Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Sri B V Mohan Babu vs Smt Bhavya A on 28 February, 2024

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.14 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SRI B V MOHAN BABU
S/O VAJRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NOW RESIDING AT R/A NO.832
GROUND FLOOR, L I G IST AND 2ND STAGE
15TH CROSS, ‘B’ SECTOR
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064
NOW CURRENTLY R/A NO.535
1ST FLOOR, 10TH ‘B’ CROSS
‘B’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560064
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T …PETITIONER
Location: HIGH (BY SRI MITHUN GERAHALLI A, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:

SMT. BHAVYA A
W/O B V MOHAN BABU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/A NO.1054, 1ST FLOOR
2ND MAIN, KHB INDUSTRIAL AREA
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560064
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-72) DATED 23.11.2018 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1440/2017 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent

before the Trial Court while seeking the relief under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’) that her marriage

was solemnised in the year 2006 and thereafter she has

joined the matrimonial home. It is also her case that her

parents have paid an amount of Rs.5/- lakh as dowry to

the petitioner herein and his family members and out of

the said Rs.5/- lakh, 1.6 lakh was given through cheque

bearing No542396 dated 16.08.2006 to the account of the

father of the petitioner. It is also her case that all of them
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

have residing in a matrimonial home situated at No.1054,

1st floor, 2nd Main, KHB Industrial area, Yelahanka New

Town, Bengaluru. The said property is the self-acquired

property of the husband and he had purchased the same

vide sale deed dated 17.04.2003 and the said document is

also marked as Ex.P14. A girl child was born out of the

said wedlock. The husband and the family members did

not visit the respondent to see the child. It was in fact the

family members of the respondent who pleaded the

petitioner and his family members to take back the

respondent and her daughter. The petitioner denied to

take back the respondent along his daughter till the

respondent’s parents gave a share of their house property

in the name of the petitioner and his family members. It

is also her case that family members have continued to

treat her and her daughter in a heinous manner causing

severe harassment and hence, case is also filed under

Section 498A of IPC along with Section 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act and the petition is also filed for the

divorce by the petitioner herein. When such being the
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

situation, the respondent filed the petition seeking

protection under the DV Act.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent

appeared and filed the objection statement denying the

averments made in the C.Misc.No.459/2011 and the

respondent herein was examined as PW1 and got marked

the documents at Ex.P1 to P63. On the other hand,

husband also examined as RW1 and also got examined

two witnesses as RW2 and RW3 and got marked the

documents at Ex.R1 to R19.

4. The Trial Court having considered the material

available on record comes to the conclusion that there is a

case under the DV Act since the petitioner herein and his

family members even did not go to see the child when the

child was born and the same is also evident from the

record and also comes to the conclusion that the

respondent is not having any separate residence and

hence, allowed the petition filed under Section 12 of the

DV Act and ordered to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

month towards maintenance and directed to pay 50% of

the educational expenses of his minor child till she attain

the age of majority from the date of petition and the

respondent or their men are prohibited from causing

interference for possession of the petitioner over No.1054,

1st Floor, 2nd Main, KHB Industrial Area, Yelahanka New

Town, Bengaluru and also the respondent or their men are

prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence

upon the respondent herein. Being aggrieved by the said

order, an appeal is preferred in Crl.A. No.1440/2017 and

the First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both

oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to

the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any

error in allowing the petition of the respondent and hence,

dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the concurrent

finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court, the present revision petition is filed before this

Court.

-6-

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

5. The main contention of the counsel for the

petitioner is that both the Courts have committed an error

in appreciating the evidence on record. The counsel would

vehemently contend that no material is placed before the

Court to invoke Section 12 of the DV Act seeking a

prohibitory order under Section 18, residence order under

Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20 including

household expenses. Even gone to the extent of granting

an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance

though not granted any compensation. The counsel also

would vehemently contend that the respondent has not

produced any documentary evidence to establish the

allegation of assault by the petitioner and his parents

along with his sister on 21.08.2008 and the complaint was

lodged on 29.11.2010 and case is registered for the

offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with

Section 3 and 4 of DV Act. The counsel would vehemently

contend that both the Courts have failed to understand the

intent of DV Act wherein the said Act applies only to

aggrieved person who is victim of Domestic Violence and
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

the virtue of which, she requires protection and where, she

has been neglected to be maintained. Under such

circumstances, not warranted to invoke Section 12 of DV

Act. But here is the case that the petitioner is willing to

take care of the respondent even ready to buy a house.

