Mr. Manjunath. V vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Manjunath. V vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 05.06.2025
Pronounced on : 10.06.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.33819 OF 2024 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . MR.MANJUNATH V.,
S/O S.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

2 . SMT. K. S. VIDYAMANI
W/O. S. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

3 . SRI S.VENKATESH
S/O. LATE CHALAPATHI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

ALL RESIDING AT:
NO.185, SADASHIVA KRUPA,
B.V. KARANTH ROAD,
7TH CROSS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
KODIGEHALLI,
NEAR G. K. TRADERS,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU,
2

KARNATAKA - 560 097.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI KESHAV M.DATAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
NORTH-EAST WOMEN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. MRS. CHAITRA V.,
W/O MANJUNATH V.,
D/O VIJAYAKUMAR T.N.,
NO. 205/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK
MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU NORTH
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 086.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI NAGARAJ R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 02.12.2024 AND FIR BEARING
CRIME NO. 58/2024 DTD. 02.12.2024 REGISTERED BEFORE THE
RESPONDENT POLICE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 351(3), 352 AND
85 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SECTION 3 AND 4
OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 196 VIDE ANNX-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY.
3

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 registered on

02-12-2024 for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(3),

352 and 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: -

Before embarking upon narration of facts, I deem it

appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists in

the lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 1st petitioner is

the husband of the 2nd respondent. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the

mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant.

The 1st petitioner and the complainant get introduced to each other

in the year 2022 through mutual friends. On 23-08-2023 the 1st
4

petitioner and the complainant get married. After one year of

marriage, it appears, the relationship between the 1st petitioner and

the complainant flounders. On various allegations and grievances of

floundering of the relationship, proceedings before various fora are

instituted by the 1st petitioner/husband against the 2nd

respondent/wife or the wife against the husband. The proceedings

are for annulment of marriage and the allegations that would

become ingredients of the provision of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Domestic Violence Act' for

short). Apart from the aforesaid proceedings, the 2nd

respondent/complainant registers a complaint on 02-12-2024

before the Women's Police Station, Kothnur, Bengaluru. The

complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 for the

afore-quoted offences. The moment crime is registered, the

petitioners within 10 days of registration of crime, are before this

Court in the subject petition. Owing to certain paragraphs in the

complaint, on a prima facie observation that what was projected by

the wife against the husband was with regard to the husband

treating the cat in the house better than the wife, this Court

granted an interim order of stay of investigation. On receipt of
5

notice, the complainant has preferred an application seeking

vacation of interim order, along with statement of objections. The

matter, with the consent of parties, is heard.

3. Heard Sri Keshav M.Datar, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Nagaraj,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

Sri Keshav M.Datar would vehemently contend that a perusal at the

complaint would clearly indicate that it is absolutely frivolous. There

are no ingredients of cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry.

All that the complaint alleges is, the husband is a sexually

perverted person demanding unnatural sex, alcohol addict, always

indulges in cricket betting and playing Ludo. Barring this there is no

allegation of cruelty against the husband. Mother-in-law and father-

in-law are without any rhyme or reason dragged into these

proceedings. He would seek quashment of the crime on the score

that it is an abuse of the process of law.
6

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Nagaraj R representing

the complainant would vehemently refute the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners. He would take this Court

through elaborate statement of objections to contend that every

material that is alleged against the husband is suppressed in the

case at hand. He has indulged in betting, deliberately twisting the

arm every time for which the complainant has to be hospitalized.

He would take this Court through the discharge summary and the

wound certificate, as also pictures, chats, whatapps with other

women in the teeth of talks of marriage and even after the

marriage. He would contend that the husband had an affair outside

the marriage with two or three women and use to indulge in

beating the complainant every time. Insofar as mother-in-law and

father-in-law are concerned, he would contend that the complainant

is a performer of Bharathanatyam. The parents of the husband

wanted her to stop dancing. When she continued with dancing

performance, they hurled derogatory words against the

complainant. They have also instigated the husband to behave in

the manner that he has done to the wife. They were forcing the

complainant to bear a child which the complainant at that juncture
7

did not want it, as the 1st petitioner/husband was not taking

responsibility to take care of the wife. Therefore, she did not want

another life into the family. On all these allegations, the learned

counsel for the complainant would contend that, the crime is

registered just 10 days prior to the grant of interim order in the

case at hand and the investigation is at a very nascent stage. He

would submit that investigation must be permitted to be continued

against the petitioners.

6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

Sri B.N. Jagadeesha representing the State would also take this

Court through the application seeking vacation of interim order. The

learned counsel would contend that the complaint narrates vivid

details of all the petitioners, reference to the pet cat is only in a

paragraph and that is not the entire fulcrum of the complaint. He

would also seek dismissal of the petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.
8

8. The afore-narrated facts are what is narrated in the

complaint. The relationship between the 1st petitioner and the

complainant is that of husband and wife. The two get married after

falling in love on 23-08-2023. Barely after a year of marriage, the

relationship between the two has floundered and floundering leads

to an extent that the husband prefers a petition seeking annulment

of marriage in M.C.No.7256 of 2024 and the wife filing proceedings

invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. At the same

time, the subject complaint comes to be registered on 2-12-2024.

Since the entire proceedings before this Court sprung from the

complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The

complaint reads as follows:

"ರವ ೆ,
ೕ ೕ ಇ ೆಕ
ಮ ಾ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ಈ ಾನ ಾಗ, ೊತ!ನೂರು
#ೆಂಗಳ&ರು.
ಇಂದ,
()ೕಮ* +ೈತ)
ೋಂ ಮಂಜು.ಾ/ .
ನಂ. 185, 'ಸ1ಾ(ವ ಕೃ3ಾ'
7.ೇ ಾ) , 7.ೇ 4ೖ5.
6. . ಾರಂ7 8ೋ9,
ೆನ8ಾ #ಾ ಂ: ;ೇಔ=, ೊ> ೆಹ@A
9

#ೆಂಗಳ&ರು - 560 097
ªÉÆ: 80504 27439

Bಾನ 8ೆ,

ಷಯ:-ನನE ಗಂಡ ಮಂಜು.ಾಥ . ಅIೆ! 1ಾ , Bಾವ JೆಂಕKೇ±ï ರುದL ದೂರು
Nೕಡುವ ಬ ೆP.
****

ಈ 4ೕಲSಂಡ ಾಸದ T .ಾನು +ೈತ) . (27 ವಷU), ಮಂಜು.ಾ/ . (28 ವಷU)
ರವರನುE V.ಾಂಕ: 23.08.2023 ರಂದು ಮದುJೆWಾದ ನಂತರ ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಆIೆ! ( 1ಾ
ೆ.ಎ .), Bಾವ (JೆಂಕKೇ[) ರ \ೊIೆಯ T ಸುBಾರು ಒಂದು ವಷUದ ಮೂರು *ಂಗ@Nಂದ
JಾಸJಾ^ರುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ. ಮದುJೆWಾ1ಾ^Nಂದ ನಮ_ ಮ`ೆ ಮನ ಾ!ಪ ಗ ಾಗು*!ತು!. ಗಣc ಪdಟ
+ಾರಕೂS ನನE ಗಂಡ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಕೂ ಾ> ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. ನನEನುE BಾನfಕJಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ
ಕು^Pಸು*!ದLರು. ನನE ಗಂಡನ ಈ ಎ;ಾT ವತU.ೆ ೆ Xಾಗು ಎ;ಾT ೆಲಸಗ@ ೆ ನನE ಅIೆ! ಮತು!
Bಾವನವರ ಕುಮ_ಕುS Xಾಗೂ )ೕIಾgಹ ತು!.ಮದುJೆWಾ^ ಒಂದು Jಾರ ೆS .ಾವd
ಮದುಚಂದ) ೆS (ಹNಮೂ5) #ಾ (ಇಂiೋ.ೇjWಾ) ೆ Xೋ1ಾಗ ಅ;ೆTೕ ನಮ_ ಮ`ೆ ಸkಲ ಸಣc
ಪdಟ ಮನ ಾ!ಪ l.ಾEl3ಾ)ಯಗಳm ಏಪUಟ ವd. ಂ*ರು^ ಬಂ1ಾ ೆ ನನ ೆ Kೈ3ಾo9
(Typhoid) ಬಂದು ಆಸ Iೆ) ೆ 1ಾಖ;ಾ^1ೆL. ಈ ಸಮಯದ T ಅವರು ನನE ಬ½ ;ೈಂ^ಕ q)r ಾ^
ಬಂದರು. ಆಗ .ಾನು ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ ನನE ಪ fs* Xಾಗು ಮನfs*ಯನುE ವ f ಈಗ #ೇಡ
.ಾನು 3ೇtೆಂ= ಎಂದು Xೇ@ದL ೆS fu Nಂದ ಅವರು ಪಕS ೆS Xೋ^ ಅವರುಮಲ^ದರು. ನಂತರ
ಇ>ೕ 8ಾ*) ನನ ೆ ಏ.ೇ ಸXಾಯ #ೇqದLರೂ ಅವರು ಬರ;ೇ ಇಲT. ಮರುVನ #ೆ@ ೆP ನ U ಗಳm
ಬಂದು ನನ ೆ vqIೆg ೊಡುJಾಗ ಕೂಡ *ರು^ಯೂ .ೋಡ ಲT.ಮIೊ!ಂದು #ಾ ನನ ೆ ಅ*Wಾದ
ಜkರ ಬಂದು ಸಂ\ೆ ಮ.ೆಯ ಬ@ ಇರುವ qTN: ೆ Xೋ^ ಎರಡು ಗಂKೆ >)wg Xಾqf ೊಂಡು 8ಾ*)
ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಸು ಾ!^ §AzÀ DUÀ®Æ ಮIೆ! ;ೈಂ^ಕ q)r ೆ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಬಂVದLರು.

