Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.A. Patil, J.
Sri A.C.Deepak Kumar S/o Cheluvaraju – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. P.Priyanka W/o A.C. Deepak Kumar - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.704 of 2017
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Prakash M.H., Advocate
Headnote:
DV Act - Section 2A - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Section 12 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 - Rule 15(6) – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 468 – Demand of dowry - Oral or documentary evidence - Whether provisions of Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code is applicable or not - Whether provisions of Sections 468 and 472 of Criminal Procedure Code are applicable to DV Act is an issue before this Court – Court have heard learned counsel for petitioner husband and learned counsel for respondent wife - Case of respondent in brief is that she has filed a petition before Protection Officer contending that she has married petitioner at time of marriage an amount of has been paid in cash along with 55 grams of gold as dowry - During time of marriage she was studying in B.com, 2nd semester - petition husband agreed to continue 3rd semester of respondent/wife - Thereafter respondent wife joined petitioner husband and subsequently petitioner and his parents subjected respondent wife to harassment in order to bring dowry - It is further alleged that petitioner husband used to assault and confined respondent wife in a room - It is further alleged that at time of marriage petitioner husband stated that he had got a permanent job in RTO and subsequently respondent/wife came to know that he is working in RTO on contract – Held, As could be seen from aforesaid paragraph said observations have been made while making submissions made by learned counsel no ratio laid down by Humble Apex Court - In case of and Another cited supra issue was one and same and while dealing with said matter a ratio has been laid down that if it is continuing offence then under such circumstances Court cannot hold that Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code is a bar to disclaim respondent-wife - Under said facts and circumstances of case and in view of ratio laid down by Humble Apex Court of considered opinion that contention taken up by learned counsel for petitioner that there is a bar under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code is not having any force and same is liable to be rejected - Second contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that respondent is divorced wife and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance surprised in respect of said submission made by learned counsel for petitioner-husband - Though respondent is divorced it is not a judicial separation - She would remain as wife of petitioner throughout and when said relationship is existing a duty is cast upon husband to maintain her though she is a divorcee - This proposition of law has been laid down in catena of decisions of Humble Apex Court as well as by this Court - Under such circumstances court feel that said contention also does not have any force and same is liable to be rejected – Court have gone through judgment of trial Court as well as first appellate Court - Though several contentions have been taken up by petitioner-husband he has not stepped into witness box and he has not been cross-examined - Deliberately he has kept himself away from proceedings - Said conduct of petitioner itself clearly goes to show that if he stepped into witness box truth would have come before Court and he would be held liable in this regard for payment of maintenance - Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of case court of considered opinion Courts below – Appeal dismissed
ORDER :
Petitioner/husband is before this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chickkamagaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.185/2016 dated 13.4.2017 whereunder the appeal was dismissed by confirming the order passed by 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Misc. No.47/2014 dated 4.11.2016.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband and the learned counsel for the respondent/wife.
3. The case of the respondent in brief is that, she has filed a petition before the Protection Officer contending that she has married the petitioner on 26.04.2012 at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid in cash along with 55 grams of gold as dowry. During the time of marriage, she was studying in B.com, 2nd semester. The petitioner/husband agreed to continue the 3rd semester of the respondent/wife. Thereafter, the respondent/wife joined the petitioner/husband and subsequently petitioner and his parents subjected the respondent/wife to harassment in order to bring dowry. It is further alleged that the petitioner/husband used to assault and confined the respondent/wife in a room. It is further alleged that at the time of marriage petitioner/husband stated that he had got a permanent job in RTO and subsequently respondent/wife came to know that he is working in the RTO on contract. Thereafter, the petitioner started making derogatory comments with the friends of the respondent/wife. Once in the petitioner’s sister’s house at Mysuru, the petitioner has beaten the respondent till she looses consciousness in a room, thereafter she has been treated in a private hospital and at the intervention of the parents, conciliation took place and arrangement has been made in this behalf to stay at Mudigere town. It is further stated that the petitioner has given a bond before Mudigere town police station and he has undertaken that he will not continue his illegal acts. It is further contended that the husband has got a habit of attaching the photograph of the respondent with strangers and posting the same in the face book and thereby subjected the respondent for mental harassment. As such, the respondent/wife filed a complaint before the Aldur police station, the same has not been received and as such she filed the complaint before the Protection Officer.
4. The petitioner husband appeared and filed his objection, he admitted the marriage and denied all other allegations. It is further contended that he has agreed to continue her studies and she used to visit her native and stay there for weeks together without any intimation to the petitioner/husband and it is further alleged that she used to receive frequent phone calls and messages to her cell phone even during mid night. When petitioner enquired the respondent about the said fact, the respondent stated that the petitioner is not at all social and modern like her and such social contacts are common. It is further contended that the respondent never bothered about the domestic works at the matrimonial home and every work at home has been done by petitioner’s mother, who is aged and ailing. The respondent insulted the petitioner stating that he belongs to 3rd class family and he is like a slum dweller, often targeting his temporary job and meager income. It is further submitted that in order to change the atmosphere and also to lead a peaceful marital life with the consent of respondent, changed his matrimonial home to Mysuru and started residing there from 1.1.2013 in the house of his sister Smt.Jayalakshmi and respondent became pregnant and she unilaterally decided to undergo abortion on the guise of continuing her education. When the petitioner did not agree for abortion, she threatened that if he is not going to agree for abortion she would commit suicide leaving a suicide note making him responsible for the same. By such threat and blackmailing techniques, the respondent had
