Karnataka High Court
Kum. Bhavana N vs Sri. Nagaraju S on 25 September, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.556 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
KUM. BHAVANA N
D/O SRI. NAGARAJU S,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1/9,
SHANESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
NEAR BALDWIN SCHOOL,
MUNESHWARA NAGAR, HEROHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 091
ALSO AT NO.466, 2ND 'C' MAIN ROAD,
MARILINGAPPA LAYOUT, PAPAREDDY PALYA
NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 072
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CLIFTON D' ROZARIO FOR SMT.SRUTI.C.CHAGANTI,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
SRI. NAGARAJU S
S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
OCC: ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 002
RESIDING AT NO. 1420/A, 1ST FLOOR,
11TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 040
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SANDESH.J.CHOUTA, SR.COUNSEL AND
SRI.ABHISHEK.K, ADVOCATE)
-2-
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIX
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-60) AT
BENGALURU, IN CRL.A.NO.121/2025 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 29.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
C.A.V ORDER
This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C
is by the daughter of respondent, challenging judgment
and order dated 12.02.2025 in Crl.A.No.121/2025 on the
file of 49th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru, whereby the said appeal filed by respondent
came to be allowed, by setting aside the order dated
04.12.2024 in Crl.Misc.49/2024 on the file of MMCT-III
Bengaluru (Trial Court for short).
2. By order dated 04.12.2024 the trial Court
granted maintenance @ 15,000/- pm, in favour of the
petitioner from the date of order till disposal of the
petition.
-3-
3. In support of the petition, the petitioner has
contended that the impugned order passed by the
sessions Court is unsustainable in law and on facts. The
learned Sessions Judge has misdirected himself on the
ratio in the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in
Crl.R.P.Nos.795/2015 C/w 103/2015 (Kalasegowda Vs.
Netravathi). It was a petition filed by the wife seeking
maintenance for herself and on behalf her children. While
interpreting the word child as define in Section 2(d)of the
protection of women from domestic Act ('DV Act' for short)
it was held that it would not include major unmarried
daughter. However, it was not held that an unmarried
major daughter is not an aggrieved person.
3.1 The learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself of
the ratio in the judgment of Naimulla Sheik and came to
the wrong conclusion that maintenance cannot be granted
to unmarried and adult daughter under Section 20 of DV
Act. In fact, on a thorough reading of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts it is held
that the relief under DV act was supplementary to and not
-4-
in derogatory to the reliefs available to the aggrieved
person and that an unmarried adult daughter is entitled to
monetary reliefs under Section 20 of DV Act.
3.2 The right of a daughter to seek maintenance from
her father even after attaining majority until her marriage
has statutory force in the light of the Section 20 (3) of
Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act. Consequently,
petitioner being an aggrieved person is entitled to
maintain petition under Section 12 of DV Act.
3.3 The Sessions Judge also completely ignored the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi.
He has also completely misdirected himself as to the
object and scope of DV Act, which is provided for
protection for married women from the domestic violence
from husband and relatives of her husband. The Sessions
Judge has also erred in holding that petitioner is not
entitled for maintenance as neither she nor her mother
were residing with the respondent after divorce of
respondent and the mother of the petitioner. The Sessions
Judge has also erred in reversing the order passed by the
trial Court and hence the petition.
-5-
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
i) Church of South India Trust Association Vs.
Sampangiraman (Church of South India
Trust Assn.)1
ii) Sri.G.Kalasegowda Vs. Smt.N.K.Nethravathi
(G.Kalasegowda)2
iii) Nagshetty Vs. Aruna (Nagshetty)3
iv) Naimulla Sheikh and Anr. Vs. State of UP and
Ors. (Naimulla Sheikh)4
v) Samsur Uddin Laskar Vs. The State of Assam
and Ors.(Samsur Uddin Laskar)5
vi) Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi (Prabha
Tyagi)6
vii) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (Rajnesh)7
viii) Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. Vs. Jammu
and Kashmir National Conference and
Anr.(Union Territory of Ladakh)8
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for respondent would submit that petitioner filed Crl.Misc.
49/2024 under Sections 12, 18 to 20 and 22 of the DV
Act, seeking several reliefs, including maintenance. she
1
1978 SCC Online Kar 268
2
Crl.RP.No.795/2015 c/w Crl.RP.No.1031/2015 Dt:23.08.2023
3
2018 SCC Online 2998
4
2024 SCC Online All 163
5
MANU/GH/1099/2023; (2024) 214 PLR 32
6
(2022) 8 SCC 90
7
(2021) 2 SCC 324
8
2023 SCC Online SC 1140
-6-
also sought for interim maintenance. The marriage of
Dhanalakshmi the mother of the petitioner and respondent
was solemnized on 12.12.1999. Initially they stayed in the
house of brother of respondent at Guddahalli for 2 years.
Later they shifted to the maternal house of Dhanalakshmi
at Sunkadakatte. Through the wedlock petitioner and a
son Darshan were born. They have secured divorce in MC
No.1421/2011. In G and WC No.208/2011, the custody of
children were given to the respondent. After the divorce
both Dhanalakshmi and respondent remarried other
persons and settled.
