- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230642019 NC: 2026:KHC:41797 CRL.P No. 5678 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2019 BETWEEN: S. JAYANTHA S/O P.G.SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.187, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. G. R. PUSHPALATHA W/O S.JAYANTH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND GOVT. PHC BALAJI NILAYA GORAVALE VILLAGE & POST DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.39/2018 PASSED BY THE J.M.F.C., MANDYA BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2019 IN Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230642019 NC: 2026:KHC:41797 CRL.P No. 5678 of 2019 CRL.A.NO.50/2019 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging judgment dated 02.07.2019 passed by IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.A.no.50/2019 at Annexure-B confirming order dated 31.01.2019 passed by JMFC, Mandya, in Crl.Misc.no.39/2018 at Annexure-A, this petition is filed. 2. Sri Praveen Kumar K., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was respondent no.1 in a petition filed by respondent herein under Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) for relief under Sections 18 and 19 of DV Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that though petitioner had engaged counsel and entered appearance, he was unable to file objections and was not provided opportunity to cross-examine respondent. And - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230642019 NC: 2026:KHC:41797 CRL.P No. 5678 of 2019 based on consideration of material produced by respondent alone, impugned order came to be passed. Though an appeal was filed on specific ground of failure to provide opportunity, without proper consideration, appeal came to be dismissed. It was submitted that petitioner has been working as a food delivery agent and was unable to cross-examine respondent and therefore, submitted that an opportunity to cross-examine respondent may be granted and matter be remitted back to trial Court. 4. There is no representation on behalf of respondent. 5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 6. This petition is by respondent no.1 in a petition filed by respondent herein for protection under Sections 18 and 19 of DV Act. 7. As rightly submitted, on service of notice, petitioner herein had engaged counsel and entered appearance. However, trial Court has specifically recorded that petitioner did not file objections and despite providing sufficient opportunity to cross- examine respondent, failed to avail opportunity. Thus, by - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230642019 NC: 2026:KHC:41797 CRL.P No. 5678 of 2019 considering material placed on record, trial Court passed order granting protection to respondent herein. Though specific ground about failure to provide opportunity was urged in appeal, even Appellate Court, after referring to order sheet of trial Court has recorded specific finding that adequate opportunity was provided but not availed by petitioner and dismissed appeal. Thus, both Courts have concurrently held that despite sufficient opportunity, petitioner did not cross- examine respondent herein nor had filed objections to petition. Besides, orders are passed by referring to material placed on record by respondent and granting protection under provisions of DV Act and cannot be faulted, especially when there is no dispute about marital relationship and about matrimonial home. 8. No ground to interfere. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11