IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1156/2019 BETWEEN:
Kumara @ Udaya Kumara S/o Late Bellashetty, Aged about 46 years, R/o Abbana Village, K.Hosakote Hobali, Alur Tq., Hassan District-573 201. ... Petitioner (By Girish B. Baladare, Advocate) AND:
1. Pankaja @ Bhavya W/o Kumar @ Udaykumar, Aged about 36 years, R/o Gopalakrishna Vattara, R.C.Road, Hassan-573 201.
2. Janakamma W/o Late Bellashetty, Aged about 61 years, 3. Naganna S/o Akki Thimmashetty, Aged about 51 years, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the R/o Abbana Village, Alur Taluk, Hassan District-573 201. ... Respondents (By Smt. Elizabeth Rodrigues, Advocate for R1; Notice to R2 and R3 is D/W V/O dtd.24.09.2019 ) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in Crl.Misc.No.553/2016 and order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.192/2018 and allow this Criminal petition.
This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner- Husband, challenging the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.A.No.192/2018 dated 10.04.2018 whereunder the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan in Crl.Mis.No.553/2016 dated 09.07.2018 was confirmed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Though this case is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same has been taken up for final disposal.
4. The factual matrix of the case as contended by the respondent No.1 - Wife is that the marriage was performed on 11.05.2006 and at the time of marriage, on demand, the parents of the respondent No.1 has given Rs.50,000/- cash, some golden ornaments, sarees and other articles. After four months of marriage, the petitioner - Husband started ill-treating and harassing his wife by consuming alcohol. Even in spite of advice of elders, he continued ill-treatment and harassment at the instigation of other accused persons and he was also demanding dowry. The complaint has been filed by the respondent No.1 - Wife in Alur Police Station and matter has been amicably settled after the advice given by the Police. Thereafter, again he continued to ill- treatment and harassment. At the instigation of the other persons, he also assaulted the respondent No.1 - Wife and driven her out of the house. Thereafter, she went and started staying in her parents’ house. It is further stated that she has not having any source of income. The respondent was doing Ginger business, owns a tractor and has landed properties and was earning Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- per month. It has been stated that at J.P.Nagar, he is having site and he is capable of giving maintenance.
5. The said petition has been contested by the petitioner-Husband denying the contents of the petition but admitted the relationship and further contended that the petitioner’s wife did not conceive and he has spent huge amount for the purpose of getting her treated and in spite of that she did not conceive. It is his further contention that he has ill-treated and harassed but she herself decided to go to her parents’ house and stayed with them without there being any intimation. It is his further contention that she left the house by loading all the things, ornaments, clothes which are brought by her. He further contended that the respondent is not having sufficient income. The suit for partition has been filed by his Uncle and that the partition suit has to be decided. He is not in a possession of the said properties. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. In order to prove the case of the respondent - Wife, she herself examined as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents at Exs.P.1 to P.14. The respondent - Husband got examined as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents as RW.1 to 4.
7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court has allowed the petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the Act’ for short) and it has given the following reliefs:
“i) Respondents are prohibited from committing any act of domestic violence till the life time of the petitioner.
ii) Respondents are also prohibited from aiding or abetting in the commission of act of domestic violence.
iii) Respondents are also prohibited from threatening or attempting to threaten the petitioner in any form whatsoever including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact.
iv) Respondents are also prohibited from causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give assistance to the petitioner from domestic violence.
v) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance of aggrieved person from the date of petition.
vi) Respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the aggrieved person.”
8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner - Husband are that the Courts below without appreciating the case on hand had passed erroneous orders. It is his further submission that the respondent - Wife herself deserted the petitioner and she started to stay in her parental home, since she did not conceive. The said aspect has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Courts below. It is his further submission that he has spent huge amount for her treatment and without there being ill-treatment and harassment, the trial Court has passed the impugned order granted exorbitant maintenance and compensation in favour of the respondent - wife. It is his further submission that even as on that date, he was ready to lead his life with respondent - Wife and it is his further submission that these aspects have not been considered and appreciated by the trial Court. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent - Wife vehemently argued and submitted that after four months of the marriage, the petitioner - Husband started ill-treating and harassed her in demand of dowry. It is her further submission that at the time of marriage also, dowry has been given. She further contended that the petitioner - Husband is having good income and he is doing Ginger business and owns tractor and he is also having landed properties. The maintenance and the compensation awarded are just and proper which needs no interference. She further submits that the mother of respondent - Wife is aged and nobody is there to take care of her. As such, she was residing with Social Worker. It is her further submission that the respondent - Wife is not having any source of income. The trial Court after considering the material placed on record has come to a right conclusion and rightly awarded the maintenance and the compensation. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. From the above facts it is clear that they were not in good relationship and it is also not in dispute that they have not got any issues. The only question which arises for consideration of the Court is whether there is domestic violence on the part of the petitioner - Husband.
12. As could be seen from Section 3 of the Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence if there is any harassment and ill-treatment, threat or physical abuse, insult including other grounds which have been mentioned therein. On close reading of the evidence of PW.1, in her evidence, she has categorically deposed before the Court that the respondent - Husband by consuming Alcohol used to ill-treat and harass and also used to abuse orally and he used to utter emotional abusive words. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, it has been contended that the petitioner - Husband has spent huge amount for the purpose of medical treatment. Other suggestions have been denied. The petitioner - Husband himself got examined as RW.1 and he has reiterated what he has been contended in his objections and he has contended that she herself left by deserting him without there being any sufficient costs. On going through the evidence placed on record, it is the specific case of the respondent - Wife that the respondent did not allow her to enter into the house and he has thrown her cloths out of the house. Even though she has contacted him, he refused to join with her. Even all the material if they have seen, if really the respondent - Husband is interested to take her back, then under such circumstances, definitely he could have filed restitution of conjugal right or he could have held Panchayath for securing her. Neither such Panchayath was held nor any witnesses have been examined before the Courts below. For the reasons best known to him, even though it is contended that he has spent huge amount for the purpose of treating her for getting child but admittedly she has not got any child. Taking into consideration, the evidence and material placed on record, the respondent - Wife has proved that there is a domestic violence. Even the petitioner – Husband has not paid any maintenance or any amount to her. That itself amounts to nothing and neglecting the respondent - Wife. Taking into consideration, the above said facts and circumstances, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have come to a conclusion to the effect that there is domestic violence. In that light the said contention is not having force.
13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent - Wife that the petitioner - Husband is having sufficient income and he is doing Ginger business and is owning tractor and also having landed property and he is having good source of income. In order to substantiate her said contention she has produced Exs.P.2 to 6 - 5 RTC Extracts which clearly go to show that the said land is standing in the name of the petitioner - Husband. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his uncle has filed the suit for partition and partition suit is yet to be decided. The records made available indicate that all the said lands are standing in the name of the petitioner - Husband. Taking into the said facts and circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that he is not having sources of income to pay maintenance and the compensation appears to be not just and proper. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - Husband that the maintenance awarded to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation appears to be on the higher side. He has to maintain other members of the family. The records indicate that the father of the petitioner - Husband has passed away and mother is alive but he has no proof to indicate as to who are all the dependents.
Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded and maintenance granted in favour of the respondent - Wife appears to be just and proper. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Order of the trial Court deserves to be confirmed. In that light, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
I.A.No.3/2019 filed for vacating stay does not survive for consideration, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-