ಇ1ೇ ತರಹ ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ ನನ ೆ ಹುtಾ ಲTJೆಂದರೂ ಅಥJಾ ಋತು ಾ)ವ ಇದLರೂ ನನE
4ೕ;ೆ ;ೈಂ^ಕ 1ೌಜUನ ಎಸ^1ಾL8ೆ. ಈಗ ಆಗಲT ಎಂದು #ೇ>ದ8ೆ N8ಾಕ fದ8ೆ ೆಟ 1ಾ^
#ೈ1ಾ ಜಗಳJಾಡುIಾ!8ೆ. ನಮ_ದು 3ೆ)ೕಮ Jಾಹ, ಅವ8ೇ ಬಂದು ನನE ಬ@ NನEನುE
z)ೕ*ಸು*!1ೆLೕ.ೆ ಮದುJೆ ಆಗು ಎಂದು Xೇ@ದರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ T ಅವ ೆ *@Vತು!. .ಾನು ಅ ಾ ಸ
ಪiೆದ iಾ ನg ಅಂತ, ಮದುJೆಯ ನಂತರವ{ .ಾನು ನನE iಾ 5g ಅ ಾ ಸವನುE
ಮುಂದುವ ಸ#ೇಕು ಎಂದು Xೇ@1ಾಗ ಅವರು Xಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ.ೆಯವರು ಒz ೆ ಸೂvfದLರು
Xಾಗೂ ಪ{ಣU #ೆಂಬಲ 1ೆ ಎಂದು ಕೂಡ Xೇ@ದLರು. ನನE ಗಂಡ ಮದುJೆಗೂ ಮುಂ+ೆ ಹಲವd #ಾ
ನನE \ೊIೆ ೆ|ೕ / iಾ 5g >}ೕ Bಾiೋ ೆ \ೊIೆ ೆ ಬಂದು )ೕIಾg fದರು. ೆಲವd
10

>}ೕಗಳನುE ಅವ8ೇ ಅವರ ೕNನ T 8ೆ ಾ9U ಕೂಡ Bಾ>ದLರು. ಇದರ \ೊIೆ ೆ ಅವ8ೇ
ಸkತಃ Xೇ@ದLರು. ಉಡು ೆ Iೊಡು ೆಯ ಷಯದ;ಾTಗ ೕ ಇಲTJೇ #ೇ8ೆ Wಾವd1ೇ
ಷಯದ;ಾTಗ ೕ NನE 4ೕ;ೆ Wಾವd1ೇ ತರಹದ Restriction XೇರುವdVಲT. ನಮ ೆ ಆ ತರಹದ
Wಾವd1ೇ }ೕಚ.ೆ ಇಲT. .ಾನು Xಾಗು ನನE ಮ.ೆಯವರು ತುಂ#ಾ Broad Minded ಎಂದು
Xೇ@ದರು. ಮದುJೆWಾದ ನಂತರ .ಾನು iಾ5g ಅ ಾ ಸ ೆSಂದು ಅಥJಾ >}ೕ
8ೆ ಾqÁäðiೋ ೆIೆರ@1ಾಗ ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ! BಾವN ೆ ಪ)* #ಾ ಯೂ ಎ;ಾT
Bಾ *ಯನುE *@frೕ Xೋಗು*!1ೆL.ಆದ8ೇ ಮ.ೆಯವ8ೆ;ಾT ಕ)4ೕಣ ಒಂ1ೊಂ1ೇ ಷಯ ೆS
Restrict Bಾiೋ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ>ದರು. ಇದು ನನEನುE BಾನfಕJಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ ಕು^Pfತು.
ೕ ೆಲTಆ1ಾಗ, .ಾನು ಮದುJೆಗೂ ಮುಂ+ೆ ಒz V) ಅ;ಾk ಈಗ Wಾ ೆ ೕ ೆ Bಾಡು*!VLೕ8ಾ ಎಂದು
ೇ@1ಾಗ ನನ ೆ #ೈದು, NಂVf ಕೂ ಾ> ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. ಇದನುE ನನE ತಂ1ೆ Iಾo ಕೂಡ
ಪ)(Ef1ಾಗ ನಮ_ Bಾವ ಎಲTರ ಸಮು_ಖದ T Xೇ@ದುL ೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಆಗ ಲTJೆಂದ8ೆ ಎ;ಾT 6 ೊSಂಡು
ಓiಾಡ ಎಂದು ಅJಾಚ Jಾ^ Xೇ@ದರು. ೕ ೆ ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ ನನE Bಾವ ನನE ಬ@ ಅJಾಚ
ಶಬLಗಳನುE ಬಳf ಅJಾಚ Jಾ^ Bಾತ.ಾ>1ಾL8ೆ.

ನಮ_ದುL ಲ‚ Bಾ 8ೇƒ ಆದರು ನಮ_ ತವರು ಮ.ೆಯವರ ಕiೆoಂದ .ಾನು. ಈ
ೆಳಕಂಡ ವಸು!ಗಳನುE ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ೆ Nೕ>1ೆLೕವd

1) ಮದುJೆಯ ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ ನನE ತವರು ಮ.ೆಯವರು Xಾqದ 40 ಾ)„
vನEದ +ೈ5

2) ಎಂ ೇ...4ಂ= ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ Xಾqದ 1 vನEದ ಉಂಗುರ.

3) ಮದುJೆಯ ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ತವರು ಮ.ೆಯವರು ೊಟ #ೆ@A ವಸು!ಗಳm 1 #ೆ@A ತKೆ,
1 +ೊಂಬು, ಪಂಚ 3ಾIೆ) ಉದLರ ೆ 1 ೆ=, 1 \ೊIೆ #ೆ@A Vೕಪ, ಅ (ನ ಕುಂಕುಮ ಬಟ ಲು ಎರಡು
ೆ= (4 + 4 = 8) ಅನEಪ{ ೇUಶk 1ೇ Xಾಗೂ 5 ;ೋಟ (1 ೆ=), 1 ಲ†‡ೕ .ಾ8ಾಯಣ ಾkˆ
\ೋ> ಗ)ಹ, 1 ಅಂ#ೆ ಾಲು ಕೃಷc ಗ)ಹ, 1 ಗ ೇಶ ಗ)ಹ.

4) ಮದುJೆಯ ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ತವರು ಮ.ೆಯವರು Xೊಸ ಸಂ ಾರ ನiೆ ೋ ೆ
#ೇ ಾಗುವಷು ೊಟ ಅಷೂf ೕ‰ 3ಾIೆ)ಗಳm

ಎಂ ೇƒ4ಂ= ಮತು! ಮದುJೆಯ ಸಂಪ{ಣU ಖಚUನುE .ಾJೇ .ೋ> ೊಂ>1ೆLೕವd.
ಸBಾgÀÄ. 25 ಲŠ ರೂಗಳm ಖಚುU Bಾ> ಅವರ #ೇ> ೆಯಂIೆ ಅದೂL Wಾ^ ಮದುJೆ
Bಾ> ೊಟರೂ ಸಹ ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ ನನ ೆ ವರದŠ ೆ ೋಸS ನನE ಗಂಡ, ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ೇ
BಾನfಕJಾ^ ಂ ೆ Nೕ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಚುv‹ Bಾತ.ಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ೊಂಕು Bಾತುಗಳ.ಾE> ನನ ೆ
11

£ÉÆÃªÀÅKಾಗುವಂIೆ Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ Nೕನು ಏನು ೊu 1ಾ , ಏನು vÀAVJಾ , ನಮ ೆ ಏನು
Bಾ>1ಾ , NನE ಸಂಬಳ ಏನು Bಾಡು*!VLೕWಾ ಎಂದು ೇ@ ಜಗಳ Jಾ> NಂVf1ಾL8ೆ. ನಮ ೆ
;ೆಕS ೊಡು ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Xೇ@ ಹಂ^f1ಾL8ೆ. ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ.ೆ ಅವರು ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ
NನE Iಾoಯ ೈ= NನE Xೆಸ ೆ ಬ8ೆf ೊಂಡು #ಾ ಎಂದು ಂfಸು*!ದLರು. ಅಷ ಲT1ೇ Nನ ೆ
ಊಟ Xಾq!VLೕ ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT qೕ ಾ^ Xೇ@ ನiೆf ೊಂ>1ಾL8ೆ. ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ .ಾನು ಅವರ ೆ)>=
ಾ9U 6‰ಗಳನುE ಭ*U Bಾiೋ ೆ Xಾಗು ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ ಇತ8ೇ ಖಚುUಗ@ ೆ ಹಣ Nೕ>1ೆLೕ.ೆ.
ಅtಾ ದರೂ ಮIೆ! ಮIೆ! Nೕನು ಏನು Bಾ>ಲT ಏನೂ ೊu ಲT ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Bಾನfಕ qರುಕುಳ Nೕ>
ದೂjf1ಾL8ೆ.

ನನE ಗಂಡ ಹಲವd #ಾ ಕು>ದು ಬಂದು ನನE \ೊIೆ ಜಗಳJಾ>, ಅಸಭ Jಾ^ ವ*Uf
ೆಟ 1ಾ^ #ೈಯು*!ದLರು. ಕು>ದು ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಬಂ1ಾಗ ನನ ೆ Jಾಸ.ೆ ಬಂದು ೇ@ದ8ೆ ನನE Nೕನು
ೇಳ#ೇಡ Nನ ೆ ಪ) ೆE ೋ ಅŽ ಾರ ಲT ನನE ಇಷ ಎಂದು Xೇ@ ಜಗಳJಾ> ಅJಾಚ ಶಬLಗಳ T
#ೈದು ಸುಮ_.ಾಗ1ೇ ಇದL8ೆ ...ೕವ #ೆದ ೆ Xಾಕು*!ದLರು. .ಾನು ೆಲಸ ೆS Xೋ1ಾಗ ಇಲTJೇ
ಎ;ಾTದರೂ ಅ+ೆ Xೊ1ಾಗ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಮ.ೆಯ Trೕ ಕು>ಯು*!ದLರು. ಈ +ಾರ ನನ ೆ ಹಲವd
#ಾ ಮ.ೆ ಶುv Bಾಡುವ ಸಮಯದ T #ಾಟ‰ ಾ w ಇಲT •ಾ #ಾಟ‰ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ1ಾಗ *@ದು
ನನE ಗಂಡನ ಬ@ ಪ)(Efದ8ೆ •ದ ೆ' ಸುಳmA Xೇಳm*!ದLರು. ನಂತರ ಮIೆ! ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು.ನ£Àß
ಗಂಡನ ಕು>ತದ ಬ ೆP ನನE BಾವN ೆ *@VದLರೂ ಕೂಡ ತiೆಯ1ೇ )ೕIಾg ಸು*!ದLರು. ನನE
ಗಂಡ, .ಾನು ಅವರ ಈ ಕು>ತದ ಬ ೆP Wಾ ಾದರೂ Xೇ@ದ8ೆ ನನEನುE ಸುಮ_.ೆ 6iೋVಲT
ಎಂದು #ೆದ ಸು*!ದLರು. ನನE Bಾವ ಕೂಡ ನನE ಬ@ ಬಂದು ನನE ಗಂಡನ ಕು>ತದ ಷಯ ನನE
ಅIೆ! ೆ *@ದ8ೆ ನನE ಅIೆ!ಯ ಆ8ೋಗ ತುಂ#ಾ ಏರು3ೇ8ಾಗುತ!1ೆ ಎಂದು ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ Xೇ@ ನನEನುE
ಸುಮ_.ಾ^ಸು*!ದLರು.

ಅವರ 4ೕ;ೆ ಾಳ...oಂದ ಕು>ಯ#ೇ>. Xೆಲ_= ಧ f Jಾಹನ ಚ;ಾof, ಾ
ಓ>ಸುJಾಗ fೕ= #ೆ‰ ಧ f, ಆ8ೋಗ .ೋ> ೊ@A ಆ8ೋಗ ಕರJಾದ ಆXಾರ ೇ f ಎಂದು
Xೇ@ದ8ೆ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಕೂ ಾ> ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. Nೕನು ಪ)(Eಸಲು ಬರ#ೇಡ, Nನ ೆ ಆ ಅŽ ಾರ
ೊಟ ವರು Wಾರು, ನನ ೆ Nೕನು ಏನೂ Xೇಳ#ೇಡ. ಏನೂ ೇಳ#ೇಡ, vಕS ವಯಸfNಂದ ನನ ೆ
Wಾರೂ ಏನು Xೇ@ಲT ಏನು ೇಳ ಲT. ಈಗ Nೕನೂ ನನ ೆ ಏನೂ ೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಆಗ Xೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಆಗ
ಬರ#ೇಡ .ಾನು ನನ ೆ #ೇq8ೋ Xಾ ೆ ಇ8ೋದು ನನ ೆ ಅNEf1ೆLೕ Bಾiೋದು ಎಂದು
XೇಳmIಾ!8ೆ. ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ Xೊರಗiೆ ಎ;ಾTದರೂ Xೋ1ಾಗ ನನ ೆ ಏನೂ Xೇಳm*!ರ ಲT.
ಾಳ...oಂದ ಎ TVLೕ , Xೇ^VLೕ . ಏನು Bಾಡು*!VLೕ ಎಂದು ೇ@ದ8ೆ ಅದಕೂS. ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ
ಕೂ ಾಡು*!ದLರು. ಾಳ... Iೋ fದ8ೆ ನನ ೆ Nೕನು ಏನು Xೇಳ#ೇಡ, ನನ ೆ #ೇq8ೋ Xಾ ೆ
ಇರುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ ಎನುEIಾ!8ೆ. ಒ ೆAಯದ ೆS ಒ ೆAೕ ೕ*ಯ T Xೇ@ದರೂ ಅದನುE offensive ಆ^
Iೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ನನE 4ೕ;ೆrೕ .ಾನು ಸ ಇಲT. Torture Bಾ>!ೕN, Argue Bಾ>!ೕN. Negative
12

Mindset. Irritate Bಾ>!ೕN ಅಂತ ಮ.ೆಯವ8ೆ;ಾT NಂVf ನನEನುE Xೆದ f ಕು^Pಸು*!ದLರು. ಇದು
Wಾವ ಹಂತದವ8ೆ ಗೂ ಬಂತು ಎಂದ8ೆ .ಾನು ಏ.ೇ Xೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಅಥJಾ ಏ.ೇ ೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಬಂದರೂ
ನನEನುE ಇ1ೇ ೕ* ದೂjಸು*!ದLರು. ಎtೊ ೕ ಷಯ ೆS ಹಲJಾರು #ಾ .ಾವd 1ಾ ಯ T ಇ1ಾLಗ
\ೋರ^ ಕೂ^ ಜಗಳವ> NಂVಸು*!ದLರು ಅಕS ಪಕS ಜನ ಇ1ಾL8ೆಂದು ;ೆಕSಸ1ೇ ಇ1ೇ ೕ*
ಮನfg ೆ ಬಂದ Xಾ ೆ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ .ೋವನುE ಉಂಟು Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಏ.ಾದರೂ Xೇ@ದ8ೆ ಅಥJಾ
ಅವರ Bಾ* ೆ ಒಪ ಲT JAzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ. ನನE ...ೕವ ೆS ಏ.ಾದರೂ BಾಡುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ
ಅಥJಾ ನನE Xಾಗೂ ನನE ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ Xೆಸರು ಬ8ೆದು ಅವರು ಸೂ ೈ9 Bಾ> ೊಳmAIೆ!ೕ.ೆ ಎಂದು
Xೆದ ಸು*!ದLರು. ಅವರ ತಂ1ೆ vÁ¬Äಯ \ೊIೆ ೆ ಜಗಳವ>ದರೂ ನನE. 4ೕ;ೆ ಕೂ ಾ> ಇ1ೆ
BಾತನುE Xೇಳm*!ದLರು. .ಾನು ಮ.ೆಯ T ೆಲಸ, ಪ{\ೆ ಅಡು ೆ ಎ;ಾT Bಾ>ದರೂ ಏನೂ
Bಾಡು*!ಲT ಎಂದು ಸುಮ_.ೆ ಸುಳmA ಅ3ಾದ.ೆ Bಾ> ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ನನE ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ನನ ೆ
ಂfಸು*!ದLರು. ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ನನE ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ಮ.ೆಯನುE ಬಹಳ ಅಶುv oಂದ Xಾಗೂಆ^
ಇಟು ೊಳmA*!ದLರು. ಇದLನು Xೇ@ದ8ೆ ಇ‰ಲ ಸkಚ' ೊ@ಸಲು. ಸ Bಾಡಲು Xೋದ8ೆ ಮೂರು ಜನ
ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಕೂ ಾಡು*!ದLರು. ಆ^ರುವ ಪ1ಾಥUಗಳನುE ಅಡು ೆ ೆ ಬ@ಸು*!ದLರು ಇದ ಂ1ಾ^
ಅ.ಾ8ೋಗ ದ JಾIಾವರಣ ಸೃj Wಾ^ತು!.ಇವರು ನನ ೆ ೊಡು*!ದL ಕಷ ವನುE ನನE ತವರು
ಮ.ೆಯ T Xೇ@ದ8ೆ .ಾನು ಅವರ ಮ.ೆ ೆ #ೆಂq ಹಚು‹*!VLೕN .ಾನು ಸ ಇಲT ಎಂ1ೆಲT
NಂVಸು*!ದLರು. ನನE ತವರು ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಏ.ೇ ಷಯ ದLರೂ *@ಸ#ಾರದು ಎಂದು Xೇ@ದರು. ನನE
ತವರು ಮ.ೆ ೆ Xೋದರೂ ಹಂ^ ೋ ೆ, ೊಂಕು BಾIಾiೋ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ> ಂfಸು*!ದLರು.
ಹಲವd #ಾ ನನE ತಂ1ೆ Iಾo ಅಣc ಪ ಹ ೋ ೆ Bಾತ.ಾ>1ಾಗ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ #ೇಕು ಅಂತ
ಸುಳmA ಆ3ಾದ.ೆ Bಾ> ಎ;ಾT ತಪd ನನE1ೇ ಎಂದು ದೂjಸು*!ದLರು. ಅಷ ಲT1ೇ ನನE ತಂ1ೆ, Iಾo
ಅಣcNಗೂ #ೈಯು*!ದLರು. Nೕವd Bಾತ.ಾiೋ ೆ ಬರ#ೇ>, ೇಳ#ೇ>, Xೇಳ#ೇ>, ನಮ ೆ 1ೊಡ"
1ೊಡ"ವರ ಪ ಚಯ 1ೆ. Influence ಇ1ೆ Nೕವd \ಾf! Bಾತ.ಾ>ದ8ೆNಮ_ನುE ಸುಮ_.ೆ 6iೋಲT
Nಮ ೆ ಏ.ಾದರೂ ಅ3ಾಯ BಾಡುIೆ!ೕJೆ ಎಂದು #ೆದ ೆ Xಾಕು*!ದLರು. .ಾವd Xೇ@ದXಾ ೆ ಇ8ೋ
Xಾ^zÉæ ಇರು ಇಲTXೋಗು ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ #ೈಯು*!ದLರು.ಏ.ಾದರೂ ಜಗಳ ಆದ ಸಮಯದ T ನನ ೆ
ಋತು ಾ)ವದ .ೋ Nಂದ .ಾನು ಅಳm*!ದLರೂ, ಹುtಾ ಲTJೆಂದರೂ, ಇಲT ನನE ಆ8ೋಗ ದ T
ಏ.ೇಏರು 3ೇರು ಆದರೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ *ರು^ ಕೂಡ .ೋಡು*!ರ ಲT. ಏನು ೇಳm*!ರ ಲT. ಾಳ...
ವ ಸು*!ರ ಲT. ಇ1ೇ ವಷU ೆ3ೆ ಂಬ *ಂಗಳ 18.ೇ Iಾ ೕ"ನಂದು ನನE ಹುu ದ ಹಬ•ವನುE
ೋಕಣU ೆ Xೋ^ ಆಚ ೋಣ ಎಂದು ಅಂದು ೊಂ>1ೆLವd. ಆದ8ೇ ೆ3ೆ ಂಬ 16.ೇ Iಾ ೕಖು
ದೃ8ಾದೃಷ ವtಾ7 .ಾನು ಆ-ೕf ೆ XೋಗುJಾಗ ಅ+ಾನ: BಾಗU ಮ`ೆ ಆ8ೋಗ ದ T
ಏರು3ೇ8ಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ Jಾಂ* Xಾಗೂ ಸುಸು! ಶುರುJಾoತು. ಇದನುE ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ *@f ಈ
ಾರಣVಂದ ಪ)Wಾಣ Bಾiೋದು #ೇಡ ಎಂದು Xೇ@1ಾಗ ಅವರು ನನEನುE #ಾo ೆ ಬಂದ Xಾ ೆ
#ೈದು ಸುಳmA Xೇಳm*!VLೕWಾ .ಾಟಕ Bಾಡು*!ೕVLೕWಾ ಎಂದು NಂVf ನನE ಮನfg ೆ
.ೋವdಂಟು Bಾ>ದರು. iಾಕ 8ೆ #ೇಕು ಎಂದು Xೇ@1ಾL8ೆ ಎಂದು Xೇ@ದರೂ ೇಳ1ೇ Nೕನು
13

Xೇ ಾದರೂ ಇರು ಒu ನ T ನನE \ೊIೆ ಬರ#ೇಕು ಎಂದು ಗದ ದರು. ನನ ೆ NಜJಾಗಲೂ ಬರಲು
ಆಗು*!ಲT ಎಂದು #ೇ>1ಾಗ ಜಗಳJಾ> .ಾ.ೇ XೋಗುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ ಎಂದು Xೇ@ ನನ ೆ ಹುtಾ ಲTVದLರೂ
ನನEನುE .ೋಡುವdದಕೂS ಸಹ #ಾರ1ೆ ಅವರು Xಾಗೂ ನನE Bಾವನವರು ೋಕಣU ೆ Iೆರ@ದರು.

ನನE ಗಂಡ q) ೆ= ಆಡುIಾ!8ೆ. ನನE ಅIೆ!, Bಾವ ನನE ಗಂಡನ q) ೆ= Xೋಗು ೆ ೆ ತiೆ
ತರುವಂIೆ .ಾವd 3ಾT5 Bಾಡ#ೇಕು ಎಂದು ನನE ಬ@ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಇಲTV1ಾLಗ ಹಲವd #ಾ
Xೇಳm*!ದLರು. ಆಗ .ಾನು #ೇಡ ಅದು ಅವರ ಆ ೆ ಅವರು Xೋಗ ;ಾ :g ಅಗುತ!1ೆ, ಖುj
fಗುತ!1ೆ ಎಂ1ೇ ನನE ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ಬ@ ನನE ಗಂಡನ ಪರ ವ f Bಾತ.ಾಡು*!1ೆL. ನನE ಗಂಡನ
ಆ8ೋಗ ದ T Xೆಚು‹ ಕˆ_ ಆ1ಾಗ ಅಥJಾ ೆ ೖ5 ಆ^ದL8ೆ Bಾತ) #ೇಡ 8ೆ Bಾ> ಆ8ೋಗ
£ÉÆÃrPÉÆ½î ಎಂದು ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ Xೇಳm*!1ೆL. ಅದಕೂS qರುv ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. ಇtಾ ದ4ೕ;ೆ
£À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ಬ@ .ಾನು ಅವರು q) ೆ= ಅiೋ ೆ Wಾವತೂ! Xೋಗ#ಾರದು ಎಂದು
Xೇ@1ೆ ಅಂತ ನನE ಗಂಡ, ಅIೆ!, Bಾವ ೇ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಸುಳmA ಆ8ೋಪ Bಾ>ದರು.

ಮzÀÄJೆಗೂ ಮುನEJೇ .ಾನು Xಾಗೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ Bಾತ.ಾ> ೊಂ>1ೆLೕವd ಮದುJೆWಾ^
ಎರಡು ªÀÄÆರು ವಷUದ ವ8ೆಗೂ ಮಕSಳm #ೇಡ ನಂತರ Bಾ> ೊ ೆ& Aೕಣ ಎಂದು. ಇದ ೆS ನನE ಗಂಡ
ಕೂಡ ಆಗ ಒz ೊಂ>ದLರು. ಆದ8ೆ ಮದುJೆ ಆ^ ಸುBಾರು ಅ8ೇಳm *ಂಗ ೆ& ಳ ೆ ಮಕSಳm ಈಗ;ೇ
#ೇಕು ಎಂದು Xೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ>ದರು. ಅಷ ರ;ಾTಗ;ೇ ನಮ_ ಮ`ೆ Jೈಮನಸುg
l.ಾEl3ಾ)ಯಗಳm ಅŽಕJಾ^ದL ಂದ .ಾನು ಈಗ;ೇ #ೇಡ ಸkಲ ಸಮಯJಾಗ ಎಂದು Xೇ@1ೆ.
ಅದ ೆS ಜಗಳ Bಾಡಲು ಶುರು Bಾ>ದರು. ಬರುIಾ! ಬರುIಾ! Wಾವ ಹಂತ ತಲುzತು ಎಂದ8ೆ ಹಲವd
#ಾ 8ಾ*) 7:30 - 8 ಘಂKೆ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ> ಮರು Vನ #ೆಳ^ನ \ಾವ 2 - 3 ಘಂKೆಯ ವ8ೆಗೂ ನನE
ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ!, Bಾವ ೇ Nೕನು ಈಗ;ೇ ಮಕSಳm Bಾ> ೊಳAಲು ಒz ೊಳA#ೇಕು ಎಂದು
Xೇ@ BಾನfಕJಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ qರುಕುಳ ೊu 1ಾL8ೆ. ಇಷು ಾಲದು ಎಂದು ಮರುVನ #ೆ@ ೆP ನನE
ಅIೆ! ಮIೆ! ಮIೆ! ಇ1ೇ ಷಯ ಪ) ಾ!zಸು*!ದLರು. .ಾನು ಈಗ ಅದರ ಬ ೆP Bಾತ.ಾಡುವ Bಾನfಕ
ಪ fsಯ;ಾTಗ ೕ ಶq!ಯ;ಾTಗ ೕ ಇಲT 8ಾ*)r;ಾT N1ೆL ಆ^ಲT 'ಒತ!ಡVಂದ #ೇಸರVಂದ ಇ1ೆLೕ.ೆ
ಎಂದು #ೇ> ೊಂಡರು ;ೆqSಸ1ೇ ಮIೆ! ಕೂಡ;ೇ ಮಗು Bಾ> ೊಳA#ೇಕು ಎಂದು Bಾನfಕ ಂ ೆ
Nೕಡು*!ದLರು. ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ ಇ1ೇ ಷಯ ೆS ಕೂ ಾ> ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. ನನ ೆ ಸಮಯ #ೇಕು
ಎಂದು ೇ@1ಾಗ Nೕನು ಒz ೊಳ&Aವ ವ8ೆಗು Nನ ೆ ೕ ೆ ಂfಸುIೆ!ೕJೆ. NನE \ೊIೆ ಸ Wಾ^
ವ*UಸಲT ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Xೇ@ .ೋವdಂಟು Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಕiೆ ೆ ಮಗು ಆ ೋವ8ೆಗು iಾ 5g
Bಾಡ#ಾರದು, NನE ಆ-ೕ Xಾಗೂ ನಮ_ ಮ.ೆ 6ಟು #ೇ8ೆ ಎಲೂT Xೋಗ#ಾರದು. #ೇ8ೆ ಏನೂ
}ೕಚ.ೆrೕ Bಾಡ#ಾರದು ಒಂದು Jೇ ೆ Bಾ>ದ8ೆ ಈ ಮ.ೆಯ T ಇರ#ಾರದು ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT
ಕಂ>ೕಷ5 Xಾq Xೆದ fದರು. ನನE ಅIೆ! ನನ ೆ ಮಗು ಷಯದ T ನನE ಅNf ೆ, ಅl3ಾ)ಯ. ಆ ೆ
ಾJೆ.ೆಗ@ ೆ Wಾವd1ೇ #ೆ;ೆoಲT ಅವರ N`ಾUರJೇ ಅಂ*ಮ ಎಂದು Xೇಳm*!ರುIಾ!8ೆ.
14

ಇ1ೇ ವµÀð ˜ೆಬ)ವ *ಂಗಳ T ಒಂದು Vವಸ 8ಾ*) ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗು ನನE ಅIೆ! ೆ
\ೋರು qರು+ಾಟ ಕೂ ಾಟದ ಜಗಳJಾoತು. Jಾದ Jಾದ Nಂದ.ೆಗಳm ˆ* ˆೕ
ನiೆಯು*!ತು!. ನನE ಗಂಡ fu Nಂದ ಮ.ೆಯ Tರುವ ¸ÀÆÖ‰, iೈNಂ™ Kೇಬ‰ ಇತ8ೇ ಮ.ೆಯ
ವಸು!ಗಳನುE ಮು ಯಲು ಎ ೆಯಲು ಯ*Eಸು*!ದLರು. ಆಗ .ಾನು ಾಬ ೊಂಡು ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ
ೕ ೆ Bಾಡ#ೇ> rಂದು Xೇ@ ಸBಾ`ಾನ Bಾಡಲು ಯ*Ef1ೆ. ನನE Bಾತು ೇಳmವ
ಪ fs*ಯ T ಇರದ ಅವರು ನನE 4ೕಲೂ ಕೂ ಾ> NಂVf fu Nಂದ ಮ.ೆ 6ಟು XೋಗುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ
ಎಂದು Xೇ@ Xೊರಟರು. .ಾನು ಭಯದ T ಅವರ ಂ1ೆrೕ ಆ ತಡ8ಾ*)ಯ T XೊರKೆ. ಸkಲ
ಸಮಯ ಅವರು ಅ T ಇ T ಓiಾ> ನಂತರ .ಾನು ಾಯುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ ಎಂದು ಮ.ೆ ಬ@ ಇರುವ 8ೈ;ೆkೕ
Kಾ): ಕiೆ Xೊರಟರು. .ಾನು ಅವರ ಂ1ೆXಾ ೆ Bಾಡ#ೇ> ದಯ ಟು Jಾಪ ಮ.ೆ ೆ
Xೋ ೋಣ ಬNE ಎಂದು #ೇ> ೊಳmAತ!;ೇ Xೋ1ೆ. ಆದ8ೆ ಅವರು .ಾನು ಎtೆ ೕ #ೇಡ ಎಂದು
ೋಗ8ೆದರು ಂ*ರು^ ಬರಲು ತWಾ ರ ಲT, ಾ}ೕದ ೆS 8ೈ;ೆk Kಾ): ನ 4ೕ;ೆ Xೋ^
Nಂತರು. ನನE Bಾವ ಆ ಸಮಯದ T #ೇ8ೆ ಊ ನ T ಇದLರು. ನನ ೆ Xೆದ ೆ ಆ^ ಮಧ 8ಾ*)
ಸುBಾರು 12:00- 1:00 ಗಂKೆ ೆ ಅವ ೆ šೕ5 Bಾ> ನನE ಗಂಡ 8ೈ;ೆkೕ Kಾ): ನ T
ಾಯುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ ಎಂದು Nಂ*1ಾL8ೆ .ಾನು ಎtೆ ೕ ೇ@ ೊಂಡರೂ ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಬರು*!ಲT .ಾನು ಕೂಡ ಅವರ
ಂ1ೆrೕ Nಂತು ಅವರನುE ಸBಾ`ಾನ Bಾಡಲು ಪ)ಯ*Eಸು*!1ೆLೕ.ೆ ಆದ8ೆ ಆಗು*!ಲT Nೕವd
ದಯ ಟು Bಾತ.ಾ> ಎಂದು ೕ5 ೊKೆ .ಆಗ ನನE Bಾವನವರು ತುಂ#ಾ Xೊತು! ಕNkNg
Bಾಡಲು ಪ)ಯ*Efದರು.ಾನು ಮIೆ! ಅತು! ಕ8ೆದು ಾ> #ೇ> Kಾ): ಇಂದ ಪಕS ೆS ನನE ಗಂಡ
ಬರುವಂIಾoತು. ಇtಾ ದರೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಬರಲು ತWಾ ರ ಲT. ಮIೆ! ಸುBಾರು ಒಂದು
ಒಂದೂವ8ೆ ಗಂKೆಗಳ ಾಲ .ಾನು Xಾಗೂ Bಾವನವರು #ೇ> ೊಂಡು Xೇಗೂ Bಾ> ನನE
ಗಂಡನನುE ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಬರುವಂIೆ Bಾ>1ೆವd.

ಕ ೆದ ವಷU ನJೆಂಬ *ಂಗಳ T .ಾವd ರ†7 ೆu ಯ ಸಪ! ಾಗರದ ಆ+ೆ 2 ಚಲನ
vತ)ದ premier ±ÉÆÃUÉ Iೆರ@1ೆLವd, ಅ T vತ)ದ ಪ*)ಕ ೋj ನiೆಯು*!ತು!, ಅದನುE .ೋ>
ಚಲನvತ) ೕ†f ತಡ8ಾ*) ಮ.ೆ ೆ ಂ*ರುಗುJಾಗ ಇ1ೆ ಪ*) ಾ ೋj +ಾರ ೆS Bಾ* ೆ
Bಾತು #ೆ ೆದು ಜಗಳ ಶರುJಾoತು. ಇ1ೆ ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ಗಂಡ ನನE character ಬ ೆP ೆಟ 1ಾ^
BಾIಾ> ಅJಾಚ Jಾ^ #ೈದು, ಮದ 8ಾ*) ನಡು ರ ೆ!ಯ T ಾ Nಂದ ಇ@fದರು. ಾ Nಂದ
ಇ@ದು .ಾನು ರ ೆ!ಯ T ¤AwÛ1ಾLಗ, ಪdನಃ ಾರು ಹತು! ಇಲTJಾದ8ೆ 8ೋ>ನ ಜುತುಜ...> ೆ Xೋ^
ಗುVL ತಮ_ ...ೕವ ೆS ಅ3ಾಯ Bಾ> ೊಳmAವd1ಾ^ Xೆದ fದರು.ಅವರ ...ೕವ ೆS ಏ.ಾದರು ಅ3ಾಯ
Bಾ> ೊಳmAIಾ!8ೆ. ಎಂದು Xೆದ ಮIೆ! ಾ ನ T ಕು@Iೆ ಈ ಎರಡೂ ಘಟ.ೆಗಳm ನನE ಮನfg ೆ
ತುಂ#ಾ .ೋವd Xಾಗೂ ಭಯವನುEಂಟು Bಾ>1ೆ. BಾನfಕJಾ^ ನನEನು ಬಹಳಷು ಕು^Pf1ೆ.

V.ಾಂಕ: 09.11.2024 ರಂದು 8ಾ*) ಸುBಾರು 11:30 ಗಂKೆ ೆ ನಮ_ ಮ.ೆಯ T ಇದL
#ೆqSನ ಷಯJಾ^ ನನE ಗಂಡನ \ೊIೆ ೆ Bಾ* ೆ Bಾತು #ೆ ೆದು ನನ ೆ #ೈಯಲು ಆರಂlfದರು.
15