5.1 Alleging that after the Second marriage of
Smt.Dhanalakshmi, petitioner and her brother are living
with her grandparents, petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.49/2025
under the provisions of DV Act and secured an order of
interim maintenance, which came to be set aside by the
Sessions Court against which this petition is filed.
5.2 In the petition under the provisions of DV Act filed
by the petitioner there are no allegations of domestic
violence against the petitioner by the respondent. The
entire allegations are with regard to her mother
-7-
Dhanalakshmi which are baseless. The petitioner is not an
aggrieved person and as such the provisions of DV Act are
not applicable. Petitioner is a major and practising
advocate and she is having sufficient income to maintain
herself. Respondent is having a minor daughter through
his second marriage.
5.3 Petitioner has also filed O.S.No.373/2024 before
the Family Court, Bengaluru under Section 20 of Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking
maintenance and marriage expenses. Petitioner and her
mother filed Crl.Misc.No.245/2023 under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C for maintenance. It was dismissed for non
prosecution. The said fact is not disclosed by her in the
petition. The directions in Rajnesh are also not followed.
5.4 The mother of petitioner has executed a gift deed
dated 18.01.2019 in respect of agriculture land in
Sy.No.235/2. In order to project as though she is not
living with her mother, petitioner executed gift
cancellation deed dated 10.06.2019. In all these records,
the husband's name of Dhanalakshmi is stated as
Shivakumar. In the present petition, petitioner is
-8-
projecting as though she became aware of her mother
second marriage with Shivakumar in 2023. The
photographs produced by the respondent clearly indicates
that petitioner and her brother are living with their
mother. In fact in Crl.Misc.No.245/2023, petitioner has
clearly stated that she is living with her mother and
brother. These proceeding are initiated by the petitioner
and her mother to harass the respondent. As a major
daughter petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs under the
provisions of DV Act and pray to reject the petition.
6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for
respondent has relied upon the following decisions:
i) Abhilasha Vs. Parkash (Abhilasha)9
ii) Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr. (Rajnesh)10
iii) Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary (Mary
Pushpam)11
iv) Leonard Xavier Valdaris Vs. Jitendra
Ramnarayan Rathod (Leonard Xavier
12
Valdaris)
7. Heard arguments and perused the records.
9
(2021) 13 SCC 99
10
(2021) 2 SCC 324
11
(2024) 3 SCC 224
12
2024 SCC Online All 163
-9-
8. The undisputed facts are that the marriage
between respondent and Dhanalakshmi, the mother of
petitioner was solemnized on 12.12.1999 and petitioner
and her brother were born through the said wedlock. It is
contended by the respondent that he purchased a site
measuring 50 x 33 ft in the name of Smt.Dhanalakshmi
and constructed 6 houses, out of which 5 houses are let
out and Dhanalakshmi is collecting the said rent.
Respondent has alleged that during the subsistence of the
marriage, Dhanalakshmi developed illicit relationship with
one of her tenant Shivakumar (who was a married person)
and married him. Petitioner and her brother are residing
with them.
9. It is also alleged by the respondent that when
he came to know about their illicit relationship,
Dhanalakshmi chose to file a false complaint alleging
offence punishable under Section 307 IPC in
S.C.No.236/2013 and ultimately, he was acquitted. Only
when the mother and wife of Shivakumar lodged
complaints against Shivakumar, respondent came to know
- 10 -
about the illicit relationship. He has also filed suit in
O.S.No.201/2010 against Dhanalakshmi, restraining her
from alienating the said property. He has also secured a
decree of divorce in M.C.No.1421/2011 and remarried. He
has also secured custody of petitioner and her brother in G
& WC.No.208/2011, which was an ex-parte order.
Misc.No.30/2023 filed for recalling the said order came to
be dismissed on 30.07.2024 as it was barred by limitation,
i.e, filed after 3660 days. However, he could not take the
physical custody of their children as they refused to go
with him. According to the respondent
Crl.Misc.No.240/2023 filed by petitioner, her brother and
mother Smt.Dhanalakshmi against respondent is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
10. In this backdrop, in O.S.No.373/2024 filed
under Section 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
petitioner has sought maintenance at Rs.30,000/- p.m.,
Rs.30 lakhs as marriage expenses and Rs.50 lakhs as
compensation towards mental agony and it is pending.
Petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.49/2024 under D.V Act and
- 11 -
secured ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m.
and at the final disposal of the said interim applications,
interim maintenance is granted at Rs.15,000/- p.m.
However, the Sessions Court allowed Crl.A.No.121/2025
filed by respondent against this order and thereby the
order passed by the trial Court came to be set aside,
mainly on the ground that as per the decision in
Naimullah Sheikh, if an issue does not pertain to
maintenance, the independent rights are available to the
aggrieved person under Section 20 of the D.V Act and in
the matter of maintenance to unmarried or adult member,
the DV Act is not applicable.
11. The Sessions Court also held that in Kalase
Gowda, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that Section
20 of the DV Act is applicable only to aggrieved person
and children and an adult or unmarried daughter is not
entitled for the said relief.
