1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.141/2015

BETWEEN :

Sri. Chetan R. Lokande,

S/o. Late Rama Krishna Rao Lokande,

Aged about 36 years,

No.11, 4^th Cross, Sector 3 B,

Rama Reddy Colony,

Basava Nagara,

Bengaluru 3 560 037.

...Petitioner

(By Sri. Hemanth Kumar D., Advocate)

AND :

Smt. Sushma J.,

W/o. Chetan R. Lokande,

D/o. Jeevann Rao,

Aged about 24 years,

Residing at No.41/2,

Ward No.12, 9^th Cross,

Kalyan Nagar, T. Dasarahalli,

Bengaluru 3 560 057.

&Respondent

(By Sri. Kalyan R., Advocate)

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section

397 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated

20.10.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.25081/2014 passed by

the Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC 3 III, Bengaluru, and also to

set aside the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the

2

Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court 3 I, Bengaluru, in

Crl.Misc.692/2010.

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for

Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

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 3 III, Bengaluru, whereby the learned

Fast Track Judge has confirmed the order passed by the

Presiding Officer, Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court 3 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:

3

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 8PWDV Act9, 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

4

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

leveled 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 PW1 and

considered

the

documentary

evidence

which

were

exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Husband has

5

cross-examined the wife but despite granting sufficient

opportunity he did not lead his evidence except filing an

affidavit in lieu of examination-in-c