Sri K M Revanasiddeshwara v. Smt K M Shailaja

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 248 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

SRI. K.M. REVANASIDDESHWARA S/O SRI K.M. MAHANTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE OPP. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. K.M. SHAILAJA W/O SRI. K.M. REVANASIDDESHWARA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 87/A, 1ST FLOOR 5TH CROSS, VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. BHAVANA S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SADHANA S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BY THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.1915/2009 DATED

19.06.2010, PARTLY CONFIRMING THE SAME IN CRL.A.NO.574/2010, DATED

15.09.2015, ON THE FILE OF LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER Heard Smt. Ankitha Patil, for Sri. R. Kothwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Bhavana S. Rao for Smt. Sadhana S. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2Petitioner is the husband, who suffered an order in Crl.Misc.No.1915/2009, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.574/2010 under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶3Operative portion of the order of the trial Magistrate reads as under: "ORDER

¶1The respondent 1 is hereby directed to provide residence to the petitioner in Government

Quarters No.87A, 5th Cross, Vasanthnagar. Bangalore. If the respondent renounces his rights in the said quarters in favour of the alternative Government, he is liable to provide an accommodation. to the petitioner with the same status of residence.

¶2The respondent-1 is hereby directed to settle the home loan to the extent of is liable for which the petitioner shall not to concerned be made authority liable and the is o recover the amount from the respondent-1.

¶3If the respondent-1 resigned from the job, then all the benefits which accrued to shall be given to the petitioner.

¶4The respondents-2 to 6 are hereby directed not to aid or abate the Commissioner of the Domestic Violence by the respondent-1.

¶5Issue free copy of this orders to the petitioner as well as to the respondent.

¶6The office is directed to send a free copy of this order to the Jurisdiction police i.e., Highgrounds P.S.

¶7The office is further directed to issue copy of this order to the Principal, Government Arts College, Central College Campus, Bangalore-1.

¶8Further office is directed to send copy of order to Creditor the petitioner and the respondent-1."

¶4Operative portion of the order of the Appellate Court reads as under: "ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/sec. 29 of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby partly allowed. The order passed by the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.1915/2009 dated 19.6.2010 is herby partly set aside in respect of relief No.3 only i.e. "If the respondent -1 resigned from the job, then all the benefits which accrued to shall be given to the petitioner." The rest of the reliefs granted by the lower court are herby confirmed. Parties shall bear their costs send the lower court records along with copy of this order to the lower court."

¶5The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no fair opportunity granted to the respondent for placing the defence evidence on record. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed and the matter is to be remitted back to the Trial Magistrate for placing the defence evidence.

¶6Said submissions are opposed by the counsel for respondent with vehemence.

¶7In the light of the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶8On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that not only fair opportunity but also sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, who is the husband, to contest the case. But the petitioner has failed to utilize that opportunity.

¶9Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no fair opportunity granted to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits cannot be countenanced in law. It is settled principles of law that a litigant take advantage of his own wrong.

¶10Having said so, in view of the modified order passed by the First Appellate Court, especially since the petitioner has retired from government service, the respondent/wife cannot occupy government quarters for which the emoluments of the petitioner are said to have been withheld by the government.

¶11Necessary steps are to be taken to evict the respondent/wife from the government quarters if she does not

vacate on or before 20.05.2026 on her own. If she overstays, the damages that are payable by the petitioner for having overstayed on the premises on account of the respondent occupying the premises shall be recoverable by the respondent/wife.

¶12Further, it is the duty of the petitioner to make alternate arrangements for the wife. Therefore, if the petitioner/husband does not obey the order, necessary execution proceedings shall be initiated by the respondent/wife in accordance with law.

¶13With the above observation and direction, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31