The court determined that ownership rights under the D.V. Act do not permit restriction on property alienation without justifiable grounds.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397(1)

OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPUR IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.78/2019, DATE 19.07.2021 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDAGI DATED 15.10.2019 IN CRL. MISC. NO.132/2018 AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(A), (B), (F), (G), 19(1)(A)(D)(3)(5), 20 AND 22 OF Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.132/2018.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are respondent Nos.2 to 5 in Crl.Misc.No.132/2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi [for short, ‘the Trial Court’] and appellant Nos.2 to 5 in Criminal Appeal No.78/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura [for short, ‘the First Appellate Court’], are seeking to quash the judgment of the Trial Court dated 15.10.2019 allowing the petition filed by respondent No.1 herein under Sections 18 (A), (B), (F), (G), 19 (1) (A), (D) (3) (5), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short, ‘the D.V. Act’], directing the respondents - the petitioners herein and respondent No.1 therein to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and restraining petitioner Nos.1 and 2 from alienating the land mentioned in the order.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, as petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No. 132/2018 before the Trial Court against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 herein and another under Sections 18 (A), (B), (F), (G), 19 (1) (A), (D) (3) (5), 20 and 22 of D.V. Act. It is stated that respondent No.1 herein is the legally wedded wife of Ashok Ingaleshwar who is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner Nos.3 and 4. Their marriage was performed on 05.11.2011. At the time of marriage gold and other articles were given. For sometime they led marital life and they begotten respondent No.2. It is alleged that the husband was addicted to vices and he treated respondent No.1 with cruelty. During 2016 she was ousted form the matrimonial house. Since then respondent No.1 was residing in her parents’ house along with respondent No.2. Since respondent No.1 was subjected to domestic violence, without paying maintenance, she filed the petition seeking various orders.

3. The petitioners herein have appeared before the Trial Court and denied the contentions taken by the respondents. The wife examined herself as PW-1, examined PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. The petitioners examined RW-1 to RW-3 and got marked Exs.R-1 to R-11 in support of their contention. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, passed the order dated 15.10.2019 by allowing the petition against the petitioners and directing to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Further, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein were restrained from alienating the land bearing Sy.No.332/1A measuring 5 acres and Sy.No.334/2B measuring 8 acres situated at Kokatnur village, Sindagi. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Appeal No.78/2019. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of materials on record, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

4. Heard Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Varun Patil Amicus Curiae for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration