JUDGMENT

H B Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.1358/2010 is the husband of the respondent therein which respondent is the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2014. The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision petition No.1358/2010 is the sole respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2014.

The petitioner husband - Sri. Nagaraja Rao had filed a criminal case in C.C.No.11445/2006 against the accused (his wife) - Smt. Sushma Rani in the Court of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") alleging the offence punishable under Sections 500, 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "I.P.C.") against the accused.

The said criminal case, after trial, ended in conviction of the accused therein for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and the accused was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- by the judgment and order on sentence of the Trial Court dated 25-10-2010.

Challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused therein (Smt. Sushma Rani - the wife) preferred a Criminal Appeal in Criminal Appeal No.815/2010 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XIV, CCC, Bangalore City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Session Judge's Court") which appeal, after contest, is dismissed by the judgment dated 15-02-2012. Against the said judgment of confirmation of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge's Court, the accused has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2014, whereas, seeking enhancement of sentence, ordered by the Trial Court, the complainant (husband) has filed Criminal Revision petition No.1358/2010 before this Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to with the ranks they were holding in the Trial Court.

3. Both these Criminal Revision Petitions have been treated as connected matters, as such, taken up together for their hearing and disposal.

4. The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2014 who is the respondent in the connected Revision Petition is being represented by her counsel. The respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2014, though was originally being represented by a counsel of his choice, but due to the continuous absence of the said learned counsel for the respondent, this Court, by a detailed order dated 03-09-2020, appointed learned counsel Smt. P.V. Kalpana, as Amicus Curiae for the respondent in the said revision petition. However, the very same complainant as a revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No.1358/2010 has continued his representation through his learned counsel.

5. The Trial Court and Session Judge's Court's records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the Trial Court and Session Judge's Court's records.

7. After hearing both side, the points that arise for my consideration in these revision petitions are :

[i] Whether the complainant has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code?

[ii] Whether the sentence ordered by the Trial Court against the accused in C.C.NMo.11445/2006 on 25- 10-2010 deserved to be enhanced?

[iii] Whether the judgments and order on sentence impugned under these revision petitions suffers with any illegality, impropriety, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

8. The summary of the case of the complainant in the Trial Court was that, the complainant had instituted a matrimonial case against his wife in the Family Court at Bengaluru, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights in M.C.No.959/2001. In that case, the accused (wife) appeared an