Bangalore District Court
Dr.Babitha.J vs Varun Suresh on 28 April, 2026
KABC080064262022
Presented on : 11-07-2022
Registered on : 11-07-2022
Decided on : 28-04-2026
Duration : 3 years, 9 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2026.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.94/2022
Petitioner : Smt.Dr.Babitha J
W/o Varun Suresh
Aged about 28 years,
R/at.No.1838, 22nd Main Road,
13th Cross, 1st Sector,
HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
(By Sri/Smt.K.R.P. Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent No.1 : Sri.Varun Suresh
S/o K. Suresh,
Aged about 30 years,
2
Crl.Misc.94/2022
R/at No.1955,
19th 'A' Main, 4th Cross,
2nd Phase, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
Presently R/at St. Martin
Apartments,
Apartment No.2021, 9425 rolater
Road, Frisco,
Texas - 75035, USA
(R-1 placed exparte)
Respondent No.2 : Smt.Geetha K.S.
W/o K. Suresh,
Aged about 59 years,
Respondent No.3 Sri.K. Suresh
S/o Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 61 years,
Both are R/at No.1955,
19th 'A' Main, 4th Cross,
2nd Phase, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
(By Sri/Smt.T.S.R. Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3Crl.Misc.94/2022
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as under; The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 12.03.2020. Further she submitted that, after the marriage they stayed for some time in her parent's house and moved to matrimonial house for a period of 4 months. Since the respondent No.1 is software engineer working in USA on 28.08.2020 petitioner had shifted to USA . Only couple of months she has lead happy married life there after she has suffered lot of torture, humiliation and cruelty at the hands of the respondents. The respondent No.1 always depressed and frustrated due to frequent change in jobs and would always show anger and frustration on her and he used to always abuse in filthy language and he also started to demand dowry amounting to two crores and ¾ of the property holding of her parents. The respondent No.1 used to frequently talk to respondent No.2 and 3 on phone with regard to dowry and astrology regarding their family life and very much believing in astrology and black magic. The respondents always blaming and saying that the petitioner is an un-lucky girl and on her enter to their house very bad things are happening and she is the root cause for everything. Before marriage respondents demanded to perform marriage in grand manner and decorate the marriage hall equaling to the marriage of 4 Crl.Misc.94/2022 former Prime Minister Sri.H.D. Devegowda's grand son. Petitioner's father has given jewelleries worth of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- for engagement set choker, ear rings etc., on ring for respondent No.1 worth of Rs.1,00,000/- for reception jewellery set, necklace ear rings, rings etc., and one ring for respondent No.1 worth of Rs.1,10,000/-, jewelleries of Muhurtham set, Jhumkas, bangles, wrist belt, long chain, necklace, ear rings and full set worth of Rs.40,00,000/-, one neck chain, bracelet, one ring and wrist Rado watch for respondent No.1 worth of Rs.12,50,000/-. For morning event reception jewellery one more long chain and one more set of Jhumkas around Rs.20 lakhs. The entire gold jewelleries are given by her parents on demand of the respondents and all the jewelleries are in the custody of respondents. As per the demand of the respondent No.1 the parents of the petitioner gave one BMW car worth Rs.48 lakhs and he has also taken one Fortuner car of petitioner's parents worth of Rs.35 lakhs and entire marriage expenses borne by her parents. Further she submitted that, on 15.02.2021 the petitioner's parents have sold the commercial property bearing No.1705 situated at Sector 2, HSR Layout, Bengaluru which was purchased on the names of petitioner's mother and sister to discharge the hand loans availed 5 Crl.Misc.94/2022 from known persons to perform the marriage of petitioner. On knowing the same the respondent No.1 got angry and shouted on her, physically assaulted, kicked, slapped and continuously assaulted her on daily basis for one or the other reasons. Further she submitted that, the respondent No.1 was not caring on the petitioner she was new to the USA and had no job, she didn't know any of the neighbours in such situation he has not returned home for 3-4 days, she was alone within the four walls. On 1 st January 2022 they returned to India. The respondent again picked up quarrel with regard to her MS course in KIMS, Bengaluru, he was keen on making her quit the course and take her back to USA, which was advised by their astrologer.
3. Further petitioner submitted that, on 11.01.2022 in the evening the respondent No.2 questioned with regard to the dowry for settling down in USA which is against her wishes. Petitioner requested the respondents that she can't demand the share from her parents since she has an unmarried younger sister after performance of her sister's marriage the parents of petitioner may allot the share equally to petitioner and her sister until the marriage of her sister she can't 6 Crl.Misc.94/2022 demand the share. For that started galata and respondent No.1 got angry and he caught her hand and twisted it and hit thrice on her back she was about to call her parents but they snatched her phone and wallet which she held in her hand and tried to push her from the third floor balcony. The respondent No.2 went to the kitchen and bought a steel rod like kitchen utensil and was about to hit on her head. For that she approached the jurisdictional J.P. Nagar police and with the help of police she contacted her parents and they arrived to the police station, as she was scared and was in a mental trauma police suggested her to take medical aid first and come back to lodge a complaint as it was 11.00 p.m. On 12.01.2022 she went to Sanjay Gandhi hospital for medical aid. Further respondents have requested not to file any case if the case is registered it is difficult to travel abroad for his job and also assured that the respondent No.1 will come back to India within 2 months and set right all the issues positively. On 15.01.2022 the police have recorded their statement and signed by both of them, she has requested the respondent No.1 to stay for few days more so that she can take decision without any fear. Thereafter on the same day evening about 6.30 p.m. the respondent No.1 came to her parents house and created scene he used vulgar words. The petitioner 7 Crl.Misc.94/2022 came to know that, he wanted to abandon her and won't return back to India. Further they went to police station however they informed them to come in the morning. In spite of all the ill treatments, harassment, cruel activities and physical abuse she has not lodged any complaint either in USA or in Bengaluru in order to safeguard her marriage and marital relationship. The respondent No.1 in order to escape from the police action he promised to petitioner that he will be back within 2 months and will take care of her welfare, on reaching USA he turned hostile and has filed divorce petition against her before the Texas Court and she have not been served with the notice, subsequently after passing of the order of the exparte divorce the notice was sent which is not maintainable and not a valid divorce. The respondent No.1 was having a telephonic conversation but he has not disclosed the pendency of the divorce petition and cheated her. However, petitioner has lodged police complaint before HSR Layout police station in Crime No.122/2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.
4. Further she submitted that, the respondent No.1 is serving as a software engineer in a company and drawing handsome salary more than Rs.10 lakhs of 8 Crl.Misc.94/2022 Indian currency and the respondents are fetching rents of Rs.4 lakhs per month. Further she submitted that, she is not earning person she is a student of post graduation course of ophthalmology in KIMS, Bengaluru and because of respondents she has not continued her PG course. Petitioner rejoined to continue her PG course from February 2022 but she is not getting any stipend. The petitioner has no source of income, she cannot maintain herself, she need Rs.1,50,000/- to meet both the ends. On all these grounds she has filed this petition.
5. After the registration of the petition this Court has issued notice to the respondents and respondent No.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed objection to the main petition. After service of notice to the respondent No.1, he has not appeared before this Court. Hence, he was placed exparte. In the objection statement by the respondent No.2 and 3 they have admitted the marriage relationship between petitioner and respondent No.1. Further they denied all the allegation made in the petition against them. Further they submitted that, they never caused domestic violence against the petitioner and they never demanded the 9 Crl.Misc.94/2022 dowry from the petitioner. On all these grounds they pray to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner to substantiate her case has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 8. Respondent No.3 examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 17.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The following points that arises for my consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she was subjected to Domestic Violence by the respondents?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
9. On perusal of materials before this court, my findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the following;
10Crl.Misc.94/2022 REASONS
10. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship between herself and respondents, she was residing with the respondents in a shared household, the domestic violence was caused by the respondents upon her. The respondent No.1 has neglected the petitioner without any reasonable cause and the respondent No.1 is capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
11. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between parties. Hence, it is proved that, the petitioner and the respondents are in domestic relationship. It is also an admitted fact that, the petitioner and respondents were residing together till the date of separation. Hence, they have resided together in a shared household. Only the aspect of domestic violence needs to be proved by the petitioner.
12. Petitioner has examined herself as P.W.1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief. In support of her contentions she has got marked Ex.P.1 to 8. It is the main allegation of the petitioner that, respondents have demanded that, her marriage with 11 Crl.Misc.94/2022 respondent No.1 has to be celebrated with great pomp. It is alleged by her that at the time of marriage respondents have demanded BMW car, gold ornaments worth Rs.1 Crore, Silver articles worth Rs.10 lakhs and that engagement., marriage and reception has to be performed in a very high standard. As per the demands of the respondents petitioner's parents have given jewels worth Rs.1.2 Cores, Rs.20 lakhs for engagement, Rs.1 lakh for the gold ring of respondent No.1, Rs.25 lakhs for reception jewelry set, necklace, ear rings, rings, one ring worth Rs.1,10,000/- to respondent No.1, jewelry worth Rs.40 lakhs for muhurtham and one ring and Rado watch for respondent worth Rs.12,50,000/-, Rs.20 lakhs jewelry for morning event, reception were given by petitioner's parents to respondent and all the jewelery are in the custody of respondents. It is alleged that, petitioner's parents have spent Rs.25 lakhs for decoration, Rs.25 lakhs for catering, Rs.8,10,000/- for rent, Rs.5 lakhs for music, Rs.7 lakhs for miscellaneous expenses, Rs.5 lakhs for pre-wedding photoshoot, BMW car worth Rs.48 lakhs. It is also alleged that, respondent No.1 has taken Fortuner car of petitioner's parents worth Rs.35 lakhs for his use whenever he came to Bangalore and petitioner's father took back the Fortuner car only after this petition was filed. It is alleged that, her parents 12 Crl.Misc.94/2022 have spent Rs.30 lakhs towards clothes to the respondents and their relative, furniture to respondents house and other gifts. In support of this contentions petitioner has submitted 51 bills for having purchased gold jewellery marked as Ex.P.2. Respondent No.1 is served but he has not contended the matter. Hence, he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 and 3 have filed their objection denying all the allegations made against them. It is their contention that, they have not demanded dowry and all the allegations made by the petitioner is false. In the cross examination of petitioner/P.W.1 it is elicited from the petitioner that in 2020 her parents financial condition was not good. She has stated that, the items purchased on demand of the respondents are itself proof that respondents had demanded dowry.
13. Further in cross examination dated 17.02.2024 petitioner has stated that, she does not remember the BMW car reregistration number, car model number or make of the car. She has further admitted that, she does not know who gave Rs.10 lakhs to whom and where the said money was given before marriage. She has stated that, she has directly paid respondent's designer for his wedding clothes. She has admitted that, 13 Crl.Misc.94/2022 she has not submitted any bills or payment receipts in this regard. She has further stated that, they have purchased all the gold jewellery worth Rs.10 lakhs from Avenue road. She has denied the suggestion that, the gold jewelleries were never given to respondents. She has stated she does not remember the place from which silver articles worth Rs.10 lakhs were purchased. She has admitted that, she does not have any documents to prove that gold, silver articles, cash were all given to respondents. She has stated that, the persons who have attended the wedding are witnesses for the same. She has admitted that, respondents have never accessed her separate locker and they have never withdrawn money from her personal account. She has further stated that, a locker was opened in the name of 1 st and 2nd respondent after marriage and all the gold and silver articles of the house were shifted to said joint locker and only respondent No.2 could operate the said locker and even her name was added to the said locker. She has admitted that, she has not disclosed about this in her petition as she does not have any information regarding the said locker.
14. Petitioner has submitted Ex.P.2 series consisting of 51 tax invoices for having purchased gold 14 Crl.Misc.94/2022 articles to prove her allegation that her family has given gold and silver articles worth crores of rupees to the respondents. Perusal of the said bills reveal that some of them are of the year 2017, 2018, 2019. Admittedly, the marriage has taken place on 12.03.2020 and it is not possible that petitioner's family purchased gold articles on demand of respondent even before the marriage was fixed. Even if it is assumed that petitioner's family has collected gold articles over the years for the purpose of marriage of the petitioner Ex.P.2/tax invoices or bills do not prove that respondents had demanded petitioner's family to give them gold and silver articles and they also do not prove that the said articles are in the custody of the respondents. Petitioner in her cross examination has stated that all her jewellery are in a joint locker in the name of respondent No.1, 2 and herself and only respondent No.2 has access to the said joint locker. Evidently, petitioner has not submitted anything about joint locker in the petition or in her examination in chief. She has further stated in her cross examination that, her name was also added to the joint locker. If that was true she could have approached the bank and secured details of the joint locker and the articles kept in the said locker. Further petitioner has not specified as to when, who, where made the alleged dowry demand from the 15 Crl.Misc.94/2022 petitioner's family. She has also not stated as to when she has handed over her jewelry and silver articles to the respondents. Petitioner has not submitted any other bill with respect to marriage expenses apart from Ex.P.6 which is flower decoration bill for Rs.13,81,500/- and Ex.P.7/bank statement of her father for having paid caterers Rs.10 lakhs for wedding food. This petition is of the year 2022 and marriage has taken place in the year 2020. Therefore, long time has not elapsed between the date of marriage and date of filing of the petition. Therefore, it is not believable that petitioner does not have any bill except for Ex.P.6 and 7 to prove marriage expenses. Petitioner has stated that, BMW car was given to respondent No.1 on his demand. Petitioner is unable to state the registration number, model number of the car. If at all petitioner's parents have purchased BMW car there would have been bills or bank statement for having paid for the said car. But petitioner has not submitted any evidence with respect to the car. Therefore, on an overall consideration of the evidence, petitioner is unable to prove that respondents have demanded dowry and demanded celebration of marriage in a grand scale. Further petitioner is unable to prove that all her jewelleries is in the custody of the respondents.
16Crl.Misc.94/2022
15. It is alleged by the petitioner that, after marriage herself and respondent stayed in the matrimonial house for a period of 4 months and she left to USA on 28.08.2020. She has alleged that, respondent No.1 has forced her to discontinue her education and join him in USA. She has alleged that, he used to abuse her in filthy language and was picking up quarrel with her for no reasons. She has alleged that, respondent No.1 was forcing her to ask money from her parents for dowry amounting to 2.0 crores and ¾ of property holdings of her parents and when she refused respondent no.1 prevented her from making calls to her parents and he would listen in to the conversation and check phone calls. She has alleged that, respondent No.1 was blaming her for every bad thing happening in the house and was bad mouthing her, verbally abusing her. She has further alleged that, respondent No.1 was demanding Rs.20 lakhs from her parents for petitioner's expenses at USA. She has alleged that, respondent No.1 demanded Rs.3.1 crore for purchase of residential house in USA. She has alleged that, he was not giving her proper food, clothes, medicines. But he was insulting her by saying that she eats more food and he used to ask her parents and get money. She has also alleged that, respondent 17 Crl.Misc.94/2022 No.1 physically assaulted her many times. She has further alleged that, on 15.02.2021 her parents have sold a commercial property belonging to them and respondent started to demand the said property into the name of respondent No.1 and he was demanding to transfer property into his name.
16. Respondent no.2 and 3 have denied this allegation. RW-1 in his evidence has got marked Ex R13 which is the copy of driving license of the petitioner, Ex.R.15 is bill of respondent no.1 having purchased mobile phone for petitioner. During cross examination respondent counsel has confronted photographs of petitioner and respondent no.1 spending time together in USA and it is marked as Ex R 1 to R11. Petitioner in her cross examination dated 27.01.2024 has admitted that respondent no.1 arranged for her driving license on her arrival to USA, she has also admitted that he made arrangements for her to study further by paying for her entrance examination, she has admitted that he has paid for her books to study for the entrance exam. She has admitted that, she could not pass the entrance examination. She has further admitted in her cross examination dated 17.02.2024 that she has not complained against the respondent in USA and she did 18 Crl.Misc.94/2022 not lodge a complaint against him as soon as she came back to India.
17. Perusal of the evidence on record reveals that petitioner has not submitted any evidence regarding the alleged harassment meted out to her by respondent no.1 in USA. RW-1 in his cross examination has stated that he is not aware about what transpired between the petitioner and respondent no.1 in USA. Although, respondent no.1 has not filed any objection still the burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove her allegations. But there is not an iota of evidence in this regard corroborating the testimony of the petitioner regarding abuse meted out to her by respondent No.1 in USA. It is hard to believe that the petitioner did not share about her ordeal to her family or friends through e mail or messages considering we are in a digital age. Petitioner being a highly educated woman had the opportunity to record the respondent making these alleged demands, abusing her in filthy language etc.,. But no such contemporaneous evidence is produce by petitioner. It is also conspicuous that, petitioner did not approach the police in USA for the alleged harassment faced by her. At the same time she has admitted Ex R1 to 11 photographs confronted to her by respondent counsel 19 Crl.Misc.94/2022 which reveal that respondent and petitioner have had a good time in USA and respondent has taken her to several tourist places during her stay in USA. Thus by juxtaposing a total lack of evidence on behalf of petitioner and EX R1 to R11 photographs it is probabalized that the petitioner did not face any harassment as detailed by her in her evidence affidavit during her stay in USA. Hence petitioner is unable to prove her allegations in this regard.
18. Petitioner has alleged that, On 1st January 2022 they returned to India. The respondent No.1 again picked up quarrel with regard to her MS course in KIMS, Bengaluru, he was keen in making her quit the course and take her back to USA, which was advised by their astrologer. Further she submitted that, on 11.01.2022 in the evening the respondent No.2 questioned with regard to the dowry for settling down in USA which is against her wishes. Petitioner requested the respondents that she can't demand the share from her parents since she has an unmarried younger sister after performance of her sister's marriage the parents of petitioner may allot the share equally to petitioner and her sister until the marriage of her sister she can't demand the share. For that respondent started galata and respondent No.1 got 20 Crl.Misc.94/2022 angry and he caught her hand and twisted it and hit thrice on her back she was about to call her parents but they snatched her phone and wallet which she held in her hand and tried to push her from the third floor balcony. The respondent No.2 went to the kitchen and bought a steel rod like kitchen utensil and was about to hit on her head. For that she approached the jurisdictional J.P. Nagar police and with the help of police she contacted her parents and they arrived to the police station, as she was scared and was in a mental trauma police suggested her to take medical aid first and come back to lodge a complaint as it was 11.00 p.m. On 12.01.2022 she went to Sanjay Gandhi hospital for medical aid. Further respondents have requested that not to file any case if the case is registered it is difficult to travel abroad for his job and also assured that the respondent No.1 will come back to India within 2 months and set right all the issues positively. On 15.01.2022 the police have recorded their statement signed by both of them, she has requested the respondent No.1 to stay for few more days so that she can take decision without any fear. Thereafter on the same day evening about 6.30 p.m. the respondent No.1 came to her parents house and created scene he abused in vulgar words. The petitioner came to know that, he wanted to abandon her and won't 21 Crl.Misc.94/2022 return back to India. Further they went to police station however police informed them to come in the morning. In spite of all the ill treatments, harassment, cruel activities and physical abuse she was not lodged any complaint either in USA or in Bengaluru in order to safeguard her marriage and marital relationship. The respondent No.1 in order to escape from the police action he promised to petitioner that he will be back within 2 months and will take care of her welfare, on reaching to the USA he turned hostile and has filed divorce petition against her before the Texas Court and she has not been served with the notice, subsequently after passing of the order of the exparte divorce the notice was sent which is not maintainable and not a valid divorce. The respondent No.1 was having telephonic conversation but he has not disclosed the pendency of the divorce petition and cheated her. However, petitioner has lodged police complaint before HSR Layout police station in crime No.122/2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.
19. Respondent no.2 and 3 have denied the said allegation and contended that, when petitioner and respondent no.1 came to India on 1.01.2022 both the families visited Dhramsthala and Kukke Subramnaya 22 Crl.Misc.94/2022 Temples and returned to Bengaluru on 11.01.2022 and that day petitioner picked up a quarrel with them for no reason and left the matrimonial home and straight away she went to JP Nagar Police station and has lodged police complaint against respondent no.1 and he was summoned to the police station and he has given his statement thereafter they closed the complaint lodged by the petitioner against him. It is further contended that, on 15.01.2022 petitioner called respondent No.1 to come to her parental house at HSR Layout and when respondent No.1 went there petitioner, her younger sister, her parents and lady lawyer by name Meghana picked up quarrel and brutally assaulted him and noting the same neighbours have called Hoysala police who came to rescue of respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.1 informed about the incident to HSR Layout police station. It is also stated that, friend of respondent No.1 who is the neighbour of petitioner No.1 has video graphed the incident and forwarded the same to respondent No.1's friend which was in turn forwarded to respondent No.1. It is further submitted that, respondent No.1 left to USA on 17.01.2022 and petitioner remained in Bangalore. Thereafter, petitioner has lodged complaint against all respondents on 13.06.2022 U/Sec.498A of IPC R/w Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act.
23Crl.Misc.94/2022 Subsequently, she has filed the present petition on 11.07.2022. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 has filed for divorce against the petitioner before District Court at Texas, USA and the said Court by order dated 05.05.2022 has granted divorce to respondent No.1.
20. R.W.1 in support of his contentions has submitted Ex.R.16 which is a pen drive containing video of incident dated 11.01.2022 and 15.01.2022. He has also submitted Ex.R.17/default final decree of divorce passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the District Court of Texas in USA.
21. Petitioner has been cross examined in this regard on 27.01.2024. In the said cross examination she has admitted that, both the families had visited Dharmastala and Kukke Subramanya and returned to Bangalore on 11.01.2022. She has stated that, on 11.01.2022 she has lodged a complaint against all the respondents before JP Nagar police station. She has admitted that, on 15.01.2022 respondent No.1 has visited her parents house. But she has denied that, herself and her parents have assaulted respondent No.1. However, she has admitted that, respondent No.1 has called Hoysala police. She has stated that, respondent 24 Crl.Misc.94/2022 No.1 was accompanied by his friends on the said date and they have video graphed the incident on 15.01.2022. She has denied the suggestion that, she is not wife of respondent No.1 hence she is not entitled for any relief claimed by her. She has admitted that, she has not given any complaint for dowry harassment against respondents between 12.03.2020 i.e., the date of marriage till 13.06.2022. Further she has denied the suggestion that, she has jumped respondent's house compound on 11.01.2022 by herself and she left the matrimonial house.
22. Perusal of Ex.R.16 pen drive containing video of incident on 11.01.2022 reveals petitioner jumping the compound of respondent's house when respondent No.1 and 2 are following her. Although, the audio of the said video footage is not available from the body language of respondents it can be inferred that they are not posing any threat to the petitioner rather they are pleading with her to stop. However, petitioner has proceeded to leave the matrimonial house. Both the parties have admitted that, petitioner has lodged a complaint against the respondents on 11.01.2022. However, both the parties have not produced the said complaint. But from the very fact that police did not register NCR, did not register 25 Crl.Misc.94/2022 FIR against the respondents shows that the complaint lodged by the petitioner did not merit any consideration. Moreover, petitioner could have either applied for the certified copy of the said complaint or even summoned it through the Court from the concerned police station. But no such attempts has been made by the petitioner. Further since petitioner has admitted that, she has not filed any complaint for dowry harassment till 13.06.2022 also reveals that complaint dated 11.01.2022 lodged before JP Nagar police station was not regarding dowry harassment. But the allegation of the petitioner with respect to the alleged incident dated 11.01.2022 is specifically regarding dowry demands made by the respondents. If such explicit demands for dowry were made by the respondents on 11.01.2022 and petitioner left the matrimonial house and lodged a complaint on the same day surely there was no impediment on her to state about the explicit dowry demands made by the respondents in her complaint. Further petitioner has stated that, she took medical treatment at Sanjay Gandhi hospital on 12.01.2022. But she has not submitted her outpatient record or prescription or any document in this regard. The very fact that, petitioner did not allege dowry harassment in her complaint dated 11.01.2022 as per her own admission in cross examination, did not even 26 Crl.Misc.94/2022 produce the said complaint before the Court proves that the said complaint was frivolous and hence it was not considered by the police and for that reason it is not even produced by the petitioner before the Court. Further, Ex.R.16 video dated 11.01.2022 also proves that petitioner did not leave the matrimonial house under any threat by the respondents but she left even though respondents were pleading to her not to leave. Further, petitioner has also admitted the incident dated 15.01.2022 but she has denied that, she and her parents have assaulted respondent No.1. But she has admitted that, respondent No.1 has called Hoysala police. This admission proves that respondent No.1 fearing for his safety has called the police. Video dated 15.01.2022 in Ex.R.16 does not shed much light on the incident that is said to have occurred on the said date. Therefore, from Ex.R.16 Court is unable to arrive at any conclusion regarding the said incident. However, from the admission of petitioner that, respondent No.1 called the police it can be gathered that he called the police to safeguard himself.
23. Further it is alleged by the petitioner that, respondent No.1 left to USA by assuring her that he would return after 2 months but he has filed for divorce 27 Crl.Misc.94/2022 against her before Texas District Court and although she was not served with the notice the said Court in USA proceeded to pass exparte divorce against her. She has stated that, even though respondent No.1 was having telephonic conversation with her he has not disclosed about the divorce petition and he cheated her. She has contended that, the said exparte divorce obtained by respondent No.1 is not valid divorce.
24. On the other hand, it is the contention of respondent counsel that, the said divorce is valid divorce and by virtue of the divorce there is no domestic relationship between petitioner and respondent no.1. The copy of the divorce order is marked as Ex.R.17 by R.W.1. Ex.R.17 reveals that, petitioner is duly and properly cited, did not appear and wholly made default. From Ex.R.17 it is not clear whether respondent has given petitioner's Bangalore address or given his own address for the purpose of serving her with notice. This Court dealing with only domestic violence cannot go into the question of validity of the divorce. However, even if petitioner is a divorced wife she still has domestic relationship with the respondents as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee V/s Sarathi Choudhury and another reported in (2016) 2 SCC 705, 28 Crl.Misc.94/2022 Juveria Abdul Majid Patni V/s Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 736. It is a fact that, respondent No.1 has filed for divorce soon after he reached USA without giving any inkling to the petitioner. It is true that petitioner has filed police complaint for dowry harassment only on 13.06.2022 and filed this present petition on 11.07.2022. It is true that, she has filed police complaint and the present proceedings only after she has received decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with respondent No.1. But for this reason alone it cannot be said that petitioner has filed dowry harassment complaint and the present proceedings with the sole intention of harassing respondents and as a counter blast to the divorce obtained by respondent No.1.
25. Respondent No.1 being the husband of the petitioner had a moral and legal duty to maintain the petitioner who is his legally wedded wife especially since she was unemployed at that time. Even though the relationship between petitioner and respondent No.1 had turned sour on 15.01.2022 when respondent No.1 left to USA that cannot be a justification to unilaterally proceed to file for divorce against the petitioner without even intimating her. Ex.R.17 reveals that, respondent No.1 has filed for divorce on 26.04.2022 i.e., 3 months after 29 Crl.Misc.94/2022 the alleged incident in January 2022. Both the parties have not stated anything about attempting to reconcile or conducting panchayath between the families. Therefore, it appears that, respondent No.1 has taken a decision to divorce the petitioner unilaterally. From the records it also appears that respondent No.1 has not returned to India after obtaining divorce. Even in the present proceedings he is placed exparte. But from the cross examination of R.W.1 wherein he has admitted that, respondent No.1 has sent him Ex.R.1 to 11 photographs, Ex.R.13 to 15 it is proved that he is very much aware of the proceedings but he has chosen to abstain from appearing before the Court. Therefore, from the conduct of respondent No.1 it is clear that he has purposefully abandoned the petitioner and he has purposefully not maintained her. As already discussed, petitioner is unable to prove that, there was demand for dowry and she was subjected to harassment for the same. But she is able to prove that respondent No.1 has abandoned her and he has failed to maintain her.
26. It is an admitted fact that, respondent No.1 is working in USA and he is capable of maintaining the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that, at the time of separation petitioner although an MBBS graduate was 30 Crl.Misc.94/2022 unemployed. It is an admitted fact that, she had discontinued her MS course and she got married to respondent No.1 and relocated to USA. Therefore, she was not having any source of income when respondent No.1 abandoned her. Obviously, any woman who enters into a marriage would have pinned a lot of hopes and dreams about her marital life. In this case petitioner who is a doctor has sacrificed her higher studies mid way and has joined respondent No.1 in USA believing that he would take care of her and she would lead a happy marital life. But contrary to her hopes and expectation and contrary to reasonably expected standard of conduct by a husband, respondent No.1 has unilaterally terminated the marriage. It is contended that, petitioner was duly served and she could have contested the divorce proceedings before the Court in USA. From the cross examination it can be gathered that petitioner went to USA on dependent Visa and she did not have any economic resource to go back to USA by herself and contest the divorce proceedings by incurring huge litigation expenses apart from residential expenses. Therefore, even if it is assumed that petitioner was served with the notice of divorce proceedings she could not have possibly contested the divorce proceedings. Therefore, it is a calculated move made by respondent 31 Crl.Misc.94/2022 No.1 to sever the marital relationship without giving notice to the petitioner. This conduct of the respondent No.1 definitely amounts to domestic violence as contemplated under PWDV Act.
27. Petitioner has also filed this petition against respondent No.2 and 3 who are her mother in law and father in law. As already discussed petitioner is unable to prove her allegations against respondent No.2 and 3. Hence, petition as against respondent No.2 and 3 is dismissed. Hence, point No.1 answered partly in the affirmative.
28. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought Rs.10 Crores compensation and consequential order U/Sec.20 and 18 of PWDV Act. Petitioner in her assets and liability affidavit has stated that, she is MBBS graduate. She has stated that, she is residing in her parental house. She has stated that, her general monthly expenses is Rs.1,50,000/-. She has stated that, she is training as post graduate student and prior to discontinuation she was being paid stipend of Rs.15,000/- but after rejoining she is not being paid any stipend. She has stated that, respondent No.1 is working as software developer at Molex and earning 10,000 USA 32 Crl.Misc.94/2022 dollars per month. She has submitted her Canara bank account statement from 2020 to 2022 and her Karnataka bank account statement from 01.01.2019 to 25.07.2022. From her Canara bank account statement it is seen that petitioner is received stipend of Rs.47,742/- from January to March 2020, she has received stipend of Rs.18,548/- for August - September 2020. She has received stipend Rs.49,583/- for June July. Therefore, from the bank statement it can be deduced that petitioner has income but it is very meager.
29. Respondent No.1 is remained exparte and he has not filed his assets and liability affidavit. R.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that, respondent No.1 is a computer engineer and he is working in USA although he is unable to depose the name of the company of respondent No.1. The very fact that, respondent No.1 is in USA indicates that he is working in USA. Further Ex.P.8 has been confronted to R.W.1 during cross examination dated 18.10.2025 and it is admitted by RW.1. He has stated that, he does not know if respondent No.1's half monthly salary is 10,000 US dollars. However, perusal of Ex.P.8 reveals that respondent No.1 has received gross pay of 10,000 dollars for the period between 19.07.2020 to 01.08.2020.
33Crl.Misc.94/2022 Therefore, it is proved from Ex.P.8 that respondent No.1 is capable of maintaining the petitioner.
30. As already discussed the conduct of respondent No.1 in abandoning and neglecting the petitioner amounts to domestic violence. However, petitioner is herself an MBBS graduate who was pursuing higher studies in 2022. Now she would have finished her higher studies. Therefore, she is capable of maintaining herself. Further petitioner has sought for compensation. Therefore, it is appropriate to grant her lumpsum compensation amount U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act. It is pertinent to note that the marital life of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was from 12.03.2020 to January 2022. Therefore, it was short marital life and there are no issues from the wed lock. Further petitioner has not submitted any evidence regarding mental injury or agony or harassment caused to her due to the acts of the respondent No.1. Further although petitioner lost 2 years in her career advancement she is again now pursuing her higher studies. Moreover, there is evidence before the Court that, respondent No.1 did encourage her to pursue higher studies in USA but petitioner could not clear the entrance examination in USA. Considering all 34 Crl.Misc.94/2022 these aspects it is appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner.
31. Petitioner has sought for consequential orders U/Sec.20 and 18 of PWDV Act. But she did not specify the amount sought by her as monetary relief. As already discussed petitioner is unable to prove that she has suffered losses due to respondent's conduct. Moreover, lumpsum compensation amount is already granted to the petitioner towards damages for mental torture and emotional distress. Hence, it is not necessary to grant monetary relief U/Sec.20 of PWDV Act.
32. Petitioner has also sought orders under Sec.18 of PWDV Act. But there is no evidence before the Court regarding respondent No.1 interfering with the petitioner after separation. Hence, it is not necessary to grant protection U/Sec.18 of PWDV Act. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to return her jewellery, clothes, cars, marriage expenses and all her belongings. As already discussed petitioner is unable to prove that respondent No.1 has possession of the belongings of the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to the said prayer. Hence, point No.2 answered partly in the affirmative.
35Crl.Misc.94/2022
33. Point No.3 :- In view of the materials placed before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary evidence this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against respondent No.1 is hereby allowed in part and petition against respondent No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
Respondent No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the petitioner towards compensation within 3 months from the date of this order.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of April 2026).
(Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.
36Crl.Misc.94/2022 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER :
PW.1 : Dr.Babitha J DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PETITIONER :
Ex.P.1 : Marriage invitation card Ex.P.2 : Gold purchase 51 bills Ex.P.3 : Marriage photos Ex.P.4 & 5 : 2 CD Ex.P.6 : Marriage hall decoration bill Ex.P.7 : Bank statement of petitioner's father Ex.P.8 : Salary slip of respondent No.1
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 K. Suresh DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 to 11 : Photos Ex.R.12 : Money transfer receipts along with certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.R.13 : Petitioner's DL along with certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.R.14 : Petitioner & respondent No.1's 20 bank account statement along with certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.R.15 : Mobile purchase receipt along with certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act 37 Crl.Misc.94/2022 Ex.R.16 : Pen drive video containing dated 11.01.2022 & 15.01.2022 along with certificate U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.R.17 : Certified copy of divorce decree of petitioner and respondent No.1 in America (Akhila H.K.) JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru.