Divergent judgment passed by the learned judge of Fast Track Court-VI in Crl.A.687/11 is called in question. Respondent herein was the complainant in the said case, i.e. Crl.Misc.102/11 and petitioner herein was the accused-respondent.

2. Petition had been filed under Sections 9(b) and 37(2)(c) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the D.V.Act, for brevity). Parties will be referred to as complainant and respondent as per their ranking before the trial court in Crl.Misc.102/11.

3. Facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows:

a) Claiming herself to be the legally wife of the accused, the complainant chose to file a petition requesting the trial court o direct the accused to provide accommodation in his house and also to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance during her lifetime and to issue necessary direction to the local police in the event the respondent were to cause inconvenience and harassment and also to grant such other reliefs as the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

b) The respondent is stated to have married the complainant on 24.2.1965 as per Hindu customs in his residential premises at Bengaluru. After the marriage, it is stated that she lived with him discharging her duties as a dutiful wife. They have no issues out of their marriage. It is alleged that after some time, the respondent started neglecting her and refused to maintain her due to ill-advice of his relatives. He is stated to have developed illegal intimacy with a lady called Ratnamma. In spite of her repeated requests, respondent did not allow her to join him and continued to neglect her, without making any provision for her maintenance.

c) After the death of the respondent’s father, complainant is stated to have once again requested him to allow her to live with him in the said house. He refused to take her back. Hence a legal notice was gotissued by the complainant on 17.8.2009 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent. She wanted a portion of the premises where the respondent is living and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- for food, clothing, shelter and medical expenses as maintenance.

d) Respondent-accused has filed detailed objections opposing the complaint. He has admitted that his marriage took place with one Devakumari. But according to him, the person who has filed the complaint is not Devakumari whom he had married, and the complainant is stated to have falsely represented herself as Devakumari-his wife and that the real Devakumari with whom he had married was not traced and she had given up her status as his wife.

e) According to the accused-respondent, Devakumari whom he had married, had no objection for granting a decree of divorce in the proceedings initiated by him. He does not have any proper income and he is aged more than 64 years and is dependant on his son for his daily necessities and his son also does not have much income. He has called upon the complainant to prove her relationship with him as the legally wedded wife. She is stated to be a fictitious person having approached the court in the name of Devakumari. With these pleadings, he had requested the court to dismiss the petition.

f) Devakumari (complainant) herself is examined as PW-1 and the respondent’s sister-Hemavaathi is examined as PW-2. She has got marked two exhibits, viz., Ex.P1-marriage invitation card and Ex.P2- photograph. The accused-Ramachandrachar is examined as RW-1 and two persons namely, Shamantha and V.R. Vishwanath are examined on his behalf as RW-2 and RW-3 respectively. Five exhibits have been got marked on his behalf.

g) Ultimately the learned judge of the trial court chose to dismiss the petition vide considered order dated 7.9.2011 as against which an appeal was filed under Section 29 of the D.V.Act before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The said appeal filed in Crl.a.687/11 is allowed vide judgment dated 23.11.2012. It is this divergent judgment which is call