SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

- 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top