Bangalore District Court
Sandhya D vs Tarun Kumar Kairamkonda on 6 September, 2025
KABC010116862024
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th day of September 2025.
Crl. Appeal No.727/2024
APPELLANT : Smt.Sandhya.D.
D/o.N.Dayananda,
W/o.Tarun Kumar Kairamkonda,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at.No.100, 8th Cross,
K.R.Layout,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.S.L.N., Advocate)
.Vs.
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri.Tarun Kumar Kairamkonda,
S/o.Chandrashekhar
Kairamkonda,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at.House No.1-4-180/192,
Saibaba Officers Colony,
Sainikpuri Post,
Secunderabad-500 094.
Crl.Appeal No.727/2024
2
2. Smt.Madhavi Chandrashekar
Kairamkonda,
W/o.Chandrashekhar
Kairamkonda,
R/of. A-Wing, 1304,
Satsang Bharti Chsl,
Upper Govind Nagar,
Near Shani Mandir,
Malad East,
Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400 097.
3. Sri.Chandrashekhar
Kairamkonda,
S/o.Late Ramulu,
Aged about 63 years,
R/of. A-Wing, 1304,
Satsang Bharti Chsl,
Upper Govind Nagar,
Near Shani Mandir,
Malad East,
Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400 097.
(By Sri.J.M., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.52/2024, dated:19.03.2024 as to dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of PWDV Act against the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the trial court to issue notice on the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 3
2. The appellant herein was the petitioner and respondents were the respondents before the trial court. For the sake of convenience, parties would be referred to by the ranks they were assigned before the trial court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant herein who is petitioner before the trial court has filed petition under Section 12 of PWDV Act against the respondents and also sought various reliefs under the provisions of PWDV Act.
After filing of the petition and on hearing I.A.No.1, despite sufficient averments against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Magistrate has refused to issue notice to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 dismissed the petition against the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. The appellant/petitioner has preferred this appeal on the following grounds :
The trial court has failed to look into petition averments against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Act aims to provide comprehensive civil and criminal remedies to address the phenomenon of domestic violence against women, which was not adequately addressed by existing criminal laws and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were also shared the shared house with the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The domestic Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 4 violence is defined broadly to include various forms of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 verbally abused the petitioner. There were verbal abuse by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 over phone and they instigated the respondent No.1 to commit violence. The specific allegations against the respondent Nso.2 and 3 were not recognized by the trial court. The trial court has ignored the material averments in the complaint. There is a patent error in refusing to issue notice to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The impugned order passed by the trial court is against law and opposed to legal principles as well as facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the petitioner has prayed allow this appeal and to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court and prayed to direct the trial court to issue notice to the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. The respondents put their appearance through their counsel.
6. The respondent No.1 has filed detailed objections and the same was adopted by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the objections, the respondents have contended that that the allegations made against them are false and baseless. The respondent No.1 is a Civil Engineer working as Project Manager and earning Rs.90,570/- per month. The petitioner is a MCA Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 5 Graduate working as Senior Software Developer and getting the salary of Rs.2,00,000/- per month. The petitioner has concealed her salary before the trial court. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent No.1 started to lead their marital life together in Bengaluru in a rented house and during that period, the petitioner started picking up quarrels with the respondent No.1 (husband) for petty reasons and she failed to discharge her duty as dutiful wife. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the parents of respondent No.1 are residing in Mumbai. The respondent No.1 has denied the allegations made by the petitioner against him. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 nowhere lived or neither visited the marital home of the petitioner and respondent No.1. In fact after their marriage, just because of the harsh behaviour of the petitioner towards her husband, neither the respondent Nos.2 and 3 visited the marital house and that the respondent No.1 was forced by the petitioner not to talk with his parents even over the phone calls and used to pick up trivial fights with the respondent No.1. The petitioner barely lived in the marital home not more than 50 days. The respondent No.1 as a dutiful husband looked after the petitioner in a good manner. The petitioner herself left the marital home on 17.07.2023 without having informed the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 does not know the Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 6 whereabouts of the petitioner. While the respondent No.1 questioned about the same, the petitioner in turn abused the respondent No.1 and created ruckus over the phone call. The respondent No.1 has denied the allegation that at the instance of his parents (respondent Nos.2 and 3), he has abused the petitioner over phone. The petitioner having intentionally made facetious allegations for her unlawful gains has sought the respondent No.1 to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.70,000/- and seeking vague and frivolous award of a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- towards the compensation to the mental trauma and the domestic violence and marriage expenses. The respondent as a dutiful husband has provided all day-to-day needs and wants of the petitioner. Beyond this, the petitioner's demands and expectations on living high class is way beyond imagination. The petitioner has intentionally made fictitious allegations for her unlawful gains and lodged an atrocities complaint against the respondent in Ashok Nagar Police Station Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504 and 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, which is came to be registered in Crime No.423/2023. During the course of investigation, it is concluded that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were nowhere involved in the alleged act, as frivolous allegations are made up against them, the learned Magistrate has granted ad-
Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 7 interim bail to the respondent No.1 on 7.02.2024. Further on 28.05.2024 at about 5-00 p.m., petitioner visited the office of respondent No.1 situated at Kasturba Road, Bengaluru and created ruckus in the office premises by showing wedding photos of the petitioner and respondent No.1 and shouted at the security by stating that there has been a police complaint lodged against the respondent No.1 in Ashok Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru and made false and frivolous allegations against the respondent No.1. The petitioner with an intention to defame the respondent No.1 being fully aware that the respondent No.1 is working in Hyderabad Branch and the respondent No.1 out of the blue came to know about this excruciating incident when the H.R.Department and Manager of the said company questioned the same to the respondent No.1 on the very same day and warned him that no such act shall be repeated and he was compelled to give apology in writing to the company officials. The petitioner is a MCA Graduate and working as Senior Software Developer in INTEL Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month more than twice the amount earning than the respondent No.1. The petitioner is presently residing with her parents and having other source of income through rents of Rs.1,00,000/- per month out of the immovable properties. All the gold ornaments, silver articles, Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 8 house hold appliances, original documents of educational certificates, D.L., Voter's I.D., PAN, Aadhar Card, Vehicle R.C., are in the custody of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is getting monthly income of Rs.90,570/- only and he is residing in his parent's house at Hyderabad and he has to look after his ailing mother, who is suffering from paralytic stroke due to severe diabetic condition and his father is retired from his medical practice. Both his parents are entirely dependent on him for their survival. He is the only son of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and he has to incur monthly medical expenses & others of Rs.16,000/- to Rs.18,000/- and the respondent No.1 is under the personal debts incurred for his marriage expenses and demands made by the petitioner. Hence the above income is insufficient to meet his expenses. Further the respondent No.1 does not hold any immovable property of his own or he has any source of income out of any immovable property. The petitioner had deliberately filed a domestic violence complaint against the respondents only with a malfide intention to extort money from them and to harass them. Hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. The trial court records were secured.
8. Heard.
Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 9
9. The learned advocate for respondents has filed the photographs of the appellant.
10. The points raised for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the appellant/petitioner has made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court ?
2. What Order?
11. My findings to the above points are:
POINT No.1 : Affirmative, POINT No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
12. POINT No.1:- I have considered the appeal averments along with the documents placed by both the parties.
13. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner challenging the order dated:19.03.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.52/2024 wherein on the first date of hearing on I.A.No.1, the petition against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was dismissed and the notice was issued to the respondent No.1. In the said order, it is observed that " On perusal of materials available on record, it is Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 10 found that the petitioner in support of her contention, she has produced her wedding invitation card and photographs to show that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1. It appears that the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the respondents at Ashokanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 498(A) r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and same is pending for investigation. In the present petition, except for the dowry demand and instigation to the respondent No.1 from the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner has not made any specific allegations regarding domestic violence. There is absolute no domestic violence incident as alleged and the allegations referred to are of ill-treatment and harassment of the respondents for which a case under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act is already pending. Moreover, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were residing in Mumbai, Maharashtra State. Apart from the bald allegations against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, there are no specific allegations of domestic violence as alleged. Further, in a reported decision "Shyamlal Devuda and others .Vs. Parimala", the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 11 has held that while issuing a notice to the respondents the court has to be prima-facie satisfied that there are prima-facie materials to show that the respondents have caused an act of domestic violence against the petitioner. In this case, as discussed above, there is no specific allegation has been made against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, there is no prima-facie material to proceed against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, there is prima-facie material against the respondent No.1 to proceed with the case. With this observation, this court proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The petition against respondent Nos.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed".
14. In view of the said order, it is necessary to refer to the petition averments in Crl.Misc.No.52/2024 wherein in para Nos.5, 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 28 to 31 and 43 there are specific allegations of abuse and harassment meted out on the petitioner by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
15. As observed by the learned Magistrate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Shyamlal Devuda & Others .Vs. Parimala", it is held that "While issuing a Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 12 notice to the respondents, the court has to be prima- facie satisfied that there are prima-facie materials to show that the respondents have caused an act of domestic violence against the petitioner"
16. The counsel for respondent has filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.423/2023 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 504 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, wherein the names of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were dropped. Even though the charge sheet is not filed against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for dowry harassment by the jurisdictional police. But to attract the offence under Domestic Violence Act, there need not be a demand for dowry or dowry harassment. But the acts of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 instigating their son i.e., the respondent No.1 to commit domestic violence, scolding in filthy language, physically and mentally torturing the petitioner attracts the provisions of DV Act. On plain reading of the petition, it prima- facie appears that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the petitioner, there are specific allegations against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is only after evidence, the court can come to a conclusion as to whether the respondent Nos.2 and 3 subjected the petitioner to domestic violence or not. Hence it is held that the learned Magistrate has erred in dismissing the petition against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the first day of the Crl.Appeal No.727/2024 13 hearing. The appellant has made out grounds to set aside the said order. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
17. POINT No.2 : My finding on this point is as per following :
ORDER The Crl. Appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. Consequently the impugned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.52/2024, dated:19.03.2024 is set aside.
Send the copy of this order to the trial court.
(Dictated to then Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of September 2025) (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.