Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 60 (KAR)

Chetan R. Lokande v. Sushma J.

2021-01-07

V.SRISHANANDA

body2021
ORDER : V. SRISHANANDA, J. 1. Heard Sri Hemanth Kumar D., learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.10.2014 passed in Crl.A. No. 25081/2014 by the learned Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - III, Bengaluru, whereby the learned Fast Track Judge has confirmed the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc. No. 692/2010 dated 13.03.2014. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: Revision petitioner and the respondent are referred to as husband and wife, respectively, for the sake of convenience. Wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PWDV Act', for short) seeking reliefs under the provisions of the said Act from the husband contending that on 17.06.2009 her marriage with the revision petitioner was performed in Shubharam Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru, and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. It is further contended that at the time of marriage, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid as dowry and her parents have spent Rs. 13,00,000/- towards marriage expenses. It is further contended that their matrimonial life was not happy. Physical and mental torture was imparted on her in the matrimonial home and she was threatened that she would be driven away from the matrimonial house and she was forced to do house hold work and clean the toilets of the house. It is further contended that her husband further demanded money from her parents to buy a car and for construction of the first floor of their house. It is further contended that on 07.03.2010, she was abandoned from the matrimonial house and therefore, she has approached the concerned authorities for protection order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and monitory reliefs under Sections 20 and 22 of the PWDV Act. 4. In response to the notice issued, husband appeared before the trial Court and admitted the marriage but, denied the allegations of domestic violence. 4. In response to the notice issued, husband appeared before the trial Court and admitted the marriage but, denied the allegations of domestic violence. Further it was contended that his wife was working in CSC Developers, Infantry Road, Bengaluru and was having sufficient income of her own and denied the allegations levelled against him insofar as the dowry and other aspects of the matter. 5. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the wife, who was examined as P.W. 1 and considered the documentary evidence which were exhibited and marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. Husband has cross-examined the wife but despite granting sufficient opportunity he did not lead his evidence except filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. 6. Thereafter, the trial Court raised the following points as under and answered the points: 1) Whether the aggrieved person proves that the respondent has committed domestic violence against her? 2) Whether the aggrieved person is entitled for the reliefs U/Sec. 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act? 3) What order? 7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court allowed the petition of the wife and ordered as under: "The petition filed by the aggrieved person U/Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is hereby partly allowed. The respondent is hereby restrained from committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person U/Sec. 18 of the Act. The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month for accommodation U/Sec. 19 and Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the aggrieved person from the date of this order. The respondent is hereby directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation U/Sec. 22 of the Act to the aggrieved person. The aggrieved person is not entitled for any other reliefs claimed U/Sec. 20 of the Act." 8. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court-III, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Crl.A. No. 25081/2014. The Learned Judge in Fast Track Court, secured presence of the parties and records and heard the parties in detail. On cumulative consideration of the material on record, the First appellate Court vide order dated 20.10.2014 dismissed the appeal of the husband by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc. No. 692/2010 dated 13.03.2014. 9. The Learned Judge in Fast Track Court, secured presence of the parties and records and heard the parties in detail. On cumulative consideration of the material on record, the First appellate Court vide order dated 20.10.2014 dismissed the appeal of the husband by confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc. No. 692/2010 dated 13.03.2014. 9. It is those orders which are under challenge in this revision petition by the husband. 10. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-Sri Hemanth Kumar D., vehemently contended that both the Courts have not taken into account the evidence placed by the husband on record and the trial Court has not even referred to the evidence placed by the husband on record. He also contended that husband appeared before the learned Magistrate as party-in-person and he was not aware of the niceties and procedural aspects of the law and therefore, fair opportunity should have been granted by the learned Magistrate to put forth his case. He also contended that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, wife has also approached the Family Court and obtained order of decree of divorce and therefore, order granting the maintenance as well as other facilities to the wife needs to be interfered by this Court. He further contended that the First Appellate Court without application of the mind, has blindly confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate without even adverting to the records of the trial Court in a proper manner and thus, prayed for allowing the revision petition. 11. Today, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-wife is not present. 12. This Court perused the records. On perusal of the records and in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner-husband, the sole point that would arise for consideration, is: (i) Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court that there was domestic violence and as such, the wife was entitled to order of maintenance which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is erroneous and thus, resulted in injustice? 13. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following: REASONS 14. In the case on hand, marriage between the parties is not disputed. 13. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following: REASONS 14. In the case on hand, marriage between the parties is not disputed. Though, in respect of the dowry and other monetary consideration stated to have been received by the husband is denied by the husband in his written objection statement before the learned Magistrate, having regard to the scope of the 'PWDV Act', the said aspect was not a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate. The sole point which the learned Magistrate was required to consider was whether the wife was abandoned from the matrimonial home and there was domestic violence imparted on her. 15. No doubt, husband by filing the objection statement has controverted the allegations levelled against him before the learned Magistrate. It is also found from the record that after conclusion of the evidence by the wife, husband filed an affidavit in support of his evidence. However, to lead his further evidence, time was granted by the learned Magistrate. But, he did not utilize the said opportunity. Subsequent to granting of time to engage a Counsel to represent the husband, no efforts were made by the husband to engage an Advocate and proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. As such, the learned Magistrate, closed the side of the husband and with the available material on record passed an order as referred to supra. As such the argument canvassed on behalf of husband that even though husband has lead the evidence, trial Court and First appellate Court's observation that there is no evidence on behalf of husband is erroneous, cannot be countenanced. 16. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred an appeal before the learned Fast Track Court - III, Bengaluru, in Crl.A. No. 25081/2014 wherein he was represented by an Advocate. 17. No efforts were made before the First Appellate Court to seek for remanding of the matter for placing the evidence of the respondent. Under such circumstances, with the available material on record, the learned Fast Track Judge confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. 18. In the case on hand, even before this Court, Sri Hemanth Kumar D., learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-husband is unable to show what efforts has been made by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Under such circumstances, with the available material on record, the learned Fast Track Judge confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. 18. In the case on hand, even before this Court, Sri Hemanth Kumar D., learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-husband is unable to show what efforts has been made by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. When the matter stood thus, the wife approached the competent Family Court and obtained order of divorce. Therefore, from the date on which the wife was abandoned from the matrimonial home till the date of decree of divorce, husband was bound to pay the amount of compensation, maintenance as ordered by the trial Court. 19. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any cogent material placed by the husband on record to deny or controvert the fact that there was abandonment of wife from the matrimonial home and the domestic violence stated to have been imparted on wife during her stay in the matrimonial home, this Court is of the considered opinion, having regard to the scope of the respondent under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., the order passed by the learned Magistrate which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court does not require any further interference. In view of the aforesaid discussion, point is answered and passed the following order:- OBDER Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.