- 1 -
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRL.R.P. NO. 100262 OF 2016 (397)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA LAXMAN PATTAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH,
R/O: ILKAL, TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VEENA RABHAVENDRA PATTAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ILKAL, C/O. RAMANNA BHIMAPPA BADIGER,
R/O: KENDHALARKOPPA, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2014 BY VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT
AND
SESSIONS
JUDGE
AT
BELGAUM
REVERSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO. 113 OF 2012 DATED 15.11.2014 KINDLY BE SET
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
Date:
2022.12.08
15:19:38
+0530
- 2 -
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH
COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to setting aside the order dated
20.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.165/2014 by VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Belgaum
reversing the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge,
Saundati in Criminal Miscellaneous No.113/2012 dated
15.11.2014 kindly be set aside by allowing this revision
petition.
2.
The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Trial Court. Petitioner herein is respondent No.1
before the Trial Court and respondent herein is petitioner
before the Trial Court.
3.
The summarized facts of the prosecution case is
that, the petitioner before the Trial Court has filed a
- 3 -
petition under the provision of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that her marriage
with the respondent No.1 solemnized on 26.01.2004 and
out of their wedlock, a child was born. She had also
further alleged that respondent No.1 therein and his
relatives started to abuse her stating that she does not
know how to do domestic work and they were also used to
doubt her character and thereby they have physically and
mentally harassed her. She has further contended that
when the order passed by the Court she went to live with
the respondent No.1, at that time, respondent No.1 and
his relatives had informed her that he had already
contacted for the 2nd marriage and by assaulting her, she
was driven out from the matrimonial house. On these
grounds, the petitioner therein had sought for an order
under Sections 18 and 22 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4.
In pursuance of the notice issued to respondent
No.1 therein, he had appeared and filed his statement of
- 4 -
objections. To prove the case of the petitioner therein, she
herself got examined as PW.1 and 3 documents got
marked as Exs.P.1 to 3. On closure of petitioner side
evidence, respondent No.1 is examined as RW.1 and four
documents got marked as Exs.R.1 to 4. On hearing the
arguments,
the
Trial
Court
has
rejected
the
Crl.Misc.No.113/2012. Being aggrieved by the order
passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner filed criminal
appeal in Crl.Appeal No.165/2014 before the VI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, same was partly
allowed. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Appeal
No.165/2014, respondent No.1 filed this revision petition.
5.
Sri.
J.S.Shetty,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits his arguments that the impugned order
passed by the learned District Judge is wholly illegal,
arbitrary, capricious and not sustainable in the facts and
circumstances of the case and requires to be set aside.
When the learned Magistrate after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and also the weight of
- 5 -
evidence on records and the demeanor of the witnesses,
was pleased to held that the petitioner therein is not
entitled for any of the relief sought by her in the petition.
When the said order passed by the learned Magistrate is
based
on
correct
appreciation
of
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge reversing the said findings record by the
Trial Court, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The
learned Sessions Judge having noticed the fact that there
is no document and no evidence to prove the allegations
made by the appellant therein that the respondent No.1
therein is having business and also owning the agricultural
property and having held that she has also failed to prove
all the allegations made against respondent No.1 therein
had committed an error in awarding the amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month. The said order passed by the
learned Sessions Judge is without any basis and not
sustainable in law. The respondent herein has not proved
any domestic violence against her as alleged in the
- 6 -
petition, hence, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any
maintenance or any other monetary benefits. On all these
grounds, sought for allowing this revision petition