Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V. Srishananda, J.
Chetan R. Lokande - Appellant
Vs.
Sushma J. - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 141 of 2015
Decided On : 07-01-2021
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 397 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 – Monitory reliefs – Protection orders – Despite granting sufficient – Divorce – Compensation – Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt – Whether aggrieved person proves that respondent has committed domestic violence against her – Whether aggrieved person is entitled for reliefs of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Held, No efforts were made before First Appellate Court to seek for remanding of matter for placing evidence of respondent – Under such circumstances, with available material on record, learned Fast Track Judge confirmed order of learned Magistrate – In case on hand, even before this Court, learned Counsel representing revision petitioner-husband is unable to show what efforts has been made by husband for restitution of conjugal rights – When matter stood thus, wife approached competent Family Court and obtained order of divorce – Therefore, from date on which wife was abandoned from the matrimonial home till date of decree of divorce, husband was bound to pay the amount of compensation, maintenance as ordered by trial Court – Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
1. Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar D., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Crl.A. No. 25081/2014 by the learned Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - III, Bengaluru, whereby the learned Fast Track Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No. 692/2010 dated 13.03.2014.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:
Revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as husband and wife, respectively, for the sake of convenience.
Wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PWDV Act', for short) seeking reliefs under the provisions of the said Act from the husband contending that on 17.06.2009 her marriage with the revision petitioner was performed in Shubharam Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru, and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. It is further contended that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid as dowry and her parents have spent Rs. 13,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is further contended that their matrimonial life was not happy. Physical and mental torture was imparted on her in the matrimonial home and she was threatened that she would be driven away from the matrimonial house and she was forced to do house hold work and clean the toilets of the house. It is further contended that her husband further demanded money from her parents to buy a car and for construction of the first floor of their house. It is further contended that on 07.03.2010, she was abandoned from the matrimonial house and therefore, she has approached the concerned authorities for protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monitory reliefs under Sections 20 and 22 of the PWDV Act.
4. In response to the notice issued, husband appeared before the trial Court and admitted the marriage but, denied the allegations of domestic violence. Further it was contended that his wife was working in CSC Developers, Infantry Road, Bengaluru and was having sufficient income of her own and denied the allegations levelled against him insofar as the dowry and other aspects of the matter.
5. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the wife, who was examined as P.W. 1 and considered the documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. Husband has cross-examined the wife but despite granting sufficient opportunity he did not lead his evidence except filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.
6. Thereafter, the trial Court raised the following points as under and answered the points:
1) Whether the aggrieved person proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence against her?
2) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the reliefs U/Sec. 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
3) What order?
7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the petition of the wife and ordered as under:
The respondent is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person U/Sec. 18 of the Act.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for accommodation U/Sec. 19 and Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the aggrieved person from the date of this order.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation U/Sec. 22 of the Act to the aggrieved person.
The aggrieved person is not entitled for any other reliefs claimed U/Sec. 20 of the Act."
8. Being aggrieved by the sa
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
