IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 528 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI BHASKAR REDDY S/O MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 102, VENKATESHWARA APARTMENTS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 037.

…PETITIONER [BY SRI S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

Ms. ROSHINI D/O BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, VENKATESHWARA APARTMENTS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MUNNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI, Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 087.

by ANUSHA V …RESPONDENT Location: High [BY SRI HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE (PH)]

Court of Karnataka THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGLAURU ON 19.07.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.42/2013 PARTIALLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DIRECTING PETITIONER HEREIN TO PAY RS.15,000/- TO RESPONDENT HEREIN TILL MARRIAGE AND TO PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- AND PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION TO STANDARD OF HER STATUS, AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT PASSED BY LXXIII ADL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-74) ON 28.02.2025 IN CRL.A.25220/2023 CONFIRMING ORDER OF TRIAL COURT.

THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.10.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV ORDER

Challenging order dated 28.02.2025 passed by LXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) (Appellate Court), in Crl.A.no.25220/2023 and order dated 19.07.2023 by Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, (DV Court) in Crl.Misc.no.42/2013, this revision petition is filed.

2. Sri Balakrishnan S., learned counsel for petitioner submitted above revision arose out of Crl.Misc.42/2013 filed by respondent under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, ('DV Act', for short) seeking for protection order under Section 18, order of residence under Section 19, monitory relief of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 20, monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- and compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under Section 22 of DV Act. And for sake of convenience, parties referred as per their ranks in said petition.

3. It was submitted in petition, it was stated, petitioners i.e. Miss Roshini D/o Bhaskar Reddy (Petitioner no.1) and Master Hitesh S/o Bhaskar Reddy (Petitioner no.2 were children of Bhaskar Reddy (Respondent) and Late P. Geetha. That during October, 2012, petitioner no.1 was narrating to her mother about sexual acts that respondent and others were indulging with her. Same was overheard by respondent, who manhandled petitioner no.1 and her mother and due to which, her mother died on 27.10.2012. When maternal grandmother of petitioners (Ramadevi) came to know about it, she filed complaint against respondent. It was stated that petitioners were in custody of Ramadevi and needed money for education, food, clothing etc., while respondent was earning Rs.1,20,000/- per month as Software Engineer. It was alleged, respondent was facing allegations of sexual abuse, causing physical and mental harm. Therefore, petitioners were entitled for relief.

4. On service of summons, respondent appeared and filed objections denying petition claims by stating that on 18.10.2012, while he was at work, his wife fell in bathroom and died during treatment on 27.10.2012. On 26.10.2012, Ramadevi took his children away to Chennai and refused to send them back. Therefore, he lodged complaint against Ramadevi. She also lodged complaint against respondent and TK Mallikarjun Reddy, Phani and Smt.Sunitha, who had treated his wife. On 04.02.2013, Ramadevi also lodged complaint for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) against respondent and his brothers. She filed another complaint against respondent for offenc