ನಂತರ Xೆದ f, ನನE ಮುಖ ೆS Xೊiೆಯಲು ಬಂದರು ಆಗ ತiೆಯಲು ನನE ೈ ಅಡ" ಇ+ೆ' ಮIೆ!
ಮುಖ ೆS Xೊiೆಯಲು ಬಂದರು ಮIೆ! ರŠ ೆ ೆ ನನE ೈ ಅಡ" ಇKೆ ಆಗ ಅವರು ನನE ಬಲ ೈ ಮುಂ ೈ
>ದು \ೋ8ಾ^ *ರು^f ತ@Aದರು. ಇದ ಂ1ಾ^ ನನE ಬಲ ೈಮುಂ ೈ ೆ ಾಯ Xಾಗೂ
.ೋವdಂKಾoತು. ಊತ ಬಂVತು. ನನE ಗಂಡ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಹ;ೆT BಾಡುJಾಗ ನನE ಅIೆ! ಅ;ೆT
ಇದLರೂಏನೂ Xೇಳ ಲT. ಹ;ೆToಂ1ಾದ ಾಯ Xಾಗು ಊತವನುE ನನE ಅIೆ! Xಾಗೂ Bಾವ ೆ
Iೋ f1ಾಗ ನನ ೆ #ೈದರು ಇtಾದರೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಮIೆ! ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಹ;ೆT Bಾಡಲು ಯ*Ef
Xೆದ f1ಾಗ ನನE ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ ಇನೂE ಕುಮಕೂS Nೕಡು*!ದLರು. ನನE ಗಂಡ ಅIೆ!
Bಾವ ರ ಬ@ ನನ ೆ ಆಗು*!ಲT 6ಟು 6> ಎಂದು ೇ@ ೊಳmA*!ದLರೂ 6ಡ1ೆ #ೈದು NಂVf ಂ ೆ
Nೕಡು*!ದLರು.Xೇ ೋ ಅವ ಂದ 6>ದf ೊಂಡು .ಾನು vqIೆg ಪiೆಯಲು ಮಧ 8ಾ*) ಸುBಾರು
12-1 ಗಂKೆ ೆ ಮ.ೆಯ ಬ@ ಇರುವ ಆಸ ಅಸ Iೆ) ೆ Iೆರ@1ೆ. ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ! .ಾನು
ಆಸ Iೆ) ೆ 1ಾಖ;ಾದಎtೊ ೕ ಸಮಯದ ನಂತರ ಬಂದರು. ಬಂದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ
ಏ.ಾoತು.Xೇ^VLೕN ಎಂದು ನನE ಬ@ ಬಂದು +ಾ ಸಲೂ ಇಲT. ನನEನು .ೋ> ೊಳಲೂT ಇಲT.
ಇ1ೇ #ೆqSನ ಸಲುJಾ^ ಸುBಾರು #ಾ ಮನ ಾ!ಪಗಳm ಬಂV1ೆ. #ೆಕುS ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ಹಲJಾರು#ಾ
...^V1ೆ ೆಲವd #ಾ ಪರv1ೆ. ಇದ ಂದ .ಾನು Xೆದ ರುIೆ!ೕ.ೆ. ಈ ಭಯ Xಾಗೂ ಘಟ.ೆಯ ಕು ತು
*@fದ8ೆ ಮ.ೆಯವ8ೆ;ಾT ನನ ೆ Jೈಯು*!ದLರು. Nನ ೆ ಅದರ ಬ ೆP Bಾತ.ಾಡುವ ಅಥJಾ
ಪ)(Eಸುವ ಅŽ ಾರ ಇಲT. ಈ ಮ.ೆಯ T Nನ^ಂತ Xೆv‹ನ 3ಾ)ಮುಖ Iೆ ಆ 6qS^1ೆ. \ಾf!
Bಾತ.ಾ>ದ8ೆ NನEನುEಮ.ೆoಂದ ಓ>f ಇನುE ಮುರು.ಾಲುS #ೆಕುSಗಳm ತಂದು ಾಕು*!ೕ
ಎಂದು #ೆದ f ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದರು. ನನE ತಂ1ೆ Iಾoಯ ಬ@ಯೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ! Bಾವ
ನನ^ಂತ ಅವ ೆ ಆ #ೆ ೆS Xೆಚು‹ ಎಂದು Xೇಳm*!ದLರು.

ನನ ೆ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ೇ ಬಹಳಷು Bಾನfಕ qರುಕುಳ Xಾಗೂ ಂ ೆ
Nೕ>1ಾL8ೆ. ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ ನನE ಗಂಡ ಹಲJಾರು #ಾ 1ೈ ಕ ಹ;ೆT Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಇಂದು ಅಥJಾ .ಾ ೆ
ಸ Xೋಗಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ತುಂ#ಾ Iಾ ೆ_oಂದ .ಾನು ಾದು ತುಂ#ಾ ಪ)ಯತEಪKೆ ಆದ8ೆ ಪ fs*
V.ೇ V.ೇ ಹದ ೆಡುIಾ! ಬಂತು. ಆದL ಂದ ಎಲವನುE ಸ ಪ>f ೊಳAಲು ೕ ಅŽ ಾ ಗಳ
•8ೆ Xೋ1ೆ. ಇ T V.ಾಂಕ:12/11/2024 ರಂದು ದೂರು 1ಾಖ fದುL, V.ಾಂಕ:14/11/2024
ರಂದು •ದಲು ಆಪ! ಸBಾ;ೋಚ.ೆ ನiೆoತು ಆಪ! ಸBಾ;ೋಚ.ೆ ಸಮಯದ T ನನE ಗಂಡ
Xಾಗೂ ನನE ಅIೆ!-Bಾವ ನನEನುE ಇನೂE ಮುಂ1ೆWಾದರೂ +ೆ.ಾE^ .ೋ> ೊಳmAIೆ!ೕJೆ ಎನುEವ
Wಾವd1ೇ §gÀªÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ°®è £À£Àß E¯Áè ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃ «rAiÉÆÃUÀUÀ¼À°è .ಾನು Iಾ@
ಾಲುಂಗುರ ºÁQzÀÝgÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀÄgÁªÉ E®èzÉÃ £Á£ÀÄ vÁ½ PÁ®ÄAUÀÄgÀ WಾJಾಗಲೂ
XಾಕಲT ಎಂದು ನನE §UÉÎ vÀ¥ÀÄà ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî D8ೋಪಗಳನುE Bಾ>ದರು. ನನE ಬ ೆP ಸುಮ_.ೆ
ೆಟ ಅl3ಾ)ಯ ಬರುವಂIೆ Bಾ>ದರು Xಾಗು ನನE ಸಂ ಾSರದ ಬ ೆP ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ ಪ)(EಸುIಾ!8ೆ. ೕ ೆ
8ಾ... ೆ Xೋದ ನನE 4ೕ;ೆ E®è ¸À®èzÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ಕ›ೆ ಅ3ಾದ.ೆ Nಂದ.ೆಗಳನುE Bಾ>ದರು.
16

ಇದ.ೆE;ಾT .ೋ> Bಾನfಕ Xಾಗೂ 1ೈ ಕJಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ ಕು^P Xೋ^ ಈಗ ಕiೆಯ1ಾ^
ೕ ೕ ಅವರ ಬ@ ದೂರು 1ಾಖ ಸು*!1ೆLೕ.ೆ. ಈ 4ೕಲSಂಡ ಎ;ಾT ಷಯಗಳಂIೆ ನನE ಗಂಡ
Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ!, Bಾವ ನನ ೆ ತುಂ#ಾ ಂ ೆ Xಾಗೂ qರುಕುಳ Nೕ>ರುIಾ!8ೆ ಆದL ಂದ ನನE ಗಂಡ
ಮಂಜು.ಾಥ ಅIೆ! 1ಾ Bಾವ JೆಂಕKೇಶ ರವರುಗಳ ರುದœ ಸೂಕ! ಾನೂನು ಕ)ಮ ಜರು^ಸಲು
ೋ ೊಟ ದೂರು.

ವಂದ.ೆಗ ೆ& ಂV ೆ,
ತಮ_ ಾkf.
Sd/-
(CHAITRA V)"

A particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat

in the house which always used to cause hurt to the wife. This is

only in a stray paragraph. The entire complaint gives a vivid

narration of what has transpired in the year of marriage. This

becomes a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 for the offences

punishable under the aforementioned sections.

9. The complainant has placed elaborate statement of

objections bringing out all the events that have happened right

from the date of marriage till the date of registration of complaint.

It appears that on 10-11-2024 the complainant had to get herself

admitted to the hospital on account of an injury caused by the act

of the husband /1st petitioner. The discharge summary is appended
17

to the statement of objections. The discharge summary indicates

that the wife has sustained injury in the right wrist and hand due to

assault and twisting by the 1st petitioner/husband. The diagnosis

and the history read as follows:

"Diagnosis:
Soft Tissue Injury

Chief Complaints:
Pain in the Right wrist and Hand

History:
27/F was brought to the ED by her mother and brother with
an a/h/o assault by a known person at ~ 11.35 p.m. on
09-11-2024.
Sustained injury to the right wrist and hand (twisted)
No h/o Fall/trauma to the head/chest/pelvis
No h/o ENT bleed/LOC/seizures."

Several whatsapp chats are also appended to the statement of

objections. They are so horrendous; they cannot be narrated in the

order. Usage of profanities are clear in all the chats. On such

profanities rests the fulcrum of allegations in the complaint.

Whatsapp chats are also indicative of the fact of vagabondish

lifestyle of the 1st petitioner/husband, as also the torture meted out

by him to the complainant every time. The whatsapp chats also

indicate the torture meted out by the husband to the wife on
18

demand of unnatural sex. With all these allegations, it becomes a

matter of trial for the husband in the least to come out clean in a

full-blown trial.

10. The matter is at the stage of investigation. 10 days had

left prior to grant of interim order. The case against the husband

forms complete ingredients of cruelty as depicted under Section 85

of the BNS. Section 85 of BNS is Section 498A of the earlier regime

of IPC. Section 85 punishes a husband or a relative of husband of a

woman subjecting her to cruelty. Section 86 defines what is cruelty.

Both Sections 85 and 86 read as follows:

"85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine.

86. Cruelty defined.--For the purposes of Section
85, "cruelty" means--

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
19

valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand."

Cruelty as defined in Section 86 would mean any wilful conduct

which is of a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health

whether mental or physical. Sub-section (b) of Section 86 would

define harassment to a woman for the purpose of meeting unlawful

demand of any property or valuable security and harassment meted

out in relation to such demand. A perusal at the complaint would

undoubtedly indicate the offence of cruelty, both mental and

physical on the complainant/wife by the husband/1st petitioner. The

ingredients of Section 85 are clearly met against the husband in the

case at hand.

11. The other offences alleged against the 1st petitioner are

the ones punishable under Sections 115(2) of BNS. Section 115(2)

deals with voluntarily causing hurt. Section 115(2) is Section 323 of

the IPC. Section 114 defines hurt and Section 115 causing

voluntary hurt. The provisions read as follows:
20

"114. Hurt.--Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

115. Voluntarily causing hurt.--(1) Whoever does
any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any
person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to
cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to
any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".

