IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.35 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Ahmed Basha @ Ahmed Jeelan S/o Mohammed Baig Saheb Aged about 36 years 2. Zareena Begum @ Khathoonissa Begum W/o Mohammed Baig Sahe Aged about 62 years 1 and 2 are R/at No.90, 7th Cross, 10th ‘A’ Main 4th ‘B’ Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-96, And also at No.25, New No.27, 5th A Cross, Anepalya, Adugodi Post, Bengaluru-30. …Petitioners (By Sri N.Manjunatha, Advocate) AND:
S.G.Afeefa @ Sania W/o Ahmed Basha @ Ahmed Jeelan Aged about 28 years Now R/at No.151, Venkataswamappa Layout 4th Main Road, Chamundi Nagar R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560 032, And also at No.44, New No.144 5th Cross, Babu Reddy Layout, Manorayanapalya, R.T.Nagar Post Bengaluru-32. …Respondent (By Sri Syed Khaleel Pasha, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C praying to set aside the order dated 19.11.2018, passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Criminal Appeal No.1794/2017.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment passed by the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1794/2017 dated 19.11.2018.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice to respondent is dispensed with.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent is that petitioner No.1 and respondent are husband and wife.
Petitioner No.2 is the mother of petitioner No.1. They are residing separately. Alleging domestic violence, she filed a petition. The trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month pending disposal of the petition. During pendency of the case, when the matter was listed for cross-examination of P.W.1, petitioner remained absent. The trial Court, taking note of the same, dismissed the case for non-prosecution and as such, appeal was preferred. After hearing the matter, appellate Court remitted the case to the trial Court setting aside the order dated 23.11.2017.
4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate Court without looking into records has illegally allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court. It is his further submission that sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondent-wife, in spite of that, she failed to appear before the Court and has not put forth herself for cross-examination. It is his further submission that case was filed in the year 2014. On one pretext or the other, it has been dragged on. There are no grounds to remit the case to the trial Court. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of the first appellate Court and the records of the trial Court.
6. On going through the records of the trial Court it is seen that on 23.11.2017 the respondent-wife did not appear before the Court and as such, petition came to be dismissed. The case was filed claiming maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, the first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that merely on technical grounds the petition cannot be dismissed and as such, in order to give an opportunity to the respondent-wife, the order of the trial Court was set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Court below to dispose in accordance with law. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
7. If the matter is heard and decided on merits, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. On the contrary, rights of the parties would be determined in accordance with law. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any good grounds to entertain the petition.
Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
bkp Sd/- JUDGE