Karnataka High Court
Sri.Raghavendra Laxman Pattar vs Smt.Veena Rabhavendra Pattar on 1 December, 2022
-1-
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRL.R.P. NO. 100262 OF 2016 (397)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA LAXMAN PATTAR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: GOLDSMITH,
R/O: ILKAL, TALUKA: HUNAGUND,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VEENA RABHAVENDRA PATTAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: ILKAL, C/O. RAMANNA BHIMAPPA BADIGER,
R/O: KENDHALARKOPPA, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2016 PASSED IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 165 OF 2014 BY VI ADDITIONAL
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BELGAUM
ROHAN HADIMANI T
HADIMANI Date:
2022.12.08
REVERSING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
T 15:19:38
+0530 CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATI IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO. 113 OF 2012 DATED 15.11.2014 KINDLY BE SET
-2-
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
ASIDE BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH
COST.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., seeking to setting aside the order dated 20.07.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.165/2014 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Belgaum reversing the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Saundati in Criminal Miscellaneous No.113/2012 dated 15.11.2014 kindly be set aside by allowing this revision petition.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. Petitioner herein is respondent No.1 before the Trial Court and respondent herein is petitioner before the Trial Court.
3. The summarized facts of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner before the Trial Court has filed a -3- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 petition under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alleging that her marriage with the respondent No.1 solemnized on 26.01.2004 and out of their wedlock, a child was born. She had also further alleged that respondent No.1 therein and his relatives started to abuse her stating that she does not know how to do domestic work and they were also used to doubt her character and thereby they have physically and mentally harassed her. She has further contended that when the order passed by the Court she went to live with the respondent No.1, at that time, respondent No.1 and his relatives had informed her that he had already contacted for the 2nd marriage and by assaulting her, she was driven out from the matrimonial house. On these grounds, the petitioner therein had sought for an order under Sections 18 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4. In pursuance of the notice issued to respondent No.1 therein, he had appeared and filed his statement of -4- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 objections. To prove the case of the petitioner therein, she herself got examined as PW.1 and 3 documents got marked as Exs.P.1 to 3. On closure of petitioner side evidence, respondent No.1 is examined as RW.1 and four documents got marked as Exs.R.1 to 4. On hearing the arguments, the Trial Court has rejected the Crl.Misc.No.113/2012. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner filed criminal appeal in Crl.Appeal No.165/2014 before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, same was partly allowed. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Appeal No.165/2014, respondent No.1 filed this revision petition.
5. Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits his arguments that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is wholly illegal, arbitrary, capricious and not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and requires to be set aside. When the learned Magistrate after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the weight of -5- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 evidence on records and the demeanor of the witnesses, was pleased to held that the petitioner therein is not entitled for any of the relief sought by her in the petition. When the said order passed by the learned Magistrate is based on correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reversing the said findings record by the Trial Court, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in law. The learned Sessions Judge having noticed the fact that there is no document and no evidence to prove the allegations made by the appellant therein that the respondent No.1 therein is having business and also owning the agricultural property and having held that she has also failed to prove all the allegations made against respondent No.1 therein had committed an error in awarding the amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is without any basis and not sustainable in law. The respondent herein has not proved any domestic violence against her as alleged in the -6- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 petition, hence, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any maintenance or any other monetary benefits. On all these grounds, sought for allowing this revision petition.
6. Respondent herein has filed vakalth through her counsel but she has remained absent. Hence, the argument on behalf of the respondent herein is taken as nil.
7. I have carefully gone through the material placed before this Court including the impugned judgments passed by the Trial Court and also the Appellate Court.
8. The Child Development Officer, Saundatti has filed an application on behalf of the petitioner therein seeking Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On the basis of the application, case was registered in Crl.Misc.No.113/2012 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatti and same was rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatti by order -7- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 dated 15.11.2014. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent herein had filed an appeal before the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Appeal No.165/2014. The Appellate Court has observed in the impugned order that respondent No.1 before the Trial Court is the husband of the petitioner therein and he has to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner has produced the Form No.1 copy of FIR filed against the respondents in Crime No.15/2012 of Ilakal Police which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 149 and 323 of the IPC. Further the Appellate Court has observed that respondent No.1 therein has illegally married another lady and considering all these evidence on record, the Appellate Court has held that the petitioner therein has suffered domestic violence. The Trial Court has not assigned any proper reasons to reject the claim of the petitioner. The trial court hasn't understood the objective of the legislation of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The objectives of the Protection of -8- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to serve the following purposes:
"1.To identify and determine that every act of domestic violence is unlawful and punishable by law.
2.To provide protection to victims of domestic violence in the cases such acts occur.
3.To serve justice in a timely, cost-effective, and convenient manner to the aggrieved person.
4.To prevent the commission of domestic violence and to take adequate steps if such violence occurs.
5.To implement sufficient programmes and agendas for the victims of domestic violence and to guarantee the recovery of such victims.
6.To create awareness among the people about domestic violence.
7.To enforce harsh punishment and must hold the culprits accountable for committing such heinous acts of violence.
8.To lay down the law and govern it in accordance with the international standards for the prevention of domestic violence.
9. The introduction as well as relevant portions of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the said Act, as follows:
"INTRODUCTION.; The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged that domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue. The United Nations -9- CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in its General Recommendations has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family. The phenomenon of domestic violence in India is widely prevalent but has remained invisible in the public domain. The civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In order to provide a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill was introduced in the Parliament.
2.STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human Right issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation NO. XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially the occurring within the family.
3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
The Bill, inter alia, seeks to domestic violence in the society. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to (ii) It defines the expression "domestic violence" to include actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her relatives would also be covered under this definition. (iii)It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household. This right is
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016 secured by a residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate. (iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in favour of the aggrieved person to prevent the respondent from aiding or committing an act of domestic violence or any other specified act, entering a workplace or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting the communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the parties and causing violence to the aggrieved person, her relatives or others who provide her assistance from the domestic violence."
10. Justice Krishna Iyer, in the case of RAMESH CHANDER KAUSHAL VS. VENNA KAUSHAL reported in (1978) 4 SCC 70, has guided us as to how the interpret the legislations formulated for the upbringing of weaker sections, specially regarding women and children and is as follows:
"9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social functions to fulfill. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advance the cause of the derelicts."
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
11. In this background and after considering the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court has appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective manner and after considering the financial status of the parties only; has passed the impugned order. The age of the petitioner therein was 27 years at the time of filing of the petition in Trial Court and she is having a child by name Omkar. The revision petitioner has not placed any material evidence before the Trial Court to show that the respondent herein has got sufficient means to maintain herself and her child. Considering the basic requirements of food, cloth, educational expenses, medical expenses, etc., the Appellant Court has awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- which is in accordance with law and fact.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made herculean efforts to convince this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court; however failed to do so.
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 100262 of 2016
13. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The revision petition is dismissed.
ii. Send back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of this order to the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE RH