(2) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub-
section (1) of Section 122 voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both."

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is

said to cause hurt. Section 115 is voluntarily causing hurt. With an

intention to cause hurt, if a person does any act, it becomes

ingredient of Section 115. The act of the husband clearly brings out

ingredients of Sections 114 and 115 of BNS. Therefore, the said

offence is also made out against the husband.

12. The other offence is under Sections 351 and 352.

Sections 351 and 352 are Section 504 of the earlier regime of IPC.

The said ingredients are also prima facie found in the case at hand.

Therefore, all the offences that are laid are prima facie present in

the case at hand qua the husband/1st petitioner. Therefore, stay of
21

investigation or obliteration of investigation qua the husband cannot

at this juncture be considered even to be granted.

13. Insofar as mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned,

what is found in the complaint against them is as follows:

".... .... ....
ಎಂ ೇƒ4ಂ= ಮತು! ಮದುJೆಯ ಸಂಪ{ಣU ಖಚUನುE .ಾJೇ .ೋ> ೊಂ>1ೆLೕವd.
ಸBಾgÀÄ. 25 ಲŠ ರೂಗಳm ಖಚುU Bಾ> ಅವರ #ೇ> ೆಯಂIೆ ಅದೂL Wಾ^ ಮದುJೆ
Bಾ> ೊಟರೂ ಸಹ ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ ನನ ೆ ವರದŠ ೆ ೋಸS ನನE ಗಂಡ, ಅIೆ! Bಾವ ೇ
BಾನfಕJಾ^ ಂ ೆ Nೕ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಚುv‹ Bಾತ.ಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ೊಂಕು Bಾತುಗಳ.ಾE> ನನ ೆ
£ÉÆÃªÀÅKಾಗುವಂIೆ Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ Nೕನು ಏನು ೊu 1ಾ , ಏನು vÀAVJಾ , ನಮ ೆ ಏನು
Bಾ>1ಾ , NನE ಸಂಬಳ ಏನು Bಾಡು*!VLೕWಾ ಎಂದು ೇ@ ಜಗಳ Jಾ> NಂVf1ಾL8ೆ. ನಮ ೆ
;ೆಕS ೊಡು ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Xೇ@ ಹಂ^f1ಾL8ೆ. ನನE ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮ.ೆ ಅವರು ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ
NನE Iಾoಯ ೈ= NನE Xೆಸ ೆ ಬ8ೆf ೊಂಡು #ಾ ಎಂದು ಂfಸು*!ದLರು. ಅಷ ಲT1ೇ Nನ ೆ
ಊಟ Xಾq!VLೕ ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT qೕ ಾ^ Xೇ@ ನiೆf ೊಂ>1ಾL8ೆ. ನನE ಗಂಡN ೆ .ಾನು ಅವರ ೆ)>=
ಾ9U 6‰ಗಳನುE ಭ*U Bಾiೋ ೆ Xಾಗು ಬಹಳಷು #ಾ ಇತ8ೇ ಖಚುUಗ@ ೆ ಹಣ Nೕ>1ೆLೕ.ೆ.
ಅtಾ ದರೂ ಮIೆ! ಮIೆ! Nೕನು ಏನು Bಾ>ಲT ಏನೂ ೊu ಲT ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Bಾನfಕ qರುಕುಳ Nೕ>
ದೂjf1ಾL8ೆ.
.... .... .....
ಮzÀÄJೆಗೂ ಮುನEJೇ .ಾನು Xಾಗೂ ನನE ಗಂಡ Bಾತ.ಾ> ೊಂ>1ೆLೕವd ಮದುJೆWಾ^
ಎರಡು ªÀÄÆರು ವಷUದ ವ8ೆಗೂ ಮಕSಳm #ೇಡ ನಂತರ Bಾ> ೊ ೆ& Aೕಣ ಎಂದು. ಇದ ೆS ನನE ಗಂಡ
ಕೂಡ ಆಗ ಒz ೊಂ>ದLರು. ಆದ8ೆ ಮದುJೆ ಆ^ ಸುBಾರು ಅ8ೇಳm *ಂಗ ೆ& ಳ ೆ ಮಕSಳm ಈಗ;ೇ
#ೇಕು ಎಂದು Xೇ ೆ& ೕ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ>ದರು. ಅಷ ರ;ಾTಗ;ೇ ನಮ_ ಮ`ೆ Jೈಮನಸುg
l.ಾEl3ಾ)ಯಗಳm ಅŽಕJಾ^ದL ಂದ .ಾನು ಈಗ;ೇ #ೇಡ ಸkಲ ಸಮಯJಾಗ ಎಂದು Xೇ@1ೆ.
ಅದ ೆS ಜಗಳ Bಾಡಲು ಶುರು Bಾ>ದರು. ಬರುIಾ! ಬರುIಾ! Wಾವ ಹಂತ ತಲುzತು ಎಂದ8ೆ ಹಲವd
#ಾ 8ಾ*) 7:30 - 8 ಘಂKೆ ೆ ಶುರು Bಾ> ಮರು Vನ #ೆಳ^ನ \ಾವ 2 - 3 ಘಂKೆಯ ವ8ೆಗೂ ನನE
ಗಂಡ Xಾಗೂ ಅIೆ!, Bಾವ ೇ Nೕನು ಈಗ;ೇ ಮಕSಳm Bಾ> ೊಳAಲು ಒz ೊಳA#ೇಕು ಎಂದು
Xೇ@ BಾನfಕJಾ^ ತುಂ#ಾ qರುಕುಳ ೊu 1ಾL8ೆ. ಇಷು ಾಲದು ಎಂದು ಮರುVನ #ೆ@ ೆP ನನE
ಅIೆ! ಮIೆ! ಮIೆ! ಇ1ೇ ಷಯ ಪ) ಾ!zಸು*!ದLರು. .ಾನು ಈಗ ಅದರ ಬ ೆP Bಾತ.ಾಡುವ Bಾನfಕ
ಪ fsಯ;ಾTಗ ೕ ಶq!ಯ;ಾTಗ ೕ ಇಲT 8ಾ*)r;ಾT N1ೆL ಆ^ಲT 'ಒತ!ಡVಂದ #ೇಸರVಂದ ಇ1ೆLೕ.ೆ
22

ಎಂದು #ೇ> ೊಂಡರು ;ೆqSಸ1ೇ ಮIೆ! ಕೂಡ;ೇ ಮಗು Bಾ> ೊಳA#ೇಕು ಎಂದು Bಾನfಕ ಂ ೆ
Nೕಡು*!ದLರು. ಪ1ೇ ಪ1ೇ ಇ1ೇ ಷಯ ೆS ಕೂ ಾ> ಜಗಳJಾಡು*!ದLರು. ನನ ೆ ಸಮಯ #ೇಕು
ಎಂದು ೇ@1ಾಗ Nೕನು ಒz ೊಳ&Aವ ವ8ೆಗು Nನ ೆ ೕ ೆ ಂfಸುIೆ!ೕJೆ. NನE \ೊIೆ ಸ Wಾ^
ವ*UಸಲT ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT Xೇ@ .ೋವdಂಟು Bಾ>1ಾL8ೆ. ಕiೆ ೆ ಮಗು ಆ ೋವ8ೆಗು iಾ 5g
Bಾಡ#ಾರದು, NನE ಆ-ೕ Xಾಗೂ ನಮ_ ಮ.ೆ 6ಟು #ೇ8ೆ ಎಲೂT Xೋಗ#ಾರದು. #ೇ8ೆ ಏನೂ
}ೕಚ.ೆrೕ Bಾಡ#ಾರದು ಒಂದು Jೇ ೆ Bಾ>ದ8ೆ ಈ ಮ.ೆಯ T ಇರ#ಾರದು ಎಂ1ೆ;ಾT
ಕಂ>ೕಷ5 Xಾq Xೆದ fದರು. ನನE ಅIೆ! ನನ ೆ ಮಗು ಷಯದ T ನನE ಅNf ೆ, ಅl3ಾ)ಯ. ಆ ೆ
ಾJೆ.ೆಗ@ ೆ Wಾವd1ೇ #ೆ;ೆoಲT ಅವರ N`ಾUರJೇ ಅಂ*ಮ ಎಂದು Xೇಳm*!ರುIಾ!8ೆ.

The aforesaid is what is contended in the statement of objections of

the complainant. Therefore, the allegations against the mother-in-

law and father-in-law are that they have instigated or influenced

the 1st petitioner/husband to behave in the manner that he has

done. The afore-narration in the complaint, would not by any

means, become ingredients of Section 85 of BNS or Sections 115,

351 or 352 of BNS as is alleged. Even the issue of demand of

dowry is also bleakly alleged against the mother-in-law and

father-in-law. Though the FIR cannot mean an encyclopaedia of

offences for all the allegations to be found in it, it would always be

a matter of investigation. But, in six pages narration of the

complaint quoted supra, except the requoted passage supra, there

is nothing that would become an offence against mother-in-law and
23

father-in-law. The entire complaint is dedicated to horrendous acts

of the husband.

14. If the aforesaid is against the husband, what is against

the mother-in-law and father-in-law is necessary to be considered.

The allegations made in the complaint do not even prima facie meet

the ingredients of the offence against mother-in-law and father-in-

law, while it meets in abundance against the husband. Therefore,

permitting further investigation even against mother-in-law and

father-in-law would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of

law.

15. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1

wherein it is held as follows: -

"Issue involved

10. Having perused the relevant facts and
contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in
our considered opinion, the foremost issue which
requires determination in the instant case is whether
allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in

1
(2022)6 SCC 599
24

the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?

11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-
AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon
a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating
rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true,
that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the
country has also increased significantly and there is a
greater disaffection and friction surrounding the
institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has
resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions
such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed :
(SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)

"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands
of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly
when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or
murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression
"cruelty" in Section 498-A covers conduct which may
drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury
(mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with
a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand.
[Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious
concern that large number of cases continue to be filed
under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married
women. We have already referred to some of the
statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had
earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many
of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing
of the complaint, implications and consequences are not
visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for
harassment not only to the accused but also to the
complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of
settlement."
25

13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was
also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial
disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is
greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was
introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of
harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and
his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a
cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious
place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as
weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The
simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his
relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number
of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."

14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed :
(SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

"32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are
filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without
proper deliberations. We come across a large number of
such complaints which are not even bona fide and are
filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid
increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry
harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure
that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or
demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions
of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal
complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on
their advice or with their concurrence. The learned
members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession
must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every
complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem
and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in
26

arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem.
They must discharge their duties to the best of their
abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity
of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar
should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to
multiple cases.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the
complaint the implications and consequences are not
properly visualised by the complainant that such
complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony
and pain to the complainant, accused and his close
relations.

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the
truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To
find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these
complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and
all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At
times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is
difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these
complaints and must take pragmatic realities into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment of husband's close relations
who had been living in different cities and never visited or
rarely visited the place where the complainant resided
would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised
with great care and circumspection.
36. Experience reveals that long and protracted
criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in
the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant
if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in
jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering
is extremely long and painful."

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p.
749, para 21)

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note
of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V.
27

Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High
Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a
matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been
roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed
and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with
which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)

'12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple
to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little
matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often
assume serious proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in
the criminal case. There are many other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of
law where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their "young" days in
chasing their cases in different courts.'

The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the
courts would not encourage such disputes."

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019)
1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)

"6. ... The courts should be careful in proceeding
against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to
matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of
the husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC
28

and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing
the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant
as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the
said judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding
against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when
no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that
general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The
complainant alleged that "all accused harassed her mentally
and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy".
Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been
made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the
appellants have been attributed any specific role in
furtherance of the general allegations made against them.
This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain
the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence.
The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can
at best be said to have been made out on account of small
skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not
appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not
examined the veracity of allegations made against him.
However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the
allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do
not warrant prosecution.

19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous
FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the
present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019,
after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before
the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the
respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly.
However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their
demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the
acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in
question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent,
29

and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated
11-12-2017.

20. Here it must be borne in mind that although
the two FIRs may constitute two independent
instances, based on separate transactions, the present
complaint fails to establish specific allegations against
the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against
the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of
the process of law.

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust
if the appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged."
(Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Apex Court in the case of PAYAL SHARMA v. STATE

OF PUNJAB2 has held as follows:

"8. In view of the aforementioned rival contentions, we
bestowed an analytical consideration and found that besides the
afore-extracted paragraph 7 there is absolutely no consideration
of the contentions of the appellant in the impugned judgment.
We have already noticed that the accused No. 5 is only the wife
of the cousin brother of the husband of the complainant's
daughter, and she was living in another city along with her
husband. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position, it is
relevant to refer to certain decisions of this Court.

2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473
30

9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand,(2010) 7 SCC 667, this Court observed that it
is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial
disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are
reflected in a large number of complaints and the
tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large
number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense
sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in
the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars
of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We
have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of
this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-
discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a
person who is not a close relative of the family of the
husband is over implication or whether allegation against
any such person is an exaggerated version, in
matrimonial disputes of this nature. In this context, it is
to be noted that the term 'relative' has not been defined
in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a
meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally, it
can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife,
son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson
or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any
person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood,
marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case
(supra) it was furthermore held thus:--
"...The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in
dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of
harassment by husband's close relatives who had been living in
different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the
complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great
care and circumspection."

10. In such circumstances, normally against a
person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid
categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the
observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the
Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether
such implication is over implication and/or whether the
31

allegations against such a person is an exaggerated
version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the
observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all
of the contentions of accused No. 5 in the impugned order.

11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of
U.P.,(2012) 10 SCC 741 this Court held that mere casual
reference of the names of the family members in a
matrimonial dispute without allegation of active
involvement in the matter would not justify taking
cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of
over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the
household in the domestic quarrel resulting in
matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon
after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam v. State of Bihar,(2022) 6 SCC 599 this Court
quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the
husband on the ground that the allegations against them
are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the
one at hand when relatives not residing in the same
house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall
not stop consideration by merely looking into the
question where the accused is a person falling within the
ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of
Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is
a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely
to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main
accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 wherein after considering the statutory
provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to
various categories of cases where the inherent powers
under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High
Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is
where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an
accused.
32

12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of
accused No. 5 a little later and now, will consider the challenge
of complainant against quashment of the subject FIR and all
consequential proceedings based thereon, qua accused No. 6
bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions. It is to be
noted that the impugned order itself would reveal that the
learned counsel who appeared for the complainant admitted
before the High Court regarding the absence of allegations
against accused No. 6 as relates offences under Sections 406
and 498-A, IPC. This is discernible from paragraph 6 of the
impugned order and it reads thus:--
"6. Qua Petitioner No. 1, Ld. Counsel admits that so far as
Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned, there are no specific
allegations. He asserts that offences punishable under Sections 420
and 120-B of the IPC have been added later on and the allegations
levelled against petitioner No. 1 shall well fall within the ambit of
Sections 420 IPC and 417 of the IPC."

... ... ...
16. In view of the relationship between accused No.
5 and the complainant and also the fact that accused No.
5 got related to the husband of complainant's daughter
only through her marriage with accused No. 6, we are at
a loss to understand as to how the offences under
Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, could be raised against
accused No. 5 in the light of the allegations in the subject
FIR especially when the complainant himself admitted
lack of specific allegations to connect accused No. 6 with
the said offences and if similar are the allegations raised
against appellant Nos. 5 and 6 qua the aforesaid
offences."

The Apex Court, in its recent judgment, in the case of DARA

LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA3 holds as

follows:

3
(2025)3 SCC 735
33

"14. Section 498-AIPC deals with offences committed by
the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty
towards the wife. The said provision reads as under:

"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or
the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman
to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet
such demand."
... ... ...
16. An offence is punishable under Section 498-
AIPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to
cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term
extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation
under Section 498-AIPC defines "cruelty" for the purpose
of Section 498-AIPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in
clauses (a) or (b). The first limb of clause (a) of the
Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that "cruelty"
means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second
limb of clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC,
states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of
such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman. Further, clause (b) of the Explanation to Section
498-AIPC states that cruelty would also include
harassment of the woman where such harassment is to
coerce her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.
34

... ... ...
19. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts
and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the
High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal
proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of
2022 dated 1-2-2022 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Act.
... ... ...
22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a
legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent
on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice
issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No.
82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police
Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Act.
... ... ...
26. Insofar as Appellants 2 to 6 are concerned, we find
that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have
been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or
reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial
and specific allegations have been made against Appellants 2 to
6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for
demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they
never resided with the couple, namely, Appellant 1 and
Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided
together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in
Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively.

27. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial
dispute, without specific allegations indicating their
active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a
well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience,
that there is often a tendency to implicate all the
members of the husband's family when domestic disputes
arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and
sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence
or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for
criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in
such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
35

legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case, Appellants 2
to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have
been living in different cities and have not resided in the
matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and
the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the
absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
... ... ...
30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC by way of an
amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman
by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by
the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a
notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within the
institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a
growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498-
AIPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against
the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and
generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if
not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by
a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to
invoke Section 498-AIPC against the husband and his
family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable
demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time
and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband
and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case
against them.

31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman
who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been
contemplated under Section 498-AIPC should remain silent and
forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any
criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid
observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the
present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for
dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant, husband of
the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498-
AIPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said
provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman
who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home
36

primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security in the form of dowry. However,
sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

32. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
"12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes
in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in
life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting
in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered
helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.
There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and
in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing
their "cases" in different courts."

33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7
SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] held that the courts
have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with
these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into
consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The
allegations of harassment by the husband's close
relatives who had been living in different cities and never
visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant
resided would have an entirely different complexion. The
allegations of the complainant are required to be
scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with
ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against
Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6
herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category
(7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of
37

Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in
not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC
and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by
continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.

35. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order of the High Court dated 16-2-2022 [Dara
Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS
3561] in Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 filed under Section
482CrPC. Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 under Section 482
CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated
1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda
under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act
against Appellants 1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 3-6-2022 filed in
the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad
and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri
against the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed."

In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court qua other

members of the family or even the mother-in-law and father-in-law,

I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime against them.

16. Insofar as 1st petitioner/husband is concerned, it is for

him to face investigation and come out clean in a full-blown trial, as

the allegations against him undoubtedly meet ingredients of every

offence alleged.
38

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) Crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 insofar as it concerns the petitioners 2 and 3/mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant stands quashed.

(iii) Crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 insofar as it concerns the 1st petitioner/husband of the complainant is sustained. Investigation shall continue against the 1st petitioner.

I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court