6. The counsel also would vehemently contend

that when the petitioner was already gifted the property in

favour of his sister and when the petitioner himself is not

having any right to continue with the property and he is

staying separately and even now also, he is ready to

purchase a house but respondent has put a condition that

the petitioner has to buy a house without any loan on the

apprehension that the petitioner may purchase the

property and may leave the respondent and there cannot

be such apprehension. The petitioner is ready to make

provision for the respondent for comfortable stay. It is

also contended that both the Courts without considering

the admission of the respondent that she was drawing the

salary of Rs.23,000/-, awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-
-8-

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

towards maintenance and the same is erroneous. The

counsel also would vehemently contend that when revision

petitioner is ready to take her back and provide her

accommodation by purchasing the house, both the Courts

ought not to have invoked the provisions of the DV Act

and thereby, committed an error in allowing the petition of

the respondent.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent would vehemently contend that both the

Courts have taken note of the admission of the parties. It

is the specific case of the respondent that when she gave

birth to a girl child, none of the family members of the

petitioner have visited her and same is also admitted in

the evidence of RW1 and RW3 before the Trial Court and

the same has been discussed by both the Courts and

reasoned order has been passed. The counsel further

submits that Section 498A case is registered and the same

is also challenged and even discharge application is also

filed and the same is also rejected and both the Courts
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

taking note of the material available on record particularly

the admission that when she gave birth to a girl child,

none of the family members of the petitioner visited her

and the same is elicited in the cross-examination of RW3

also that he himself and his son never visited the house of

the respondent. Apart from that even admitted that after

panchayath only she was taken back to the matrimonial

home. But the fact that the respondent is staying in some

of the portion of the premises of matrimonial home where

she has resided after the marriage and the said fact is not

in dispute. The counsel also submits that when the

petitioner allowed his parents to stay in the very same

building, they making an attempt to remove the

respondent from the said residence and hence, the Court

has to take note of the very intention of the revision

petitioner. The Trial Court also taken note of the admission

on the part of RW1 that he is drawing salary of

Rs.1,70,000/- and awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/-

towards maintenance to the respondent and also to take

care of the daughter and other provision is made to meet

– 10 –

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

50% of the educational expenses and also ordered not to

interfere with the right of residence of the respondent

thus, reasoned order is passed by the Trial Court and the

same is confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties, it discloses that no dispute that

marriage was performed in the year 2006 and also the

document at Ex.P14 clearly discloses that property was

purchased in the name of the petitioner in the year 2003

itself that is prior to the marriage and now the contention

is that very same property was gifted in favour of his

sister in the year 2009 that is after the marriage of the

respondent. When the respondent is residing in the

matrimonial home after the marriage and also even

material discloses that when RW1 and RW3 given

admission that they did not visit the house of the

respondent when she gave birth to a female child, the

Court has to take note of the said fact into consideration.

Apart from that criminal case also initiated against the

– 11 –

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

petitioner and present petition is also filed and when the

cases are pending against the petitioner, M.C. petition also

filed by the petitioner seeking divorce and apart from that

restitution of conjugal rights proceeding also initiated

between the parties. Now, the contention that he will take

care of the respondent and said contention cannot be

accepted when all these material available on record.

9. The Trial Court also while considering the

material available on record taken note of the admission

on the part of the petitioner herein that he is drawing

salary of Rs.1,70,000/- per month and out of that amount,

only Rs.25,000/- was awarded in favour of the respondent

and her daughter. The counsel for the respondent also

submits that now the daughter is pursuing 11th standard

and this petition was filed in the year 2011. Both the

Courts taken note of the material available on record to

invoke Section 12 of the DV Act and apart from that other

aiding provision to give protection to her and to meet 50%

of the educational expenses since an amount of

– 12 –

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

Rs.25,000/- is awarded to meet the expenses of the wife

as well as the child who is pursuing education. Hence, I do

not find any error committed by both the Courts in

considering the material available on record. Even

regarding maintenance is concerned, inspite of evidence

that she is earning Rs.23,000/-, the scope of the revision

is also very limited. Only, if an order passed by the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court suffers from any

legality and its correctness, under such circumstances, the

Court can exercise the revisional jurisdiction. But in the

case on hand, I do not find any error committed by the

Trial Court even granting right of residence as well as

maintenance as well as directing the petitioner to meet

50% of the educational expenses taking into note of the

cost of the education and the First Appellate Court also

confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Under such

circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with

the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate

Court by exercising the revisional powers and no grounds

– 13 –

NC: 2024:KHC:8146
CRL.RP No. 14 of 2019

are made to admit the petition and to interfere with the

finding of both the Courts.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN