 and 3. All the neighbours tried to calm down the petitioner. She also abused them. Even she has not listened to the uncle of respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.1 left Bangalore alone. Thereafter, the father-in- law and mother-in-law came in front of the respondents’ house and abused them. The petitioner’s father threatened that he murdered 10 people and as he is an ex-army, he can manage people. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 8. The petitioner repeatedly started making calls and sent several threatening SMS with dire consequences. The petitioner’s relative by name Ningappa, who claimed himself as constable in Railway Police, Bengaluru, threatened respondent No.1 that if he did not meet him alone, he will come with the petitioner to his office and create a scene. An attempt was made to sort out the differences between them. That on 22.01.2016, the petitioner along with Bheemngowda and S.G. Biradar came to his office. The respondent No.1 refused to meet them. The Manager called the security and asked the petitioner and her associates to leave the place. It is contended that even in the working place also they started harassing respondent No.1. The petitioner herself left the matrimonial home and left the company of respondent No.1. Both the families held mediation. During mediation, the petitioner admitted assaulting respondent Nos.1 and 3 with sudden provocation and she is mentally imbalanced. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 never stayed with the petitioner and hence, the question of domestic violence does not arise. The respondents never demanded dowry. The respondent No.1 relieved from his job by the employer on 31.05.2016 on the ground of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 unsatisfactory performance. After layoff, the contractual job of respondent No.1 was terminated. The petitioner is a B.E. and M.B.A. graduate. She is working in Lance Soft India Pvt. Ltd. at ITPL, Bengaluru and is earning salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She is also getting PF and bonus of Rs.40,000/- per annum. The petitioner is also earning and she voluntarily left the matrimonial home and hence, the question of payment of any compensation does not arise. 9. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, formulated the points whether the petitioner proves that there is domestic relationship with the respondents, whether the petitioner proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence upon the petitioner, whether the petitioner proves that she is entitled for the reliefs as sought. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that there is a domestic relationship and also there was a domestic violence upon the petitioner and allowed the petition in part considering the documents of the petitioner i.e., Exs.P.1 to 29 and also the evidence of P.W.1. The Trial Court also taken note of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 evidence of R.W.1 and also the documents, which have been produced before the Court as Exs.R.1 to 23. In paragraph No.21, taken note of that both of them lived together for some time. But it is the contention of the petitioner that they led a happy life only for two months. Thereafter, he started harassing the petitioner demanding gold, cash and transfer of property. The Trial Court also taken note of the contention of the respondents that on 28.03.2015, the petitioner left matrimonial home. The marriage was dissolved on 22.03.2021. The Family Court granted maintenance of Rs.40,000/- and the same is also confirmed before this Court. The Trial Court in paragraph No.23, comes to the conclusion that on meticulous perusal of documents placed on record by both parties, it could be seen that they had a domestic relationship between each other. In the instant case, the domestic relationship between the parties is an admitted fact. The respondent No.1 categorically admitted his marriage with the petitioner on 27.01.2015. He admits that there is a domestic relationship with the petitioner and they both stayed in a shared household. The admitted facts need not be proved. Hence, the aspect of domestic relationship and the shared household are not raised. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 It is necessary to note that the petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2016 and subsequently, the marriage of both the parties was dissolved in 2021. The Trial Court also taken note of definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act and so also taken note of the relationship between the parties in paragraph No.25 and also taken note of the contention of the respondents in paragraph No.26 and comes to the conclusion that there is a domestic relationship between the parties. 10. With regard to point No.2 is concerned, the Trial Court taken note of the complaint was filed and NCR was issued and no case was registered and subsequently, M.C.No.900/2016 was filed for restitution of conjugal rights. In paragraph No.28 taken note of that P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.5, which is the NCR copy and also produced the photographs with regard to the assault made to her. She has produced Ex.P.12, medical certificate issued by Acura Hospital, wherein it was mentioned that she was assaulted by five people. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P.15, certified copy of the order sheet in C.C.No.34199/2018 and also taken note of the evidence of the respondent with regard to the rebuttal of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 evidence of P.W.1 and the same is discussed in paragraph No.29. The Trial Court also taken note of the documents which have been produced by the respondent, particularly Ex.R.10 audio transcript to show that the petitioner used to threaten him and abuse him. Further, the respondent has produced Ex.R.16 State Women Commission case sheet. The Trial Court considered the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1. The Trial Court in paragraph No.32, taken note of that during cross-examination, P.W.1 specifically deposed that on 28.03.2015 and 07.06.2015, the respondent assaulted her and on 14.04.2015, they asked her to bring gold. It was suggested that since she was residing separately from respondent No.1 since 28.03.2015, the respondents cannot demand gold from her and she denied the suggestion. The Trial Court also taken note of definition of Section 3 of the DV Act in paragraph No.33 and in paragraph No.34, comes to the conclusion that there is a domestic violence on the petitioner. 11. The Trial Court while answering point No.3, observed that on meticulous perusal of assets and liability affidavit of the petitioner, it is noticed that she is a B.E. