Bangalore District Court
Susmitha Seepuri vs Arikati Lakshmi Satyanarayana on 6 January, 2026
KABC0A0012282025
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 6th day of January 2026
Crl. Appeal. No.25120/2025
Appellant/ Mrs. Susmitha Seepuri,
Accused:- W/o Arikati Lakshmi Satyanarayana,
D/o Seepuri Udayakara Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
UID - 6065 3090 0877,
Residing at A710, SMR Vinay Galaxy,
Hoodi, Bangalore North,
Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru-560 048.
(By Sri. Ankur Goel - Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent/ Mr. Arikati Lakshmi Satyanarayana,
Complainant: S/o Arikati Nageshwara Rao,
Aged about 47 years,
UID - 9229 5993 9617,
Residing at G02, Igloos Residency,
2 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025
1551 AECS Layout, E Block,
Kundalahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
(By Sri. M.R.C. Manohar - Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Appellant/Petitioner has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the MMTC-I in Crl.Misc.No.202/2022 dtd: 24.1.2025 before this Court on 26.3.2025.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after will be referred to with their ranking assigned before the Trial Court.
3. The Petitioner has filed petition U/Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the Respondent. Further in IA filed U/Section 18, 19(8), 19(1) (a) (d) (e) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act she has prayed for interim maintenance. Further Petitioner has contended that she was subjected to physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse including economical abuse and she was coerced for unlawful dowry 3 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 demand including valuable securities. She satisfied these during marriage and she was further subjected for demand of dowry. She is residing in the above said address mentioned in the cause title which is in name of respondent. She is not having accommodation and she is staying in the same house. She has been a burden to her parents and they are looking after her. The Respondent is having good income and he is having property on his own name which he agreed to transfer on her name in mutual consent divorce and the respondent is capable of giving the house for her.
4. The Appellant herein has filed detailed objections to the said application.
5. The Trial Court vide order dtd: 24.1.2025 was pleased to dismiss the application.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent is in appeal on the following grounds:-
1. The impugned order passed by the Learned Magistrate is bad in law and materials placed on record.4 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025
2. The Learned Magistrate has gravely erred in not properly considering the objections of the Appellant, petition application, of the Appellant and the documents produced by the Appellant. It is further stated that the Respondent have denied all the facts of the case, but not defend the part of allegation.
3. The Learned Magistrate erred in coming to the wrong conclusion that the Appellants are not entitled to restraining order on the ground of the police complaint and evidence of the Petitioner.
4. The Learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that the Appellant is having police complaint which was registered after MLC. The charge sheet is also filed in C.C.No.54590/2023. There is probation officer report as well. This shows that there is prima-facie to pass an order for restraining order.
5. The Respondent has not produced any documents to prove the income of the Appellant. Further not stated any document that he spent money of Rs.1,50,000/- on course before the Trial Court. But same was not considered by the Learned Magistrate.
6. The Respondent claimed that he not agreed to conditions in mutual consent divorce however he still transferred the 5 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 agreed maintenance to Appellant which itself proves perjury. The Respondent stopped maintenance and even school fees of Appellant which is financial violence committed by the Respondent to Appellants.
7. The Appellant also made some of EMI Payment for the bank loan of the property which is one the name of the Respondent, however Appellant is co-
borrower of the loan on the said property. It is her matrimonial house and she has no other place for shelter. The Respondent is making attempts to alienate the property or get it vacated by Appellants.
8. The Learned Magistrate has not given proper reason while passing the impugned order on IAs.
9. The Learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind.
10. The Respondent has not produced any documents pertaining to the residence/income of the Appellant.
11. The Appellant in her petition disclosed information of fact of the case that the reason Appellant filed the application for restraining order under Section 18 of D.V. 6 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 Act and the Appellant produced documents in this regard.
12. The Respondent in his objection only denied allegations and he has not produced any documents.
On the aforesaid grounds, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the order dtd. 24.1.2025 by allowing the appeal.
7. The Appellant has also filed IA.No.1/2025 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
8. The Respondent appearance through his counsel and filed objections to the main appeal and as well as IA.No.1/2025.
9. Heard both sides.
10. On perusal of the order of the Trial Court, the points that would emerge for the consideration of this court are as follows:
1. Whether the order of the Trial Court calls for interference by the hands of this court?7 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025
2. Whether the IA.No.1/2025 filed by the Appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act deserves to be allowed?
3. What Order?
11. My finding on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative.. Point No 3 : As per final order for the following :
REASONS
12. Point No.1 & 2:-
The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Wife against the interim common order passed by the Trial Court on IA filed under Section U/Section 18, 19(8), 19(1) (a) (d) (e) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Trial Court has dismissed interim applications filed by the Appellant/Wife on the grounds that the Petitioner has not at all established the prima-facie case that the domestic violence has occurred on her and even she has not produced prima-facie materials to show that 8 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 the Respondent has taken her stridhana and the same are in the custody of the Respondent. Further also observed in the order that in order to decide these interim applications a full-fledged trial on merits is required. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rejected the applications.
13. On perusal of entire averments of the appeal memo and as well as the objections filed by the Respondent herein it is clear that the Appellant is the wife and the Respondent is her husband and their marriage was solemnized on 31.7.2006 and the said marriage also registered on 4.8.2006. Further also clear from the records that, after marriage both of them have resided together at Bengaluru and out of their wedlock one child born to them on 9.4.2012. Further it appears that both Petitioner and Respondent are started living separately since September 2019.
14. Further also it is clear from the records that both Petitioner and Respondent have filed Joint Petition under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act for mutual divorce before the Family Court in M.C.No.6322/2021. However, the present Appellant 9 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 has not at all appeared before the Family Court and has not given consent for divorce. Accordingly, the Family Court passed an order on 27.10.2023 stating that the parties are to be heard before passing decree of divorce and such hearing is to be made before expiry of 18 months from the date of petition. Since Appellant/Petitioner is not present and period of 18 months is also over, hence, this petition cannot be allowed and even cannot be maintained now. Accordingly, the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act.
15. It is the contention of the Appellant/Petitioner is that she was subjected to physical abuse, verbal and emotional abuse including economic abuse and she was forced for unlawful dowry demand including valuable securities. She is residing in the cause title address which is in the name of Respondent to which she is the co-borrower in a Bank loan. She is not having accommodation and she is staying in the same house. The Respondent is having good income and he is having property on his own name which he 10 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 agreed to transfer on her name in mutual consent divorce and not at all transferred. As per mutual divorce condition, the Respondent take back her gold jewelry and hand over to his parents and sisters and they did not returned it. The Respondent wants to enter the house to drew her and her child out of the house. In the appeal memo grounds it is specifically contended by the Appellant that the Trial Court has erred in not properly considering the applications filed by the Appellant and so also documents. The Trial Court has not at all considered about filing of the Police Complaint against the Respondent and also filing of charge sheet against him. Even the Respondent has not produced any documents to prove the income of the Appellant. The Trial Court has refused to grant any reliefs as prayed in the interim applications. The Respondent is making attempts to alienate the property or get it vacated by the Appellant. The Respondent himself agreed for mutual consent of divorce that he will transfer the said property to the Appellant, but he refused afterwards. Even though the Respondent has not placed any materials in support of the petition, the Trial Court has wrongly dismissed both the 11 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 applications. Therefore, she prayed to allow the present appeal.
16. The Respondent/Husband had denied most of the contents of the appeal in the objection and he justified the order passed by the Trial Court. Further has taken up contention that he has purchased Flat by paying a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- by raising loan and he is still paying EMI. The Appellant herself has thrown out him from the said Flat and presently he is residing in a rented house. On the other hand, the Appellant has occupied his entire house, as such there is no question of being dispossessed from the matrimonial home by him. Further contended that he is not having any intention to alienate or encumber the said house. Further contended that already the Appellant herein has filed Crl.Misc.No.874/2023 before the Family Court for interim maintenance and the Court also awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/-. Against the said order, he preferred a W.P.No.25538/2024 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court has modified the interim maintenance from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and accordingly he is paying the said 12 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 maintenance to the Appellant. The Appellant instead of leading her evidence, has filed the false applications and the said applications has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. Even the Appellant has filed O.S.No.185/2025 before the Family Court and sought for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from dispossessing her from the Schedule Property and the said Court passed ex-parte order granting temporary injunction in favour of the Appellant restraining the Respondent from dispossessing the Appellant from the Schedule Property. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the Appellant. Accordingly, the Respondent herein has prayed to dismiss the appeal.
17. No doubt, as discussed above, the Appellant herein filed IAs before the Trial Court under U/Section 19(1) (a) (d) (e) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking restraint order against the Respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the share household and also 13 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 restraining the Respondent from alienating or encumbering the shared household and also prayed to restrain the Respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household. Similarly, in the another application under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Appellant has sought for protection against Respondent and to restrain him from committing any acts of domestic violence on her or causing violence to the other relatives etc. Even she also filed another application under Section 19(8) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, to take cognizance of domestic violence committed by the Respondent and to direct the Respondent to return the possession of Petitioner's stridhana and other valuables etc.
18. It is an admitted fact that already the Appellant herein has filed O.S.No.185/2025 before the Family Court seeking grant of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent and his agents and others from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Schedule Property. Even in the said suit she has also filed application for grant of temporary injunction and accordingly, temporary injunction also been granted 14 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 in her favour restraining the Respondent, his agents and other from dispossessing the Petitioner from the Schedule Property. Therefore, prima-facie the application under Section 19(1) (a) (d) (e) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act filed by the Appellant before the Trial Court become infructuous, as already Family Court has granted the said relief.
19. Regarding maintenance of the Appellant is concerned also, already the Family Court has granted interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the Appellant and the same has been modified into Rs.30,000/- per month by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Even though the Appellant has not sought for any maintenance in the present appeal, but she has prayed for protection order under Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for domestic violence caused on her, her child and inmates by the Respondent. No doubt, in order to grant relief under Section 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the prima-facie materials has to be looked into by the Court. First of all, as observed by the Trial Court in its judgment, prima-facie the Appellant has not at all 15 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 placed any materials to show that the Respondent has caused domestic violence on her, her child and her dependents etc. Moreover, the materials available on record reveals that since 2019 both Appellant and Respondent are not residing together. Therefore, findings of the Trial Court in respect of order in connection with domestic violence is appears to be proper and correct.
20. On the other hand, the Appellant herein is residing in the cause title address along with her child which belongs to the Respondent. Even though she contended that the Respondent has caused domestic violence on her and he may dispossess her from the shared household etc., but as discussed above, already the relief in this regard has been obtained by the Appellant in O.S.No.185/2025, so question of granting same relief in this appeal does not arise.
21. Regarding alleged domestic violence is concerned, as discussed above when the Appellant and the Respondent are not residing together since many years and already criminal case has been filed against the Respondent herein by the Appellant and 16 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025 when the Trial Court has properly come to conclusion that prima-facie the Appellant failed to produce necessary materials to show that domestic violence has been occurred on her, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the said prayer also. On the other hand, the Trial Court has properly come to conclusion that in order to ascertain the alleged domestic violence on the Appellant the full-fledged trial is required. Interestingly, when the case has been posted for evidence, the Appellant should have lead her evidence and produce necessary documents about the alleged domestic violence, instead of doing so, she filed the present appeal. Therefore, this Court finds no fault committed by the Trial Court in passing the order that the full-fledged trial is required for granting the relief under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Moreover, merely on the basis of the contents of the affidavit of the Appellant and merely on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Appellant against the Respondent, this Court cannot say that the domestic violence has been caused on the Appellant.
17 Crl.Appeal No.25120/202522. It is pertinent to note here that though both the Appellant and Respondent have filed M.C.No.6322/2021 for mutual divorce, but as discussed above, the Appellant herein was not present before the Family Court continuously and later it came to be dismissed for her non-appearance. So the conduct of the Appellant also reveals that after she gave consent for mutual divorce, then she did not appeared in the said case. Further when the said M.C.No.6322/2021 was also dismissed on 27.10.2023 itself for non-appearance of the Appellant, now he cannot say that as per the mutual divorce condition of M.C.No.6322/2021 the Respondent has taken away her gold jewelry and handed over to his parents and sisters and did not returned it etc. Therefore, in order to consider the contention of Appellant that the Respondent had taken away her gold jewelries etc., is concerned also, as opined by the Trial Court full-fledged trial is required. What are the documents i.e., jewelry list, copy of income tax returns, M.C.No.6322/2021 are not at all sufficient to come to conclusion that the Respondent has illegally taken her alleged stridhana articles and valuables.
18 Crl.Appeal No.25120/202523. Even the Trial Court has rightly observed in its order that the Appellant has not produced proper list of stridhana or valuables, so as to pass suitable orders. When there are no prima-facie materials with regard to the alleged stridhana properties and alleged domestic violence caused on her, the order passed by the Trial Court is appears to be proper and correct. The Appellant can go on full-fledged trial and establish her case by placing sufficient materials, instead of doing so, she simply filed applications only to prolong the matter.
24. Therefore, by considering all the above materials placed by the Appellant and also considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order dtd: 24.1.2025 on the aforesaid applications and hence, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court dtd:
24.1.2025. On the other hand, the order of the Trial Court is supported with proper materials and sound reasons. There is no bonafide and reasonable grounds made out by the Appellant herein to interfere with the order of the Trial Court dtd: 24.1.2025.19 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025
25. The Appellant has also filed IA.No.1/2025 to condone the delay of 31 days in preferring this appeal. In the affidavit in support of the application, the Appellant contended that due to ill-health of her counsel, she could not file the appeal in time, as such there is a delay of 31 days in preferring the appeal.
Anyhow, as discussed above, the Appellant has not made out any reasonable and bonafide grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. The Appellant has stated some reasonable grounds to condone the delay in preferring this appeal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative and Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
26. POINT NO.3:
In view of the findings on the above point the appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be dismissed and IA.No.1/2025 filed by the Appellant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-20 Crl.Appeal No.25120/2025
ORDER The appeal filed by the Appellant U/Sec.29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby dismissed with cost.
The IA.No.1/2025 filed by the Appellant under Section 5 of Limitation Act is here by allowed.
The order passed by the Learned MMTC-I Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.202/2022, dtd. 24.1.2025 on the application filed under Section 18, 19(8) & 19(1) (a) (d) (e) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is hereby confirmed.
Send the copy of this order to the Trial Court for its reference along with TCR.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 6th day of January 2026.) Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2026.01.09 16:02:47 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).