Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.Prabhudev vs Smt. B.P.Poornima on 3 June, 2021
1
Crl.A.No.51/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU.
Dated this 3rd day of June 2021
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.51/2018
APPELLANT/: : Sri.S.Prabhudev,
S/o. S.N. Sadashiva,
( RESPONDENT - Aged about 44 years,
IN TRIAL COURT) R/at No.65/2, 4th Cross,
Nagappa Block, Srirampura,
Bengaluru-21.
(By Sri. Girish B. Mangannavar, Advocate)
/VS/
RESPONDENT/: : Smt. B.P.Poornima,
W/o. S. Prabhudev,
( PETITIONER- IN R/at No.65/1, 4th Cross,
TRIAL COURT) Nagappa Block, Srirampura,
Bengaluru-21.
(By Sri.C.M.Subramanya, advocate)
2
Crl.A.No.51/2018
JUDG MENT
This criminal appeal is filed U/s.29 of The Protection Of
Women From Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred as
PWDV., Act) to set aside order passed by VI-MMTC,
Bengaluru in Crl.Mis.No.160/2013 dated 15.12.2017 (herein
after referred as impugned order).
2. Parties to this appeal shall be referred to as per
their ranking before the trial court for the purpose of
convenience and for better appreciation of their
contentions.
3. In the memorandum of appeal, appellant has
submitted that impugned order passed by the trial court
need to be interfered by this court in this appeal for the
reason that evidence adduced by appellant and respondent
was not properly appreciated by the trial court.
Compensation awarded by the trial court is not in
accordance with procedure laid under PWDV Act. Trial court
3
Crl.A.No.51/2018
has not properly appreciated evidence produced by the
appellant/ respondent while determining amount of
maintenance awarded to wife and daughter. For the said
reasons, appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned
order.
4. Along with memorandum of appeal, appellant
produced certified copy of the order sheet with interim
order passed by the trial court.
5. Respondent appeared through counsel.
T.C.R.called for reference in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed
written arguments. Carefully perused the same.
7. Points that arisen for consideration are as under:
1. Whether impugned order is
sustainable in law?
2. Whether interference of this court is
necessitated?
4
Crl.A.No.51/2018
3. What Order?
8. It is the answered for the aforesaid points as
under:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative
Point No.3: As per final order below,
for the following:-
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 and 2:- These points are taken
together to avoid repeated discussions.
10. Brief facts of the case is that marriage of the
petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 4.9.1995 at
Mysore. Petitioner was not happy with the marriage as she
wanted to marry the person who is in government service.
Petitioner was suspecting character of the respondent.
Petitioner has lodged a false complaint against him. From
22.2.2013, petitioner started to live separately. Petitioner
and her daughter are residing in the house owned by the
5
Crl.A.No.51/2018
respondent. Petitioner used to collect rent from the tenants
in the building where she is residing in the ground floor.
Being aggrieved by the act of the respondent, petitioner
wife has filed application U/s.12 of PWDV Act seeking
protection order, residence order, monitory reliefs and
compensation under PWDV Act.
11. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial
court. Allowing petition filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of
PWDV Act 2005 in part, trial court has directing the
respondent to pay Rs.4,000/-(four thousand) per month to
the petitioner towards maintenance from the date of
petition till her life time or till her remarriage and Rs.3,000/-
(three thousand) per month to the daughter till her
marriage. Perused grounds of appeal submitted by the
appellant in the memorandum of appeal. Main ground of
attack on the impugned order passed by the trial court is
that, trial court has not taken into consideration admissions
6
Crl.A.No.51/2018
made by respondent and daughter that it is the appellant
who was taking care of them. Further trial court has not
taken into consideration the fact that petitioner wife is
residing separately from 22.2.2013. Trial court has not taken
into consideration the source of income of the
husband/appellant to pay maintenance to the petitioner and
daughter.
12. Perused trial court records. Object behind
enacting PWDV Act is to provide protection for married
woman from domestic violence that would be caused in the
shared house of her husband. Allegations made in the
petition, in the evidence adduced by petitioner as Pw.1, it is
evident that to seek protection from domestic violence
caused by the respondent/ husband in his house, petitioner
has filed an application U/s.12 of PWDV Act. Evidence
adduced by Pw.1 is sufficient to hold that respondent/
husband caused her verbal, physical domestic violence by
7
Crl.A.No.51/2018
abusing her in filthy language coupled with assault. In the
petition filed U/s.12 of PWDV Act, petitioner/wife has
explained how domestic violence was caused by
respondent/husband.
13. Trial court has taken into consideration all
available material on record including the evidence adduced
by petitioner side and respondent side on oath against oath.
Trial court has taken into consideration contents of proved
documents produced by the respondent at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9.
Trial court has directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand)
compensation to the petitioners within three months from
the date of order.
14. Section 28(1) of PWDV Act states that
proceedings U/s.12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and offences
U/s.31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Therefore, application filed by the
8
Crl.A.No.51/2018
petitioner wife U/s.12 of PWDV Act shall be disposed by
following provisions of criminal procedure. Sub-Section (2)
of Section 28 states that nothing in sub-section (1) shall
prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for
disposal of an application U/s.12 or under Sub-Section 92) of
Section 23 of PWDV Act. In the Crl.Mis.No.160/2013, trial
court has followed provisions of Cr.P.C. to try application
filed by the petitioner U/s.12 of PWDV Act by providing the
opportunity to both petitioner and respondent to file their
pleadings, adduce evidence, produce documents, submit
arguments. There is no procedural defect of any nature in
disposing the application filed by the petitioner/ wife U/s. 12
of PWDV Act.
15. It is the duty of the husband to maintain life
expenses of his wife and children. Relying upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Savitha Ben U/s. State of Gujarath reported in AIR 2005 Sc
9
Crl.A.No.51/2018
1809, trial court has passed order directing the respondent
husband to pay maintenance to the wife and children in
addition to pay compensation to the petitioner. There is no
error or defect in the impugned order passed by the trial
court. Carefully gone through the arguments submitted on
behalf of the appellant in the written arguments filed by the
advocate for appellant. Relief sought in application filed by
wife U/s.12 of PWDV Act are protection order, residence
order in addition to other reliefs granted by the trial court in
the impugned order. Considering facts and circumstances of
the case on hand, this court is of the opinion that petitioner
wife is in need of 'protection order' and 'residence order'. So
far as awarding compensation to the wife is concerned, trial
court has taken into consideration damages for injuries
including mental torture, emotions, distress caused by the
acts on domestic violence committed by respondent
husband. Hence, impugned order is sustainable in law.
Object behind enacting PWDV Act is to give protection for
10
Crl.A.No.51/2018
married woman from domestic violence of the husband and
in-laws. In this case, petitioner has made out a case that
she is under apprehension of of continuation of domestic
violence and hence a protection order is necessary in favour
of petitioner/ wife. It is not disputed by the respondent that
petitioner wife and daughter are residing in a house owned
by the respondent/ husband. Hence a 'residence other ' is
necessary in favour of respondent. As there is no appeal
filed by the petitioner wife against impugned order,
protection order and residence order cannot be granted in
this appeal. Hence point No.1 is answered in the affirmative
and point No.2 is answered Partly in the affirmative.
16. POINT NO.3 :- In view of findings on the above
points No.1 and 2, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, following order is made:
11
Crl.A.No.51/2018
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal filed U/Sec.29 of PWDV Act is dismissed.
Consequently, impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.160/2013 on the file of VI- MMTC., Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Office is directed to send back T.C.R. along with certified copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, script typed by her and corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 3rd day of June, 2021) (RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
12Crl.A.No.51/2018 3.6.2021 Judgment pronounced in the open court Vide separate judgment ORDER This Criminal Appeal filed U/Sec.29 of PWDV Act is dismissed.
Consequently, impugned order dated 15.12.2017 passed in Crl.Misc.No.160/2013 on the file of VI- MMTC., Bengaluru is hereby confirmed.
Office is directed to send back T.C.R. along with certified copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.