SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Kar) 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. Srishananda, J.
Smt. Sheelavathi W/O. Sri. M. Lokesh - Petitioner
Versus
Sri. M. Lokesh S/O. Sri. T. Mutte Gowda – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2015
Decided On : 08-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. B.S.Venkata Narayana, Adv., Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, Adv.

Point of Law: Domestic violence - First appellate court has passed an order of restitution of conjugal rights which has impermissible having regard to the scope of the appeal under the DV Act

Headnote:

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 19, 18, 20 and 22 – Harassmet – Dowry demand – Challenged - It is contended by wife that she was married to Temple (Belavangala cross) - It is contended that thereafter she joined matrimonial home - It is contended that at time of marriage 300 grams of gold jewellary and 880 grams of silver articles were given as dowry and huge amount was also spent towards marriage - It is further contended that after fifteen days of marriage, her husband and parents-in-law and other members of husband’s family demanded a motor bike as dowry and since her father was unable to meet demand, - It is further contended that to her dismay, she found that her husband had been addicted to bad vices and used to stay only two days in a week in house and spend remaining days outside house - On being questioned by her, her husband gave evasive reply and when insisted for proper reply, she was beaten by her husband and her parents-in-law also supported to her husband - Whether order passed by learned Judge in first appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, is suffering from patent defect, error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity and thus calls for interference? –

Finding of the Court:

It is wife or woman alone can seek any relief under DV Ac - Need has arisen to this court to interfere with finding recorded by learned Judge in first appellate court in passing order whereby wife is permitted to join husband - In other words, learned Judge in first appellate court has passed an order of restitution of conjugal rights which has impermissible having regard to scope of Appeal - Invariable conclusion that this court can reach is to hold that order of learned Judge in first appellate court suffers form serious legal infirmities, error patent on record and without jurisdiction as well, whereby this court is bound to set aside impugned order - Having regard to fact that husband is not represented before court it is just and necessary to set aside order of learned first Appellate Court and remand matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunities for parties -

Result: Revision Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

1. This Revision Petition is by the wife challenging the order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10006/2014 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural District.

2. Parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience.

3. The germane facts for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under:

Wife filed an application in C.Misc.No.3/2010 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur under Section 12 of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’ for short].

4. It is contended by the wife that she was married to Mr.M.Lokesh on 10.2.2006 at Lakshmi Venkateshwara Kalyana Mantap, Kanasawadi, Madhure Shanimahatma Temple (Belavangala cross) Madhure, Doddaballapur Taluk. It is contended that thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. It is contended that at the time of marriage 300 grams of gold jewellary and 880 grams of silver articles were given as dowry and huge amount was also spent towards the marriage. It is further contended that after fifteen days of the marriage, her husband and parents-in-law and other members of the husband’s family demanded a motor bike as dowry and since her father was unable to meet the demand, he requested his son Mr.Santhosh to purchase a motorcycle which could be given to her husband and her brother had to obtain loan from HDFC Bank and purchased a two wheeler and gave it to her husband. It is further contended that the demand of her husband did not stop there and after some time, he again demanded a sum of Rupees two lakhs from her parents as dowry but her father could only arrange Rupees One lakh and that was also given to her husband.

5. It is further contended that to her dismay, she found that her husband had been addicted to bad vices and used to stay only two days in a week in the house and spend remaining days outside the house. On being questioned by her, her husband gave evasive reply and when insisted for the proper reply, she was beaten by her husband and her parents-in-law also supported to her husband. It is further contended that even when her husband visited the house, he used to behave indifferently and her parents-in-law joined him and harassed her physically and mentally. It is also contended that all of them gave life threat to her and she somehow managed to put up. In the meanwhile, she got conceived and same message was conveyed to her parents. It is at that juncture she explained the trauma she has experienced in her matrimonial home to her parents and her parents took her to their house wherein she gave birth to a boy baby on 16.5.2007. Despite conveying about birth of baby boy, there was no proper response from the matrimonial home and her husband refused to participate in the naming ceremony. Ultimately naming ceremony was also performed in his absence and she contacted matrimonial home to join her husband which was refused by her husband without there being any reason whatsoever. It is further contended that her husband and his family members are having sufficient means to maintain her and they have deliberately deserted her and her son and therefore, sought for the reliefs under the DV Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Doddaballapura with the following prayer:

    "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take cognizance on the complaint/domestic incident report and pass all/any of the orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case kindly: (a)pass protection order under section 18 and (b) pass residence order under section 19 and (c) direct the respondent to pay monetary relief under section 20 (d) direct the respondent to pay compensation or damages under section 22 of the Act and (e) pass any other order as deems fit and prop

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top