Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.
Prema Shetty – Appellant
Versus
Hemanth Shetty & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 436 of 2015
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 397 of Cr.P.C. - [Sundara Shetty's Second Wife Alleges Domestic Violence and Dispossession by Step-Children - Sections 19, 2(s) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court discussed the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to the case, focusing on the definition of 'shared household' and the requirement of a domestic relationship. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the petitioner failed to establish a domestic relationship and did not meet the criteria of a shared household as defined in the Act. The court upheld the appellate court's decision, concluding that the petitioner did not have grounds to interfere with the judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the second wife of Sundara Shetty, alleged domestic violence and dispossession by her step-children after her husband's death. She filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was initially allowed by the Trial Court but later dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish a domestic relationship and did not meet the criteria of a shared household as defined in the Act. The appellate court's decision was upheld, and the petitioner's revision petition was dismissed.
Issues: The key issue was the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to the petitioner's case, specifically regarding the existence of a domestic relationship and a shared household.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to prove a domestic relationship and the absence of a shared household as defined in the Act. The court upheld the appellate court's findings and concluded that the petitioner did not have grounds to interfere with the judgment.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the Judgment of the Appellate Court was confirmed.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Ramachandra D. Huddar, J. - The Revision Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the Judgment in Crl.A. No.51/2012, dated 05.03.2015 passed by the learned Dist. and Sessions Judge, Udupi, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the Order dated 02.06.2012 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, in M.C. No.38/2010 filed by the petitioner.
2. Parties to the Revision Petition are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court in M.C. No.38/2010, for the purpose of convenience.
3. Brief and relevant facts leading up to this Revision Petition are as under:
That petitioner is the permanent resident of Kukkundoor Village in the residential house called 'motherland' bearing door No.4/221. The said house is standing in the name of one deceased Sundara Shetty. As per her petition averments, she is the legally wedded second wife of the deceased Sundara Shetty. Her marriage was registered. After her marriage, herself and her husband Sundara Shetty used to reside in the aforesaid house. As he was seriously ill, he was admitted to K.M.C. Hospital, Manipal. Her husband Sundara Shetty died on 04.01.2010 because of his illness.
4. It is alleged by the petitioner that when her husband during his life time was admitted in KM.C. Hospital, Manipal, the respondents and their people came to the hospital and forcibly tried to take his thumb impression. Respondent No.1 appears to be his son and respondent Nos.2 and 3 appear to be sons-in-law of her husband from his first wife.
5. It is alleged that after the death of her husband, these respondents forcibly took the dead body of her husband. It is alleged, that on 19.01.2010, respondents along with their henchmen, came to their house and by force took away her Santro car, 25 pound gold and another 10 pound gold belonging to her husband so also ring, watch etc., forcibly dispossessed her from the said house and put the lock to the said house. Therefore, petitioner submitted a complaint before the Karkala Town Police Station which is being registered in FIR No.13/2020.
6. It is alleged that on 28.01.2010, the petitioner came to her house for her domestic work. At that time, respondents suddenly entered her house and locked the main door and did not allow her to enter the house. Therefore she filed a petition before the learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala, in M.C. No.38/2010 under s.9(b) and 37 (2)(c) read with Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She prayed to allow the said petition.
7. Pursuant to the notice, respondents appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the petition by filing detailed objections, denying the very domestic relations with the petitioner. Each and every allegations so did in the petition have been denied by the respondents. It is contended that a false complaint was filed before the police station. The petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of Sundara shetty. During his life time he had executed a will and that Will is questioned before the Civil Court in O.S No.35/2010, so also O.S. No.106/2011, seeking injunction. The said suits are pending. Therefore they prayed to dismiss the Petition.
8. Before the Trial Court, petitioner entered witness box as P.W.1 and got marked in all, 20 documents from Exs.P1 to P20 and closed her evidence. Respondents have not let in any evidence.
9. The learned Trial Court having heard the arguments of both the sides, allowed the Petition as prayed for. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred Crl.A. No.51/2012 before the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Udupi. Vide Judgment dated 05.03.2015, the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Udupi has allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment being passed in M.C. No. 38/2010 by Judgment dated 02.06.2012 by the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala. As there are divergent findings, being aggrieved by the same, now the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition challenging the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a domestic relationship and a shared household as defined in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ....
The need for specific and substantial allegations of domestic violence to support proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(1) Ratio of decision is apposite to the facts and circumstances.(2) Cannot be said that no protection relief has been sought for against the present petitioner.
A domestic relationship under the D.V. Act requires actual or past residence in a shared household, and mere visits do not suffice to establish such a relationship.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence' under the Protection ....
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