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 graduate in Computer Science with MBA in HR and Marketing and her monthly general expenses are Rs.30,000/-. The Trial Court also taken note of the salary and also awarding of Rs.40,000/- as monthly maintenance in paragraph No.37. In paragraph No.39, once again taken note of the documents and also admitted income of the respondent that he has paid income tax and declared his income as Rs.25,32,360/-. When a suggestion was made that his income is Rs.2,18,000/- per month, the same was denied. The Trial Court also discussed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA reported in AIR 2021 SC 569, wherein it was elaborated on issue of over lapping jurisdiction in respect of grant of successive claims for maintenance and has also elaborated the points to be considered while passing any order in respect of monetary relief. The Trial Court having taken note of the same, comes to the conclusion that the petitioner herself is well educated and there are no issues. As per her statement itself, she has no liabilities. Per contra, the respondent has aged parents to look after. As admitted by the respondent, he remarried and has a child. Hence, comes to the conclusion that - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 compensation may be granted in favour of the petitioner and she is not entitled to any further monetary relief. 12. The said order is challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, the grounds which have been urged before the Appellate Court, particularly ground Nos.5, 6 and 7, the points for consideration determined by the Appellate Court and also the discussion made in paragraph Nos.13, 18, 21, 22 and 23. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court first of all committed an error in relying upon the document of medical certificate and also the photographs that there was an assault and no such averment was made in the original petition when the petition was filed in the year 2016. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there was an assault and the same is erroneous and that was not the case of the respondent herein before the Trial Court. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Appellate Court also not properly met the grounds - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 urged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court has committed an error in not giving any reasons in affirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the Appellate Court not exercised the jurisdiction of appeal in a proper perspective. 14. The learned counsel in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DINESH LAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2016) 1 SCC 590 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.11. In paragraph No.13, discussion was made with regard to the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court to reappraise the grounds in an appeal. It is held that the First Appellate Court is required in law to examine the case of the appellant with reference to the ground urged in the appeal. The High Court in law is required to reappraise the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses particularly in the light of the ground urged on behalf of the appellant that P.W.1 to P.W.4 and P.W.8 are interested witnesses and therefore, their depositions should not have been accepted to record findings of fact on the charges framed against him. The learned counsel would contend that this Court having the revisional jurisdiction - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 has the power to reappraise the things, if both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court fails to consider the matter. 15. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein in paragraph No.12 it is held that, if one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. 16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- wife would vehemently contend that there is no dispute that the marriage was taken place on 27.01.2015 and after the marriage they were cordial for some time. Thereafter, started harassing the respondent and hence, the respondent was forced to file a petition before the police and to that effect - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 document Ex.P.5 was issued and hence, it is clear that they were cordial for about 7 to 8 months after the marriage. In the month of September, a complaint was given and even subsequently also harassment was continued by the family members of the petitioner herein and ultimately, she was forced to file a petition before the Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 20.02.2016, since she was driven out from the matrimonial home and thereafter, filed the present petition on 24.02.2016 invoking the DV Act. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that it is a continuous harassment even immediately after the marriage and subsequently, driving out her from the matrimonial home. The documents of Exs.P.9 to 12 clearly discloses that she was assaulted and it was a continuous act of domestic violence on her. The learned counsel would contend that the Trial Court while considering the material on record, taken note of the declared income and income tax, which was paid by the petitioner herein. The Trial Court also taken note of the continuous harassment and also there is a clear admission on the part of R.W.1 that they lived together for about nine months and not as contended by the counsel appearing to the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 revision petitioner that they lived together only for two months. The learned counsel also would contend that R.W.1 categorically admitted that no damages was awarded against him except the maintenance award made by the Family Court and the same is upheld by this Court. Considering the domestic violence and also the income, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court passed an order granting compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also considering the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in granting compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and whether both the Courts have assigned the reasons for granting compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and whether the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are sustainable in the eye of law and - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 whether the same suffers from its legality and correctness to exercise the revisional powers? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the parties and marriage was held on 27.01.2015. It is also not in dispute that after the marriage, the respondent-wife had joined the matrimonial home and thereafter, both of them shifted their residence to Bengaluru. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that they lived together only for a short period of two months and the same cannot be accepted in view of the admission of R.W.1, which is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. R.W.1 himself has admitted that they lived together for a period of nine months. It is also to be noted that in the petition before the Trial Court, the petitioner therein has stated with regard to spending of money for engagement and also for performing of marriage and the same cannot be an issue while considering the petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act. The Court has to only take - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 note of whether there was a domestic relationship between both of them. Admittedly, after the marriage they lived together for sometime, that too an admitted period of nine months. In paragraph No.9 of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, an allegation is made with regard to demanding of additional 50 sovereigns of gold and the same is also immaterial for consideration of the petition for granting of compensation. In paragraph No.12, it is specifically pleaded with regard to the incident of 16.09.2015 and the same is also evident in view of considering the document of Ex.P.5 that approached the appropriate authority and they have given the endorsement in terms of Ex.P.5. In paragraph No.14, it is pleaded that she was always been a loving and caring wife. A specific averment is made that the respondent-husband started ill-treating her and harassing her and started to treat her in a cruel manner and she was driven out of the matrimonial house on 28.03.2015 and she was asked to go to her mother’s place and pushed her out of the house many a times and her neighbours came to her rescue. Again on 07.06.2015, she was driven out of the matrimonial house. No doubt, the same was taken note of by the Trial Court. But the fact is that the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 marriage was held on 27.01.2015 and as on the date of allegations made, both of them were living together. In paragraph No.15 it is stated that when the demand was made, the family of the complainant expressed their inability and the same is also immaterial for consideration with regard to invoking of DV Act is concerned. 19. Having considered the material on record, no doubt the Trial Court made an observation erroneously in paragraph No.32 that, P.W.1 specifically deposed that on 28.03.2015 and 07.06.2015, the respondent assaulted her. But there was no any such allegation in the petition that she was assaulted and only allegation is made that on those two days she was driven out of the matrimonial home. An observation is made that on 14.04.2015, they asked her to bring gold. It was suggested that since she was residing separately from respondent No.1 since 28.03.2015, the respondents cannot demand gold from her and this observation is erroneous. However, the Court has to take note of the material available on record and other documents, which have been produced. Having considered the pleadings of both the parties, it is very clear that both of them - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 have not led their matrimonial life for a longer period. Differences were arisen between them within a span of nine months. The records clearly disclose that when she was driven out of the matrimonial house, she herself has approached the Court by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right and also the present petition is filed. Even after continuation of this petition also, the material clearly discloses that when the residential order was passed, once again quarrel was taken place and also assault was made and the same is not disputed by the petitioner counsel during the course of argument. The documents are very clear that incident was taken place in 2018 and this petition was continued from 2016 till disposal of the petition in December 2024 and it is also a continuous act of domestic violence. When such being the case, the very contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that each and every details are not given in the petition when the petition was filed in the year 2016, cannot be accepted. The fact is that both of them lived together in Bengaluru and also it is the specific case of the wife that he left Bengaluru without assigning any reasons. A specific allegation is made that she was driven out - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 from the matrimonial house and material clearly discloses that subsequent to differences arisen between the parties, M.C. petition was filed and maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month was also awarded and the same is also affirmed by this Court. 20. No doubt, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the documents of Ex.R.28 and 29 were not considered by the Trial Court. Having taken note of the same, that was a criminal case and the accused were discharged in the said proceedings. The learned counsel submits that subsequent to the divorce, the respondent not shown any interest in challenging the same and the same has attained its finality. No doubt, when the criminal case was registered, the accused/respondents in Crl.Misc.No.52/2016 were discharged by passing an order by the Magistrate and the same cannot be an issue to consider the scope of Section 12 and also Section 20 of the DV Act and the Court has to only look into whether there was a relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and whether there was a domestic relationship in existence and whether there was a committing of domestic violence upon the petitioner. It is an - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 admitted fact with regard to the marriage and subsequently, they lived together for sometime and thereafter, differences were arisen between them and it establishes the domestic relationship. When such being the case, the Court has to take note of scope of Sections 12, 20 and 3 of DV Act. The definition of Section 3 of the DV Act is very clear with regard to the domestic violence is concerned and scope is also taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Trial Court also extracted Section 3 of the DV Act in paragraph No.33. The Trial Court while granting compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, in detail discussed the same and taken note of the complaint was given in the month of September 2015 itself with regard to the harassment meted out to the complainant- wife. The Trial Court also taken note of R.W.1 admitted that in 2021 he has paid income tax and declared his income of Rs.25,32,360/- and though suggestion was made that he was earning Rs.2,18,000/- per month, the same was denied. Having considered his declared income, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Trial Court considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) in paragraph - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 No.40 and also considering the fact that respondent No.1 has remarried and having a child, comes to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is of considered view that compensation may be granted in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the very contention of the revision petitioner counsel that the Trial Court has not taken note of his capability to make the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation, cannot be accepted. 21. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to notice of this Court judgment of the Apex Court in DINESH LAL’S case with regard to scope of appeal and also scope of the revision in referring other case, it is settled law that while exercising the revisional powers, the Court has to take note of material available on record and the Court even need not go into the evidence available before the Court and only to see whether appreciation of evidence leads to miscarriage of justice and if the material is not considered and ignored by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and if the order suffers from its legality and correctness, then only, the Court can exercise the revisional power. There is no dispute - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment of Apex Court in AMIT KAPOOR’S case and the Apex Court in paragraph No.12 has observed that the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely, then only the Court can exercise the revisional power. 22. Now, the Court has to consider the judgment of the First Appellate Court. Having perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court, no doubt, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the grounds which have been specifically urged with regard to non-consideration of documents Exs.R28 and R29 and also domestic violence which has been committed on 28.03.2015 and 07.06.2015. But, this Court has already made an observation that there was no assault on specific two dates. However, it is specifically mentioned that she was driven out from the matrimonial house on those dates and also in respect of ground No.6 is concerned, considering the documents of Exs.P8 to P10 and also Ex.P12, this Court has already taken note of said fact into consideration that incident has taken - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 place subsequently when the residential order was passed, a scuffle has taken place between both the parties and that is also in continuation of the marriage, since marriage was not dissolved and marriage was dissolved admittedly in 2021. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. But, the counsel would vehemently contend that these grounds have not been met by the First Appellate Court and not exercised appellate jurisdiction and committed an error. 23. But, the Court has to take note of the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal in paragraph No.22, wherein also discussion was made that marriage was dissolved on 22.03.2021 and also taken note that according to the petitioner, on 28.03.2015 only, the appellant had assaulted on her and on the same day, she has driven her out from shared house and the said ground urged was taken note of. But, it is not the finding of the First Appellate Court also that she was assaulted on that day and the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.23 taken note of the grounds which have been urged with regard to consideration of documents Exs.P5, - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 P8, P10 and 12 pertaining to the year 2018 and taken note that marriage has been dissolved between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 2021. Apart from that, photographs and medical report produced by the petitioner before the Trial Court also reveals that domestic violence has been caused on the petitioner/respondent and the grounds which have been urged in ground Nos.5 and 6 are also met by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the very contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that First Appellate Court has not exercised its powers judiciously while considering the material on record cannot be accepted. 24. The other ground urged by the revision petitioner is with regard to awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- which was urged before the First Appellate Court was also taken note of in paragraph No.25 and an observation is made that even though there is no domestic violence report had been received by the Trial Court to come to conclusion that domestic violence has been caused on the respondent, even the Trial Court has not properly taken into consideration about discharge of the appellant in C.C.No.34199/2018 with regard to non- - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 consideration of documents Exs.R28 and R29 and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.25 and 26. So also in paragraph No.27, an observation is made that merely on the stray sentence in the petition, this Court cannot say that after 28.03.2015, she never resided with the appellant herein. But, the very admission on the part of R.W.1 is very clear that marriage has taken place in the month of January and both of them lived together for about 9 months and complaint was also given in the month of September, 2015. To that effect, Ex.P5 was given and all these factors clearly disclose that there exists domestic relationship between the appellant and there was domestic violence against the complainant and all these grounds urged before the First Appellate Court were met by the First Appellate Court while confirming the order of the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in considering the material available on record. The material on record clearly discloses that there exists a relationship between the revisioner petitioner and the respondent and there was domestic violence which has been considered by the Trial Court in paragraph No.33 and each and every ground which has been urged by the - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34427 CRL.RP No. 1942 of 2025 revision petitioner was even extracted in the appeal and the First Appellate Court also met the grounds which have been urged. 25. Under the circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court in considering the material on record. Hence, no merit in the revision petition to come to a conclusion that the order of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court suffers from its legality and correctness and the judgments which have been relied upon by counsel appearing for the revision petitioner will not come to the aid of revision petitioner and the grounds which have been urged will not help the revision petitioner to exercise the revisional powers. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD/ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42