Karnataka High Court
Kasturi Bai vs B R Venkatesh on 9 September, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36623
CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 880 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
KASTURI BAI
W/O LATE B V RAMAIAH SETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.55
PORTION OF PREMISES
JEWELLERS STREET
CIVIL STATION
BANGALORE-560 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. B R VENKATESH
Digitally signed
S/O LATE B V RAMAIH SETTY
by AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
GAVRIBIDANUR
SUBRAMANYA R/AT NO.55, PORTION OF PREMISES
GUPTA
SREENATH JEWELLERS STREET
Location: HIGH CIVIL STATION, BANGALORE-1.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. B R VENKATAHALAPATHY
S/O FATHER'S NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.432, 14TH CROSS
2ND STAGE, BANASHANAKARI
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36623
CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015
KAVERI NAGARA
BANGALORE-78.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C PATTABI RAMAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.L. PRAKASH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.06.2015 IN CRL.A.NO.25056/2014 BEFORE THE 57TH ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND S.J., MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE, WITH
REGARD TO DENYING THE ACCOMMODATION TO HER, IN HER
SON'S HOUSE(1ST RESPONDENT'S HOUSE) BY ORDERING
ALTERNATIVELY TO PAY A SUM OF RS.3,000/- TO THE PETR.
TOWARDS THE ACCOMMODATION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is by the petitioner who had filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 seeking for the reliefs sought therein.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36623 CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015
2. The petitioner is none other than the mother of respondent No.1 and mother-in-law of respondent No.2. The petition came to be allowed which was challenged by the respondent before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25056/2014. The appellate Court modified the order of the trial Court by affirming the order of maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month towards accommodation and denied the other portion of the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court, namely, the residence.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that both the parties have amicably resolved their issues and in order to put an end to the litigation have filed a joint memo signed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 identified by their respective counsels on record. The joint memo reads as under:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36623 CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015 "It is submitted that Petitioner is the mother of Respondent No.1 and as per the undertaking given by the 1st Respondent to this Honourable Court, he has renovated the present house, in which the Petitioner is living. It is further submitted that the 1st Respondent has suffered paralysis stroke and presently he is unable to pay the maintenance as ordered by the lower court to the Petitioner. However he undertakes to take care of the Petitioner in all respects.
Wherefore this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take this Joint Memo on record and dismiss the petition as withdrawn in the ends of justice, with a liberty to the Petitioner to revive the petition, in case if the 1st Respondent fails to take care of the Petitioner, in future, in all respects, in the ends of justice."
4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent. It is seen that there is no specific order passed against respondent No.2 by the appellate Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now aged more than 80 years and -5- NC: 2024:KHC:36623 CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015 the respondent No.1 is aged 67 years. It is submitted by both the learned counsels that the respondent No.1 has suffered paralysis stroke and he is unable to pay maintenance as ordered by the trial Court. Nevertheless, he undertakes to take care of his mother, the petitioner herein. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that though the respondent No.1 has suffered paralysis stroke, his children i.e., grandchildren of respondent No.1 have also agreed to take care of their grandmother. Hence, they have filed a joint memo.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the said proposal which is now entered into writing in the joint memo. However, he submits that the petition could be disposed of on the basis of the joint memo, but liberty be reserved to the petitioner to revive the petition in case of any breach, default or violation of the conditions of the joint memo executed and filed today.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36623 CRL.RP No. 880 of 2015
7. Under the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to accept the joint memo filed by the learned counsels. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER [a] Petition is disposed of in terms of the joint memo filed by the parties and identified by the respective counsels on record.
[b] The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to maintain and take care of the petitioner as agreed in the joint memo.
[c] Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to revive this petition in case of any default, breach or violation of the terms and conditions of this joint memo.
SD/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AN/-