Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
SRI THIRUVALLAVAN – Appellant
Versus
SMT GAYATHRI – Respondent
CRL.RP/21/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.21/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI THIRUVALLAVAN
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI. D. PARASRAMAN
R/AT NO.7
BAZAR STREET, 5TH CROSS
NEELASANDRA, SOUTHERN PORTION
BANGALORE – 560 047. ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.N. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O SRI. THIRUVALLAVAN
NO.7, 1ST FLOOR
BAZAR STREET, 5TH CROSS
NEELASANDRA, SOUTHERN PORTION
BANGALORE – 560 047.
2.
SMT. VANITHA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
W/O SRI. D. PARASRAMAN
3.
SRI. D. PARASURAMAN
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O LATE DORAISWAMY
2
4.
SMT. MAGILARASI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
D/O SRI. D. PARASRAMAN
5.
SMT. POOGOTHAI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
D/O LATE DORAISWAMY
6.
SRI. PUGALVENDAN
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O SRI. D. PARASRAMAN
7.
MS. AMU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
D/O LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN
8.
SRI. UDAY KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
GRANDSON OF LATE DOORAISWAMY
9.
SMT. MEENA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O RAMALINGAM
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 9 ARE
R/AT NO.7, BAZAR STREET
5TH CROSS, NEELASANDRA
BANGALORE – 47.
10.
SMT. POOMANI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NO.38, NORTH STREET
(NEXT TO WELFARE ASSOCIATION
FREE READING ROOM
NEELASANDRA
BENGALURU – 47. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR
REGO AND REGO FOR R1, V/O DATED: 15.06.2021
NOTICE TO R2-R10 ARE DISPENSED WITH )
3
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE,
MAYOHALL
UNIT,
BANGALORE
DATED:07.11.2015 IN CRL.A.No.25114/2014 CONFIRMING
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
M.M.T.C-I
MAYOHALL
UNIT,
BANGALORE
IN
CRL.MISC.No.94/2013 DATED:03.07.2014 BY ALLOWING
THE PRESENT CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the petition is listed for admission with
the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2.
Heard
learned
counsel
Sri.M.N.Umesh
for
Sri.S.D.N.Prasad for petitioner and Sri.Arjun Rego,
learned counsel for respondent No.1.
3.
Petition is presented under Section 397 Cr.P.C
against
the
order
07.11.2015
passed
in
Crl.A.No.25114/2014 by the learned LVII Additional
4
City
Civil
and
Sessions
Judge,
Mayohall
Unit,
Bengaluru, wherein appeal came to be dismissed
confirming the Judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.94/2013 by the Presiding Officer, MMTC-I,
Bengaluru.
4.
The substance of the case as could be seen from
the certified copy of the order dated 07.11.2015 is as
under:
“3. The brief facts of the case is that the
marriage
of
the
aggrieved
person-
respondent with the appellant took place on
26.01.2007
and
thereafter
they
lived
together in the matrimonial house/shared
household of the respondent. Respondent
No.1
started
his
rude
behaviour
and
neglected to care the aggrieved person. The
aggrieved person-respondent gave birth to a
female
child
by
name
Bhavana
on
07.10.2008. Respondent No.1 did not take
the aggrieved person and the child to his
5
house. Respondents No.1 to 6 constantly
harassed the aggrieved person and she was
forced to stay in her room with her child.
The
respondent
was
getting
salary
of
Rs.8,000/- p.m. as a driver and he refused
to maintain the aggrieved person and the
child.
The
respondent
started
illicit
relationship with other women in his work
place. In the year 2010, respondent No.1
assaulted the aggrieved person and caused
nose
fracture
and
she
gave
a
police
complaint
and
