- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10308 CRL.RP No. 1508 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1508 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O SRINIVASALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.187, 2ND MAIN BYADRAHALLI NEAR JOHN PUBLIC SCHOOL BANGALORE - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NEHRU P, ADV.) AND: SRI INDU SHEKAR S/O LATE GUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT KEMPASAGARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G.S. PATIL, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DIST. ANDS .J., BENGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.65/2014 AND UPHOLD THE ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 28.08.2014 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.110/2009 BY THE C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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:10308 CRL.RP No. 1508 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC. is filed with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the Court of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.65/2014. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner herein had initiated proceedings against the respondent in C.Mis.No.110/2009 before the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'D.V.Act'). In the said proceedings, respondent who had entered appearance had filed objections and opposed the claim made in the petition. The Trial Court had allowed C.Mis.No.110/2009 by judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 and had passed an order restraining the respondent from causing domestic violence against the petitioner and further ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10308 CRL.RP No. 1508 of 2016 4. The said judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in C.Mis.No.110/2009 dated 28.08.2014 was assailed by the respondent before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.65/2014. The Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 04.07.2016 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in C.Mis.No.100/2009. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that petitioner herein was earlier married to one Bhaskar in the year 1991 and from the said wedlock, two children were born. It appears that subsequently she had deserted her husband and was working in a canteen near Vidhana Sodha at Bengaluru. She had developed friendship with the respondent and thereafter they started residing together. According to the petitioner, respondent had made her believe that he was not married, though actually he was married. Alleging that subsequently respondent who had received a sum of Rs.70,000/- from her had deserted her, petitioner had approached the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate by filing a petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10308 CRL.RP No. 1508 of 2016 6. The respondent has produced material before the Trial Court to show that he is a married man having family. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner as well as the respondent were already married and during the subsistence of their earlier marriage, they had developed a relationship. May be the petitioner and the respondent had stayed together for a certain period. But that itself cannot be construed as a domestic relationship for the purpose of invoking the provisions of D.V.Act. The Appellate Court having appreciated the aforesaid aspects of the matter, has rightly set aside the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in C.Mis.No.110/2009 dated 28.08.2014. 7. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this revision petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN/KK