Karnataka High Court
R Prakash vs Anusuya K on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570
CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 444 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
R.PRAKASH
S/O ROOPLANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC:LECTURER IN S.T.J. DEGREE COLLEGE
BELUR ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH B.BALADARE , ADVOCATE)
AND:
ANUSUYA K
W/O PRAKASH R.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
C/O KOTE SRINIVAS
Digitally KANADAL ROAD, KOTE
signed by CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
SUMITHRA R ...RESPONDENT
Location:
HIGH (BY SRI.H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2015
PASSED BY THE CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.9/2013 AND ORDER DATED 04.03.2017
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. S.J., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN
CRL.A.NO.70/2015.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570
CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017
ORDER
Revision Petitioner/respondent feeling aggrieved by the judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Appeal No.70/2015 dated 4.3.2017 confirming the order passed by the Trial Court on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9/2013 dated 27.03.2015, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to Revision Petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of Trial Court records, including judgment of both the courts below, the following points arise for consideration:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017
1. "Whether the impugned judgment under revision passed by the First Appellate Court is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable ?
2. Whether interference of this Court is required?
5. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it would go to show that petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.37/2010 seeking protection order and for grant of monetary benefits under the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PWDV Act' for brevity) against the respondent. During pendency of the said petition, matter was referred to Lok Adalat. Parties to the petition have filed a joint memo in Criminal Misc.37/2010 in terms of Ex.P.3 wherein the respondent has agreed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. to petitioner and her minor son Nithin, vide order dated 02.02.2011. The said order has attained finality.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 5(a). Petitioner on 4.2.2013 has filed present petition (Crl.Misc.9/2013) under Section 25 of the PWDV Act seeking enhancement of maintenance amount on the ground that quantum of maintenance awarded two years back is insufficient to maintain petitioners in these hard days looking to the price index of essential commodities. The said petition after contest came to be allowed and maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000/- p.m. to both petitioners from the date of the petition. The said order was assailed before the First Appellate Court by petitioner in criminal Appeal No.84/2015 challenging quantum of maintenance amount fixed by Trial Court, whereas respondent filed appeal in Criminal Appeal 70/2015 challenging maintenance amount granted by Trial Court. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record, dismissed both the appeals and confirmed order of the Trial Court dated 27.3.2015. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017
6. Respondent challenging said order of the First Appellate Court in dismissing his appeal regarding grant of maintenance amount to respondent, preferred this Revision Petition.
7. Learned counsel for Revision Petitioner/respondent has argued that in terms of the joint memo filed by both parties Ex.P.3, the matter was settled once for all by granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to both petitioners, since the parties have agreed to the said amount in Lok Adalat by order dated 2.2.2011. The present petition in Criminal Miscellaneous 9/2013 is filed on 8.2.2013 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount which is not permissible under law. The award passed by Lok Adalat is with an intention to put an end to the litigation once for all and no further proceedings can be continued.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/petitioner has argued that petitioner is entitled to maintain the petition under Section 25(2) of the PWDVV Act wherein it empowers Court to alter, modify and revoke the order passed by Trial Court. Therefore, grant of maintenance by Trial Court in view of changed circumstances and the rise in the price of essential commodities cannot be found fault with looking to the source of income of revision petitioner/respondent.
9. There is no dispute between the parties that in terms of Joint Memo filed by them Ex.P.3 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.37/2010, the matter was settled before Lok Adalat and respondent has agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- maintenance per month to petitioner and her minor son Nithin. In the said memo it has been further admitted that petitioner and respondent are residing separately and respondent undertakes that he will not go to the house of the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 petitioner and cause any interference in any manner till disposal of maintenance case pending in Chitradurga. Respondent has also undertaken to pay the school frees and donation of his son. In terms of said Joint Memo, the petition came to be disposed of in Lok Adalat accordingly.
10. Learned counsel for respondent has argued that there is no domestic violence since admittedly both petitioner and respondent are residing separately and there is no evidence on record that they resided together in the house of respondent at any point of time thereafter. When the domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent itself is not in existence in terms of Section 2(s) of PWDV Act, then, there is no question of committing any domestic violence on petitioner and as such, grant of enhancement in terms of Section 25 of the PWDV Act is unsustainable in law. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate -8- NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.262/2015 (Lakshman vs. Raje Gowda) dated 25.7.2023 wherein this Court has held that when petitioner and respondent are residing separately, there is no question of existence of domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
11. Learned counsel for respondent in support of his contention that award passed by Lok Adalat is a decree and no further proceedings can be maintained, relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in K.N.GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON VS. C.D.SHAJI, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 51 wherein in has been observed and held in paragraph 26 as under :
"26. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:
(1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that court. -9-
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 (2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and a criminal court.
(3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various courts (both civil and criminal), tribunals, Family Court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other forums of similar nature.
(4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court."
In view of the principles enunciated in this decision, though it pertains to settlement of matter before Lok Adalat under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but on the principle that award passed by the Lok Adalat in terms
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 of Section 21 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie in Court of law holds good. The decree passed by Lok Adalat has to be executed.
12. In the present case, award passed by Lok Adalat dated 2.2.2011 in terms of Joint Memo filed by the parties Ex.P.3 has attained finality. Therefore, in terms of Section 21(2) of Legal Services Autority Act, 1987, every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. The object of Legal Services Authority Act is to put an end to a litigation once for all. When the matter is once settled before the Lok Adalat, it cannot be re-opened in any further proceedings based on a same cause of action. In the present case, petitioner has chosen to file the present petition in terms of Section 25(2) of PWDV Act claiming that there is a change of circumstances requiring alteration, modification or
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 revocation of any order made under the Act. Whether such a remedy is available to party to invoke Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act is the question. If maintenance amount under the provisions of PWDV Act is granted on merits of the case then in view of changed circumstances party can seek alternation, modification or revocation of order passed by court by maintaining a petition under Section 25(2) of PWDV Act. However, when the matter is settled between parties in Lok Adalat and award has been passed in terms of Joint Memo filed by parties, will not again enable a party to invoke Section 25(2) of PWDV Act is the question.
14. In view of principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K Govindan Kutti Menon case referred above, when the award is passed in Lok Adalat, it amounts to a decree in terms of section 21 of the Legal services Authority Act, 1987. Therefore, every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the award. In spite of such clear mandate of law in terms of Section 21 of the Legal services Authority Act, 1987, petitioner has chosen to file the petition in terms of Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act for seeking for alteration of maintenance amount awarded by Lok Adalat and such petition does not fall within the ambit of Section 25(2) Of PWDV Act for seeking alteration or modification of maintenance amount. Otherwise, the very object of settling the matter before Lok Adalat will be defeated in view of clear mandate in terms of Section 21 of the Legal services Authority Act. 1987.
15. The courts below without appreciating this legal position thinking that it is a petition filed under Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act seeking for alteration of maintenance amount in view of changed circumstances has proceeded to grant maintenance amount as if maintenance was granted after contest
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 on merits. The finding recorded by both courts below in enhancing maintenance amount is contrary to the findings of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K Govindan Kutti Menon case referred above, and therefore, cannot be legally sustained. Consequently, proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER Revision petition filed by the Revision Petitioner/respondent is hereby allowed; The judgment of the First Appellate Court on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Appeal No.70/2015 dated 4.3.2017 confirming the order of the Trial Court on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.9/2013 dated 27.03.2015 is hereby set aside.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42570 CRL.RP No. 444 of 2017 The petition filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 25(2) of PWDVV Act is hereby dismissed.
Registry to send back the records to Trial Court with a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE rs