12. The object of DV Act is to provide for more
effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under
Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind
- 12 -
occurring within the family and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
13. Section 2(a) defines the term 'aggrieved
person' as any women who is/or has been in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have
been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the
respondent. In other words, the main relief that could be
granted under the DV Act is to a women who comes under
the definition of 'aggrieved person'.
14. Section 2(b) defines the term 'child' as a person
below the age of eighteen years and includes any
adopted, step or foster child.
15. Similarly, Section 2(f) defines the term
'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two
persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived
together in a shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family.
- 13 -
16. Section 2(q) defines the term 'respondent'
means any adult male person who is, or has been in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and
against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief
under the D.V Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or a female living in a
relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a
complaint against the relative of the husband or the male
partner.
17. Section 3 defines the term 'domestic violence',
which reads as under:
"3. Definition of domestic violence.--For the purposes
of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct
of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in
case it--
(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety,
life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of
the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes
causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and
emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the
aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
any dowry or other property or valuable security; or
(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person
or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned
in clause (a) or clause (b); or
(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether
physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--
- 14 -
(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is
of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger
to life, limb, or health or impair the health or
development of the aggrieved person and includes
assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;
(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual
nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise
violates the dignity of woman;
(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes--
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and
insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a
child or a male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any
person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;
(iv) "economic abuse" includes--
(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial
resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled
under any law or custom whether payable under an
order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved
person requires out of necessity including, but not
limited to, house hold necessities for the aggrieved
person and her children, if any, stridhan, property,
jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person,
payment of rental related to the shared household and
maintenance;
(b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of
assets whether movable or immovable, valuables,
shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property
in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is
entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or
which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved
person or her children or her stridhan or any other
property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved
person; and
(c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to
resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is
entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic
relationship including access to the shared household.
Explanation II.--For the purpose of determining whether
any act, omission, commission or conduct of the
respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this
section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case
shall be taken into consideration."
- 15 -
18. The plain reading of the above provisions
makes it evident that under the DV Act, an aggrieved
person is always a women and the respondent is
necessarily to be a male with whom the aggrieved person
is or was in a domestic relationship.
19. Section 12 of the DV Act makes provision for an
aggrieved person to get various reliefs viz., protection
orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section
19, Monetary reliefs under Section 20, custody orders
under Section 21 and compensation orders under Section
22.
20. However, under Section 20 of the DV Act, while
claiming monetary reliefs, the aggrieved person is also
entitled to claim such monetary reliefs not only on her
behalf, but also on behalf of her children. This Section
makes it clear that while granting monetary relief, the
Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary
relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered
by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggreved
- 16 -
person, as a result of domestic violence and such relief
may include, but not limited to, -
(a) loss of earnings;
(b) medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to destruction, damage or
removal of any property from the control of the
aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance of the aggrieved person as
well as her children, if any, including an order under
or in addition to an order of maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C or any other law for the time
being in force.
..............
21. This aspect is to be appreciated in the light of
the fact that the children may be both daughters and sons.
But for this provision, the children would not have been
entitled for monetary reliefs, more particularly, under the
head medical expenses and maintenance, as son being
male, cannot be an aggrieved person.
22. Of course, as soon as the son attains majority,
he would not be entitled for the reliefs under Section 20 of
the DV Act. However, a daughter as soon she attains
majority, fall under the definition of women and as such
- 17 -
may become an aggrieved person, if she is able to
establish that she is subjected to domestic violence as
defined under Section 3. Therefore, a son after attaining
majority may not be entitled for the monetary reliefs
under Section 20, but a daughter on whose behalf
monetary reliefs were sought, on attaining majority, falling
under the definition of aggrieved person would be entitled
for the monetary reliefs.
23. It is also relevant to note that when petitioner
filed the petition under Section 12 r/w 18, 19, 20 and 22
of DV Act, she has already attained majority. In the
petition he has specifically alleged that respondent not
only harassed his wife Smt.Dhanalakshmi, i.e., the mother
of petitioner, but also petitioner was subjected to domestic
violence. Ultimately, unable to bear the harassment, when
they left the house of respondent and started living with
the parents of Smt.Dhanalakshmi, respondent failed to
take care of them including medical, educational,
maintenance expenses and also deprived them of his love
and affection. In the light of these allegations, the petition
- 18 -
filed by the petitioner being the daughter of respondent
under Section 12 r/w 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act is
maintainable.
24. Appreciating these aspects, the trial Court
rightly granted maintenance to the petitioner. However,
the Sessions Court has set aside the said order on the
ground that under DV Act, a daughter is entitled for
maintenance, so long as she is a child. Since, the
impugned order granting maintenance is at the interim
stage, at the trial, it is for the respondent to establish that
petitioner does not come under the definition of aggrieved
person and therefore after attaining majority, she is not
entitled for any monetary reliefs. In the result the petition
deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
1. Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order dated 12.02.2025 in Crl.A.No.121/2025 on the
- 19 -
file of LIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside. Consequently, Crl.A.No.121/2025 is dismissed.
3. The order dated 04.12.2024 in Crl.Misc.49/2024 on the file of MMCT-III, Bengaluru is restored and confirmed.
4. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court as well as Sessions Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR