- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1756 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SAILESH KUMAR S/O LATE JANARDHAN ACHAR AGED 57 YEARS R/AT D.NO.331/6A NITHYANANDA NAGAR MANGALORE - 574 160. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N, ADV.) AND: SMT. NISHA S KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS PERMANENT ADDRESS D.NO. 2-331/6A NITYANANDA NAGAR MANGALURU - 574 160 PRESENTLY CAMPING AT R/AT 302, DECCAN CHAMBERS 136, J.S.S. ROAD, GIRGAUM MUMBAI - 400 004. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NISHA S KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C (U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 04.10.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE D.K. IN CRL.APL.NO.188/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023, is filed by the husband with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.188/2024. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent - party in person. 3. Petitioner is the husband of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 19.03.1998. From the wedlock, a son is born to the couple. After the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent had failed, the respondent had filed a petition under Section 12 read with 20(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'D.V.Act') in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at D.K. Mangaluru. In the said proceedings, on 05.11.2011, the learned Magistrate had passed an ad interim ex-parte order restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent from the shared household in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 which she was residing along with the petitioner and their son. Petitioner had subsequently filed an application to modify the said order and on 16.12.2011, the learned Magistrate had modified the residence order passed on 05.11.2011, and directed the petitioner to re-locate the respondent to house bearing No.2-331/4 and to provide all basic amenities to her in the said house. Respondent herein, subsequently on 06.01.2023, had filed an application to modify the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 by the learned Magistrate. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate vide the order dated 06.08.2024 had dismissed the application filed by the respondent with a prayer to modify its earlier order dated 16.12.2011. Challenging the said order dated 06.08.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011, respondent had filed Crl.A.No.188/2024 before the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2025, and the prayer made in her application to re-locate to the shared household bearing Door No.2-331/6A has been granted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 passed by the Appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in Crl.A.No.4/2012 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, by judgment and order dated 25.07.2012. Therefore, the application filed to modify the said order dated 16.12.2011, after a lapse of more than 12 years could not have been entertained. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting application filed by the respondent. The Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has passed the impugned judgment and order. He submits that the relationship between the parties has completely failed and they are fighting multiple criminal and civil cases before various courts. The son of the petitioner is staying with him. Respondent who has been staying separately for the last more than 12 years, for extraneous reasons, has made an application to permit her to come and reside in the shared household in which the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 petitioner is residing with his son and other family members. In a separate proceedings, respondent-wife has been granted monthly maintenance of Rs.2,80,000/-, and therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. He, accordingly prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, respondent who has appeared in person before the Court, submits that while dismissing Crl.A.No.4/2012, the learned District Judge has reserved liberty to the respondent-wife to file application for alteration or modification of the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011. Since the petitioner has failed to provide basic amenities in the alternative accommodation provided by him, she was constrained to file the present application seeking to modify the order dated 16.12.2011. She submits that the divorce petition filed against her by the petitioner has been dismissed and she continues to be his wife, and therefore, the Appellate Court was justified in permitting her to re-locate to the shared household. She also submits that petitioner has not paid her the maintenance as ordered by the Family Court at - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 Mangaluru and he is in huge arrears. She submits that since the petitioner has not provided the basic amenities in the house to which she was re-located pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2011, this Court may direct the petitioner to provide a suitable alternative residential accommodation to her. 6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the respondent-wife had filed Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 under the provisions of the D.V.Act before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate and in the said proceedings, on 05.11.2011, an ad interim ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner herein restraining him from committing any act of domestic violence against the respondent herein and the petitioner was also restrained from dispossessing the respondent from the shared household. 7. After the petitioner entered appearance in the said proceedings, he had filed an application with a prayer to modify the said order dated 05.11.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.12.2011 having appreciated that the relationship between the parties - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 had completely failed and the respondent-wife was using the interim protection orders to her advantage causing untoward incidents which were uncalled for, had arrived at a conclusion that the ad interim order passed on 05.11.2011 needs to be modified. 8. A reading of the order dated 16.12.2011 would go to show that the learned Magistrate had also inquired the son of the petitioner and the respondent who appears to have stated that he prefers to stay with his father than his mother. It also appears that the son had stated that he was treated cruelly by his mother and she was in the habit of causing physical and mental torture to the petitioner herein. It is under these circumstances, the order dated 05.11.2011 was modified and the petitioner herein was directed to re-locate the respondent- wife and provide her alternative accommodation in the house bearing Door No.2-331/4, and therefore, the petitioner herein had deposited the keys of the said house in the court as directed by the Trial Court. Subsequently, Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 was dismissed for non-prosecution and the said order dated 06.12.2019 was challenged in Crl.A.No.7/2020 by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 the respondent herein which was allowed on 31.07.2021 and the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 was restored. 9. After the petition was restored, on 06.05.2022, respondent herein had filed a memo in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 to hand over the keys of the house bearing Door No.2-331/4, and on 04.07.2022, the Trial Court had directed the office to hand over the keys of the said house to the respondent. Petitioner had challenged the said order dated 04.07.2022 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.108/2022 which was allowed in part and the order dated 04.07.2022 directing handing over of the keys to the house bearing Door No.2/331-4 to the respondent was set aside and the petitioner herein was directed to provide alternative suitable accommodation to the respondent. The Court also observed that in the alternative, the Trial Court was at liberty to pass appropriate order for payment of rent fixed by it and also necessary incidental charges in its discretion in respect of the accommodation. Therefore, in effect, the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 stood modified by virtue of the order passed in Crl.A.No.108/2022, and on the other hand, petitioner herein - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 was directed to provide an alternative suitable accommodation to the respondent and in the event he failed to provide alternate accommodation, the Trial Court was at liberty to pass appropriate orders for payment of rent fixed by it and also necessary incidental charges in its discretion in respect of the accommodation. The said order passed in Crl.A.No.108/2022 has attained finality. 10. However, subsequently, the present application was filed on 06.01.2023 by the respondent once again with a prayer to modify the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 and permit her to return to the shared household bearing Door No.2-331/6A in which the petitioner is residing with his son and other family members. The Trial Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter, has rightly rejected the said application. 11. It is relevant to notice here that after disposal of Crl.A.No.108/2022, the respondent had complained regarding non-compliance of the order passed in Crl.A.No.108/2022 before the Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.4042/2022 which is filed by the petitioner herein challenging the judgment - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 and award passed by the Family Court dismissing his petition filed for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The Division Bench of this Court on 11.08.2023, had therefore, directed the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, to provide protection to the respondent herein in the event she desires to reside in property bearing Sy.No.315/1B2, and it was also directed that she shall be permitted to have access to the said property through Gate No.3 or Gate No.4. 12. Alleging non-compliance of the said order dated 11.08.2023 passed in MFA.No.4042/2022, respondent had filed contempt proceedings in CCC.No.461/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.08.2025, wherein it is observed that interim arrangements made in MFA.No.4042/2022 has been complied by the petitioner herein and the Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru, has also provided necessary protection to the respondent in compliance of the order passed in MFA.No.4197/2022 c/w MFA.No.4042/2022 & MFA.No.967/2023. 13. The aforesaid aspect of the matter have been suppressed by the respondent before the Trial Court as well as before the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 Appellate Court. From a reading of the orders passed in CCC.No.461/2024, it is apparent that the petitioner herein has provided alternate accommodation to the respondent in property bearing Sy. No.315/1B2. It is also not in dispute that the jurisdictional Family Court has now passed an order directing the petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent. 14. The material on record would go to show that in addition to various proceedings which is fought by the parties before the Family Court, they are also fighting criminal cases against the each other. The material on record would also go to show that the respondent-wife had assaulted the petitioner with a screw driver after Crl.A.No.4/2012 filed by her was dismissed and in respect of the said incident, a police complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondent, in which she has been charge-sheeted and facing trial in CC.No.1808/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 307 & 324 IPC. In view of the aforesaid, the Appellate Court was not justified in setting aside the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Trial - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 Court in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 dismissing the application filed by the respondent to modify the order dated 16.12.2011. 15. If the petitioner has not provided basic amenities in the alternate accommodation provided by him, in view of the orders passed by the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.108/202 disposed of on 14.11.2022, it is always open for the respondent-wife to make necessary application before the Trial Court to direct the petitioner to pay the rent fixed by it for providing alternate suitable accommodation to the respondent with all necessary incidental charges. The respondent, instead of filing such an application as ordered in Crl.A.No.108/2022, has filed an application to modify the order dated 16.12.2011 passed in Crl. Misc. No.99/2011 and permit her to re-locate to the shared household bearing No.2-331/6A in which the petitioner is residing with his son and other family members. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.188/2024 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4340 CRL.RP No. 1756 of 2025 16. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Crl.A.No.188/2024, is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to work out her remedies before the Trial Court as observed in Crl.A.No.108/2022 disposed of on 04.07.2022 by the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK