Bangalore District Court
Radha K vs Chandrashekar Gowda on 20 May, 2026
KABC080070462018
Presented on : 04-10-2018
Registered on : 04-10-2018
Decided on : 20-05-2026
Duration : 7 years, 7 months, 16 days
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026.
PRESENT : Smt.AKHILA H.K. B.A., LL.B.,
JMFC (TRAFFIC COURT-VI),
BENGALURU.
Crl.Misc.No.167/2018
Petitioner No.1 : Smt.Radha K
W/o Sri.Chandrashekar Gowda
D/o Krishnamurthy
Aged about 25 years
R/at No.114, 1st Cross, 1st Main,
Madduramma Colony,
Tavarekere,
Bangalore - 560 029.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.S.T., Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent No.1 : Sri.Chandrashekar Gowda @
Chandru
S/o. Venkataramana
2
Crl.Misc.167/2018
Aged about 28 years
Respondent No.2 : Smt.Yashadhamma
W/o Venkataramana
Aged about 50 years
Respondent No.3 : Sri.Srinivasagowda
S/o Venkataramana
Aged about 32 years
All are R/at No.78, 6th Cross,
Narayanappa Garden,
Bengaluru - 29.
(Rep. by Sri/Smt.T.R.M., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner under
Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are as
under;
The Petitioner and the respondent No.1 are husband
and wife and their marriage was solemnized on
31.01.2016 and from the wedlock one female child was
born on 19.06.2017. Further she submitted that, at the
initial stage of the marriage the respondent No.1 was
extending full support and co-operation to the petitioner
but after the birth of the female child to the petitioner,
3
Crl.Misc.167/2018
the respondents started to ill treat the petitioner with
dire consequences. Respondent No.1 is running a two
wheeler service center at Tavarekere and also gaining
rents from residential house and he is earning more than
Rs.75,000/- per month. Immediately after the birth of
the female child the respondents started to ill treat and
cause mental and physical harassment to the petitioner.
Respondents have beaten up the petitioner as well the
father, mother and sister severely. In this regard the
petitioner has lodged a complaint on 25.04.2018 before
Suddaguntepalya police station, Bengaluru in Crime
No.144/2018 against respondents. The respondent No.1
very cruel and started to harass the petitioner on the
instigation of the respondent No.2 and 3.
3. Petitioner further submitted that, respondent
No.1 has threatened the petitioner to give divorce and he
called the petitioner a prostitute. If the petitioner does
not give divorce the respondent No.1 cautioned the
petitioner and her female baby with dire consequences
life threat i.e., to cut into pieces. Further she submitted
that, respondent No.1 has started to love another girl by
name Nethra Gowda and at the instigation of the
respondent No.2 and 3 the respondent No.1 started to
harass the petitioner and demanding forcefully to give
4
Crl.Misc.167/2018
divorce. Recently petitioner came to know that the
respondent No.l has got married with the said Nethra
Gowda on 01.07.2018 unlawfully and illegally without
any divorce from the petitioner.
4. The respondent no.1 never performed the
marital obligations as a dutiful husband at any point of
time. In this regard the petitioner has lodged a complaint
before Women Commission, Bangalore against
respondents on 07.07.2018. The respondent no.1 never
taken any responsibility towards the day to day affairs of
the family and he never bothered to provide any food
items/groceries, cloths, gas cylinder and other basic
necessary things and he never taken care about the
medication of the petitioner and her minor girl baby. The
petitioner and her minor baby were thrown out of the
marital home without any mercy. Now the petitioner is
residing along with her parents and she wants to reside
separately to see the welfare of the minor child. The
respondent No.1 used to go to the petitioner’s residence
and demanding forcefully to give divorce. The respondent
no.1 neither showed any interest towards the petitioner
nor he is interested to make successful their marital life.
The respondent No.1 has not performed the duties as a
5
Crl.Misc.167/2018
husband and also as father for his daughter. On all
these grounds she prays to allow her petition.
5. After service of notice, respondents appeared
before this court through their counsel and filed a
common statement of objection. In the statement of
objection respondent No.1 has contended that,
respondent No.1 is said to be the husband of the
petitioner but not legal husband. The petitioner does not
have any domestic relation withing the respondents.
Firstly the respondent was friend of petitioner later
turned into illegal relationship which was taken
advantage by the petitioner and she has filed this
petition. Respondent No.1 is married legally to one
Nethra Gowda not this petitioner. It is further contended
that, the petitioner purposefully, forcibly maintained the
friendship of the respondent No.1 changed the same into
illegal relationship earlier to the marriage of respondent
No.1 with Nethra Gowda. Further they denied all the
other allegations against them. On all these grounds they
prays to reject the petition filed by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner to substantiate her case has
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 52.
6
Crl.Misc.167/2018
The respondent No.1 himself examined as R.W.1 and got
marked documents Ex.R.1 to 10.
7. Heard on both sides.
8. The following points that arises for my
consideration are as under;
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she
was subjected to Domestic Violence by
the respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
the reliefs as sought in the petition?
3. What order?
9. On perusal of materials before this court, my
findings on the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative;
Point No.3 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
10. Point No.1 : In a domestic violence case the
petitioner has to prove the domestic relationship
between herself and respondents, she was residing with
7
Crl.Misc.167/2018
the respondents in a shared household, the domestic
violence was caused by the respondents upon her. The
respondent No.1 has neglected the petitioner without
any reasonable cause and the respondent No.1 is
capable to provide maintenance to the petitioner.
11. In this case, respondents have denied domestic
relationship with the petitioner. It is the foremost
contention of respondents that respondent No.1 is not
the legal husband of the petitioner. It is submitted by
the respondents that, respondent No.1 is legally married
to one Nethra Gowda not the petitioner, the petitioner
purposefully forcibly maintained friendship of respondent
No.1 changed the same into illegal relationship earlier to
marriage of respondent No.1 with Nethra Gowda. Hence,
present proceedings is not maintainable against the
respondents. It is further contended that, respondent
No.2 and 3 do not have domestic relationship with the
petitioner and they have been implicated just to harass
and vex the respondents by misusing the law.
12. However, in the assets and liability affidavit
filed by respondent No.1 on 23.08.2024, respondent No.1
in column A has categorically admitted the date of
marriage with the petitioner as 31.01.2016 and he has
8
Crl.Misc.167/2018
admitted in column E that he has one child by name
Chiranthana with the petitioner who is 7 years old and
she is in custody of the petitioner. Therefore, even
though respondents in their objections have denied
domestic relationship with the petitioner respondent
No.1 in his assets and liability affidavit has admitted
marriage with the petitioner and he has admitted about
having a child with the petitioner. Evidently this is a
judicial admission and it is unequivocal in nature.
Therefore, from respondent No.1’s own admission it is
proved that petitioner and respondent No.1 got married
on 31.01.2016 and they were in a domestic relationship.
13. With respect to respondent No.2 and 3 it is the
contention of the petitioner in para 7 of the petition that
she was residing with respondent No.1 to 3 after
marriage. However, respondents have denied the same
and it is argued by respondent counsel in his arguments
that, respondent no.2 and 3 were not aware about the
relationship between respondent no.1 and petitioner.
They do not have domestic relationship with the
petitioner.
14. In the cross examination dated 21.02.2025
petitioner has stated that, she was residing with
9
Crl.Misc.167/2018
respondent No.1 to 3 for six months at Balaji Nagar,
Tavarekere house of the respondents, thereafter she and
respondent No.1 set up a rented accommodation near
Good Earth School. However. Petitioner has not stated
this in her petitioner and in her examination in chief.
Respondent No.2 and 3 have not examined themselves
but they have filed common objections and denied having
a domestic relationship with the petitioner. Although,
petitioner states that, she was residing with respondent
No.2 and 3 after marriage in Balaji Nagar house of the
respondents there is no evidence in this regard. It is the
specific contention of respondent No.1 that, petitioner
and himself had friendship later turned into illegal
relationship. It is the contention of the petitioner that,
she and respondent No.1 had love marriage and they got
married on 31.01.2016 at 11.05 a.m. at residence of
petitioner by tying mangalya before elders of petitioner,
friends and well wishers of petitioner and respondent
No.1 as per Hindu custom. Admittedly, there are no
photographs of the wedding. Petitioner has submitted
Ex.P.28 which is the wedding invitation card but she has
stated in her cross examination that there were no
celebrations that occurred in the 6 months that she was
residing in the house of the respondents and she has
stated in the cross examination that she has not
10
Crl.Misc.167/2018
attended any function organized by family of the
respondents in the said 6 months. She has stated that
photographer was not engaged to take photographs of the
wedding. This is very strange as it is well known that in
Hindu Customs there will be post wedding celebrations.
Further the marriage happened in 2016 when camera
phones were in use. It is unbelievable that none of the
guests took even a single photograph of the wedding.
Further petitioner has made bald and contradictory
statement in the petition itself that, respondent No.1
along with other respondents were taking care of her and
newly born with love and affection immediately after the
birth of female child respondents started to ill treat and
cause mental and physical harassment to the petitioner.
She has not submitted any cogent, believable evidence in
this regard and she has not narrated the specific
incidents of ill treatment caused by respondent No.2 and
3. She has also not stated the circumstances under
which the marriage took place in a simple manner and
circumstances under which and the time period during
which she and respondent no.1 came out of the house in
which all respondents were residing together. Without
pleading material particulars she has made bald
statement about residing with respondent no.2 and 3.
11
Crl.Misc.167/2018
15. Here it is pertinent to note that, in Ex.P.3
complaint dated 25.04.2018 given by petitioner to PI of
S.G Palya police station she has stated that respondent
No.1 and herself married in spite of objections by the
family of the respondents and after marriage they were
residing in Balaji Nagar 6th Cross, near Good Earth
school. Similarly, even in Ex.P.4 complaint given by
petitioner to Karnataka State Women Commission
petitioner has stated that respondent’s family had
objected to the wedding of respondent No.1 and herself
and in spite of the same they got married in a simple
manner. These statements in Ex.P.3 and 4 prove that
respondent no.1s family was not in favour of respondent
No.1’s wedding with the petitioner and respondent NO.1
and petitioner were residing separately in a rented
accommodation in Balaji Nagar, 6th Cross, near Good
Earth School after marriage. This clearly probablizes the
contention of respondent no.2 and 3 that they did not
have a domestic relationship with the petitioner.
16. Petitioner has further stated in the petition
that, respondents have beaten her up as well as her
parents and sister and in this regard she has lodged a
complaint on 25.04.2018 which is registered in crime
No.144/2018 and the said FIR and complaint submitted
12
Crl.Misc.167/2018
as Ex.P.3 and the charge sheet is submitted and marked
as Ex.P.6. As already stated in Ex.P.3 it is clearly stated
by the petitioner that she and respondent No.1 got
married in spite of objection by respondent No.1’s family.
Further in Ex.P.3 it is stated by the petitioner that on
25.04.2018 at 10.30 p.m. respondent No.1 came to her
parents house in Madduramma colony and assaulted her
parents and sister no where she has mentioned about the
presence of respondent No.2 and 3. Even in 2 nd page of
complaint/Ex.P.3 it is stated by the petitioner that, her
parents have called respondent No.2 and 3 for
panchayath and requested them not to spoil life of the
petitioner but they did not accept the request of parents
of the petitioner and they have assaulted petitioner’s
parents and sister and also abused them using filthy
language and also threatened to take away the life of
petitioner and her family members. These statements of
the petitioner show that respondent No.2 and 3 did not
reside with the petitioner and respondent No.1 and they
were against the marriage of petitioner and respondent
No.1. Since these statements are made by petitioner
herself in Ex P3 and Ex P4 they are her own previous
statement which can be used for her corroboration or
contradiction and they contradict the petitioner’s
13
Crl.Misc.167/2018
contention about residing with respondent no.2 and 3 at
their house in Tavarekere.
17. Here it is also pertinent to note that,
respondents in the statement of objection vaguely stated
that, respondent No.1 was friend of petitioner and later
turned into illegal relationship. They have not stated the
exact nature of the relationship. However, during cross
examination the counsel for the petitioner has made a
suggestion that petitioner and respondent No.1 were in a
live in relationship and respondent No.2 and 3 were not
aware of the said live in relationship which is denied by
the petitioner in the cross examination. From this
suggestion it can be culled out that it is the contention of
the respondents that respondent No.1 and petitioner
were in a live in relationship and respondent No.2 and 3
were not aware of the same. As already discussed
respondent No.1 in his assets and liability affidavit has
admitted that he got married to the petitioner on
31.01.2016, therefore respondents contention regarding
live in relationship is not acceptable. The very fact that
the charge sheet is filed in CC No.7626/2019 against
respondents shows that they were aware of the marriage
between respondent No.1 and petitioner but they were
not in favour of the said marriage. But, inspite of
14
Crl.Misc.167/2018
petitioner having proved that respondent no.2 and 3 were
aware about her and respondent no.1’s marriage she is
unable to prove that she resided with respondent No.2
and 3 in a shared household. Therefore, she is unable
to prove that she had a “domestic relationship” with
respondent No.2 and 3. Therefore, the petition as against
respondent No.2 and 3 is not maintainable. However,
since marriage is admitted by respondent No.1 petitioner
is able to prove that she was in domestic relationship
with respondent No.1.
18. Since, it is proved that petitioner had a
domestic relationship with respondent No.1 and it is an
admitted fact that petitioner and respondent No.1 have a
child, the petitioner only needs to prove domestic
violence was committed by respondent No.1 against her
and her child.
19. Petitioner in order to prove that, respondent
No.1 has committed domestic violence against her has
submitted Ex.P.1 to 32 in her chief examination and she
has confronted and got marked Ex.P.33 to 52 to R.W.1
during his cross examination. It is the main contention of
the petitioner that, she and respondent No.1 got married
on 31.01.2016 and it is a love marriage. A child was born
15
Crl.Misc.167/2018
to them from the wed lock on 19.06.2017. Thereafter,
respondent No.1 started to neglect and her child and he
has beaten them up on the instigation of his family, he
has threaten to give divorce to her, called her prostitute
and demanded divorce from her without any fault of
hers, threatened her with dire consequences to her and
her child if she failed to give divorce and when petitioner
questioned respondent No.1 he started giving evasive
reply stating that he had an affair with another girl. It is
further contended by the petitioner that, respondent
No.1 got married with Nethra Gowda illegally without
obtaining any divorce from the petitioner and neglected
the petitioner and her child.
20. In order to prove her contentions she has
submitted Ex.P.3/complaint and FIR in Crime
No.144/2018 registered by S.G. Palya police at her
instance against respondents for the offences punishable
U/Sec.506, 34, 420, 323, 504, 498A, 354, 417 of IPC.
She has submitted charge sheet filed in Crime
NO.144/2018 as Ex.P.6 for the aforementioned offences
against the respondents. She has further submitted
Ex.P.4/complaint given by her to Karnataka State
Women Commission against respondents on 07.07.2018.
Respondent No.1 in the statement of objection has
16
Crl.Misc.167/2018
clearly admitted that, he is married to one Nethra Gowda.
But it is his contention that, the said Nethra Gowda is
his legal wife whereas petitioner and himself had a illegal
relationship before this marriage with Nethra Gowda. As
already stated respondent no.1 himself in his assets and
liability affidavit has admitted that he got married to the
petitioner on 31.01.2016. Respondent no.1 has failed to
demonstrate how his relationship with the petitioner is
illegal. Therefore, respondent No.1 and petitioner had a
legal marriage and it cannot be said that it is an illegal
relationship.
21. Further respondent in his cross examination
dated 10.10.2025 has stated that he got married to
Nethra Gowda on 01.07.2018. Further in his cross
examination dated 05.03.2026 in paragraph 4
respondent No.1 has clearly stated that he has not issued
legal notice to the petitioner stating that their marital
relationship has ended and he has also admitted that, he
had no impediment to issue such a legal notice. He has
further admitted in his cross examination that he has
not obtained divorce from the petitioner. Under such
circumstances, it is clear that respondent No.1’s
marriage with the petitioner is still subsisting and
respondent no.1 got married 2 nd time during subsistence
17
Crl.Misc.167/2018
of the first marriage. During the entire course of cross
examination respondent No.1 has repeatedly stated that
petitioner is not his wife and his marriage with Nethra
Gowda is first marriage and that is the legal marriage.
However, such a contention is hollow and not acceptable
because respondent No.1 himself in his assets and
liability affidavit has clearly admitted his marriage with
petitioner on 31.01.2016. Even during the cross
examination dated 10.10.2025 in paragraph 5 when
asked why himself and petitioner separated he has
stated that petitioner has demanded for Rs.25 lakhs for
herself and her child to get separated and since he could
not arrange for said amount they got separated. He has
further stated that, his family arranged his marriage
with another girl and he got engaged to the said girl. He
has further stated that, 6 months after his engagement to
another girl he got married to the said girl on
01.07.2018. Therefore, he admitted that, he was leading
marital life with the petitioner. Further he has admitted
in cross examination dated 10.10.2025 in para 10 that
himself and petitioner led marital life for one to one and
half years. In cross examination dated 05.03.2026 he
has admitted that he has no objections if the prayers
made by the petitioner in the present petition are
allowed. He has also admitted that, he is under an
18
Crl.Misc.167/2018
obligation to provide the petitioner’s child all the facilities
that are being provided by him to his 2 nd child i.e., his
child from his marriage with Nethra Gowda. All these
admissions of the respondent No.1 prove that, himself
and petitioner were legally married and had a child from
the wed lock even before his marriage with Nethra
Gowda. Therefore, it is proved by the petitioner that
respondent No.1 got married for the 2 nd time when his
marriage with the petitioner was subsisting. This
conduct of the respondent No.1 undoubtedly amounts to
domestic violence. Further it is admitted by respondent
No.1 in his cross examination itself that he has apart
from paying Rs.16,000/- to petitioner he has not paid
any of the expenses of the petitioner and the child till
date. Therefore, it is proved that he has not maintained
the petitioner and the child and he has neglected them.
This conduct of the respondent. no.1 in neglecting the
petitioner and her child also amounts to domestic
violence. Hence, the entire conduct of the respondent.
no.1 amounts to emotional and economic abuse as
contemplated U/Sec.3 of PWDV Act. Hence, point No.1
answered in the partly affirmative.
22. Point No.2 :- The petitioner has sought for
monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- for herself and the
19
Crl.Misc.167/2018
child and she has sought for direction to respondent No.1
to secure same level of alternate accommodation as
enjoyed by her in the shared household. The respondent
has filed his assets and liability affidavit. He has stated
that, he has studied 10th standard. He has stated that, he
is working as a two wheeler mechanic and he is earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. He has stated that, he has
monthly expenses of Rs.20,000/-. He has stated that, his
mother who is 52 years old is dependent on him and he
is spending Rs.15,000/- on account of his mother and
his father is also suffering from age related ailments. He
has submitted that, he has daughter by name
Chiranthana who is 7 years old and in the custody of the
petitioner. He has stated that, he has a loan of Rs.4
lakhs and he is paying Rs.6,000/- EMI towards the said
loan. He has submitted his SBI bank account statement
from 01.04.2024 to 16.02.2026. He has submitted
Ex.R.7 and 8 which is RTC of Sy.No.43/5 and 46/10 of
Gundenahalli Village, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala
Taluk standing in the name of his mother.
23. The petitioner has filed her Assets and
liabilities affidavit and stated that, she is B.A. graduate
and she is working as a house keeper and cook and she
is earning Rs.16,000/- per month. Petitioner has stated
20
Crl.Misc.167/2018
that her monthly expenses is Rs.46,000/-. She has
stated that, respondent has paid only Rs.16,000/- as
maintenance to her from the date of separation and later
maintenance order was recalled on 08.11.2019. she has
stated that, her daughter is in her custody and she is
spending Rs.30,000/- per month on account of her
daughter. She has stated that, her daughter is suffering
from piles from past 5 years and she is spending
Rs.8,000/- per month towards medical expenditure. She
has stated that, she is spending Rs.15,000/- per month
towards her daughter’s food, clothing and medical
expenses, Rs.25,000/- for 2 months towards education
and general expenses, Rs.900/- per month for school
van. She has stated that, she has availed Rs.50,000/-
loan from IIFL Ltd., and hand loan of Rs.1 lakh from her
mother and another hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from a
private lender at the rate of 5% interest. She has stated
that, she had a bank account in ICICI bank, Indiranagar
Branch which is blocked by her earlier employer and
presently she has no functioning bank account. She has
stated that, she has availed a loan of Rs.1,16,000/- to
purchase two wheeler and she is paying Rs.4,399/-
every month towards the said two wheeler loan. She has
submitted that, respondent is an agriculturist and he is
getting rents from rental houses at Balaji Nagar,
21
Crl.Misc.167/2018
Tavarekere, Bengaluru and he has a own house at No.78,
6th cross, Narayanappa Garden, Balaji Nagar, Tavarekere,
Bengaluru and also a house near Nelamangala,
Bengaluru Rural. She has submitted her daughter’s fee
structure for the year 2022-23 of Shanthinikethan Trust
school wherein it is stated that the total fees is
Rs.41,450/- for the said academic year for LKG. In order
to prove that respondent No.1 has income she has
submitted Ex.P.22 which is sale deed dated 06.04.2002
executed in favour of mother of respondent No.1 by one
Venkataramaiah and K Savithramma with respect to site
No.8 in No.1/1, 1/9 and 1/10 at Tavarekere Bangalore
measuring 30*45 feet. She has submitted Ex.P.23 and
24 which are encumbrance certificates with respect to
Ex.P.22 property, Ex.P.25 is the letter submitted for
transfer of Khata by respondent No.2 with respect to
Ex.P.22 property. She has submitted Ex.P.26
encumbrance certificate with respect to Ex.P.22 property.
She has submitted Ex.P.27 fee structure of the child for
the academic year 2023-24. She has submitted Ex.P.29
series which is the fee receipt issued by the school. She
has submitted Ex.P.30 medical bill of the child, Ex.P.31
is the fee structure for academic year 2024-25, Ex.P.32
loan passbook copy with respect to the loan availed by
the petitioner in IIFL.
22
Crl.Misc.167/2018
24. In order to prove the income of the respondent
no.1 petitioner counsel during cross examination has
confronted Ex.P.50 to 52. During cross examination
dated 19.09.2025 R.W.1 / respondent no.1 has stated
that there are 8 to 10 houses in the name of his mother
in Tavarekere, Balaji Nagar. He has further stated that
from past 6 years he is not in talking terms with his
mother hence he does not know if she still owns 6
houses. He has stated that, his mother has leased all the
houses. He has further stated that, he is cultivating
Arecanut garden in land belonging to his mother in
Gundenahalli and he is residing in a sheet house in his
father’s 2 gunta land in Gundenahalli. He has admitted
that, he has not impediment to produce document with
respect to his mother’s and his father’s property. In this
regard he has submitted Ex.R.7 and 8 with respect to 18
guntas of land in his mother’s name in Sy.No.43/5 of
Gundenahalli village, Nelamangala Taluk and Ex.R.8 RTC
with respect to Sy.No.46/10 of Gundenahalli village,
Nelamangala Taluk for 2 guntas of land also in his
mother’s name. He has not submitted any document with
respect to 2 gunats land in his father’s name. Ex.R.7
reflects that there is Areca nut being cultivated for 11
guntas of land and Ex.R.8 reveals that there is coconut
23
Crl.Misc.167/2018
being cultivated for 2 guntas of land and there is no
house in the said land.
25. In order to prove the lifestyle of respondent
No.1 it is elicited from R.W.1 during cross examination
dated 10.10.2025 that there are several houses belonging
to his mother in Tavarekere. He has admitted that, the
agricultural land seen in Ex.P38 to 41 is the land being
cultivated by him. He has further stated in cross
examination that his 2nd daughter Bhaavika is studying
in Kristu Jayanthi CMI Public School which is in
Kanmangala Gate, Doddaballapur and she commutes to
the school in school van. He has got marked Ex.P.47 a
photograph of the school and Ex.P.48 of the photograph
of the school van in this regard. He has stated that, his
wife is paying school fees, van fees of his daughter
Bhaavika. He has stated that, he will produce details of
the school fees and van fees on the next date of hearing.
However he has not submitted any document. He has
stated that, his daughter Bhaavika is studying in UKG.
He has stated that, the house seen in Ex.P.50 is
belonging to his mother and it is situated in Nelamangala
Taluk, Tyamagondlu. He has stated that, he resides in
his mother’s Tavarekere house for one week and in his
mother’s Tyamagondlu house for one week. He has
24
Crl.Misc.167/2018
stated that, he cannot submit documents with respect to
Ex.P.50 house as his mother will not give it to him. He
has stated that, he does not have any impediment to
submit documents with respect to the sheet house
situated in 2 guntas of land in Gundenahalli. However,
he has not submitted the documents with respect to 2
guntas of land in Gundenahalli is belonging to his father.
He has admitted that, Ex.R.8 does not state that there is
a house in the said land. He has further stated that, he
cannot submit documents with respect to his mother’s
property by applying for certifying copies of the same in
Gramapanchayath as his mother will quarrel with him.
However, he has admitted that, his mother will not create
any impediment for him to cultivate her land and obtain
income from the same. He has admitted that, he has not
submitted any documents to prove that his wife Nethra
Gowda is paying for daughter’s school fees.
26. Further in his cross examination dated
22.01.2026 respondent has admitted that, he is working
as a carpenter. He has admitted that, he has not
disclosed about him working as carpenter in his
statement of objection and in his assets and liability
affidavit. Subsequently, he has stated that, from 2020
till now he is working as a carpenter and as an
25
Crl.Misc.167/2018
agriculturist. He has stated that, he does not own a
workshop and he does piece work. He has stated that, he
has a sheet house in 2 gunta land in Ex.P.8 and it does
not have house number. This is a massive improvement
as earlier he had stated that sheet house is in his father’s
land and in another instance he has stated he resides in
Tavarekere house for one week and Tyamagondlu house
for one week. He has further stated that, after his
marriage with Nethra Gowda he was residing in the said
sheet house, subsequently he has shifted to the house
seen in Ex.P.50. He has further stated that, there was a
quarrel between himself and his mother and now he has
again shifted to the sheet house. He has admitted that,
he has not submitted any documents to prove that he is
residing in the sheet house. He has further stated that,
he is residing in the sheet house from past one month. It
is apparent that All these are improvements being made
by him as the answers are constantly changing and
evolving to suit his case.
27. Further, in his cross examination dated
05.03.2026 R.W.1 has admitted that, he is doing
carpenter business in the name and style of Chandru
Interiors. He has stated that, he has done interiors work
for 2 houses till now. He has stated that, he got
26
Crl.Misc.167/2018
subcontract from a person by name Ramesh who also
does interior works. He has got marked Ex.P.51 (a) to (f )
with respect to the interior works done by him. He has
admitted that, the persons seen in Ex.P.51(a) to (f )are his
interiors work team members. He has stated that, he has
received Rs.4.5 lakhs from both the contracts. He has
admitted that, he receives money in cash and some
amount is credited to his bank account. He has admitted
that, even though he was doing carpentry work he has
not disclosed the same in his assets and liability affidavit.
He has again stated that, he started interior work
business one month back. He has further admitted
that in cross examination dated 22.01.2026 he had
started interior work in 2020. He has further tried to
explain the contradiction by stating that he started doing
carpentry work from 2020 and he has started interior
work since past one month. He has admitted that, he
has received payments through Gpay and PhonePay.
Even this portion of cross examination of respondent
no.1 regarding his income and profession it is marred
with improvements and contradictions to conceal his true
income. R.W.1 has been confronted with 2 photographs
marked as Ex.P.52A and B. He has admitted that, he is
present in both the photographs. However, he has denied
that the Honda Activa and car seen in the photographs is
27
Crl.Misc.167/2018
belonging to him. He has admitted that, Nethra Gowda
and Bhaavika are seen in Ex.P.52B photograph alongside
white colour car. He has stated that, Honda Activa
vehicle seen in Ex.P.52A belongs to his father. He has
admitted that, Ex.P.52A and B he is seen celebrating
Ayudha pooja in front of the house in which he is
residing. In this regard he has got marked Ex.P.52C
which is photograph of the house in which he is residing.
He has admitted that, he has not mentioned the income
he is receiving from carpentry work in his assets and
liability affidavit. Further he has admitted that, he is
under an obligation to provide to the petitioner’s child all
the facilities provided by him to his 2 nd child Bhaavika
Gowda. He has admitted that, he does not have any
objection if the Court grants an order in this regard. He
has further admitted that, he has no objection if reliefs
sought by the petitioner are granted in favour of the
petitioner.
28. As already stated respondent No.1 has
submitted his bank statement only from 01.04.2024 to
16.02.2026. Therefore, he has not submitted his 3 years
bank statement. Further from respondent No.1’s own
admission it is clear that he has suppressed about his
income from his interiors work and carpentry work. From
28
Crl.Misc.167/2018
his cross examination it is very clear that he is not
deposing truthfully about his interiors work business. In
cross examination dated 22.01.2026 he has stated that,
he has been doing carpentry work from 2020 till now
whereas in his cross examination dated 05.03.2026 he
has stated that he started his interior work business one
month back. He has further stated that, it takes him 15
days to complete interiors of a house and he has stated
that he has completed interiors of 2 houses. It is not at
all believable that he started his work only one month
back and he got contract of 2 houses and even completed
them in one month and handed over the houses. From
Ex.P.51 it is clear that he has a large team of at least 6
members handling his interiors work business and from
Ex.P.51A to F it is very clear that he has a flourishing
interiors work business and he has concealed about the
same to the Court. Considering the strength of his
team, considering his admission about starting carpentry
work in 2020 it is probabalized that respondent No.1 has
been engaged in interior work business since 2020 and
he has income from the same. Therefore, an adverse
inference has to be drawn against the respondent No.1
that he is not inclined to truthfully disclose about his
income to the Court. Even with respect to his
agricultural income he has not clearly deposed about the
29
Crl.Misc.167/2018
income received by him and the extent of land cultivated
by him. Respondent No.1 has further taken a contention
that his mother is not in talking terms with him and she
has ousted him from his house and he is currently
residing in a sheet house which is in Ex.R.8 land. This
contention of the respondent No.1 is not at all believable
as he has admitted that his mother is not causing any
impediment to him to cultivate in Ex.R.7 land but she
has ousted him out of her house. Further in his cross
examination he has admitted that, he is residing in the
house seen in Ex.P.52C. But he has not submitted any
document with respect to the ownership of the said
house. When questioned in this regard he has stated
that it belongs to his mother but she will not give the
documents related to the said house as they are not in
good terms. But as already stated this is highly
unbelievable as respondent No.1 has submitted RTC of
the lands belonging to his mother. Under such
circumstances he can also produce the documents
related to Ex.P.52C house. Further respondent No.1 has
not submitted any document to show that he is residing
in a sheet house in Ex.R.8 land. Moreover, from Ex.P.46
to 52A to C it does not appear that respondent No.1 is
residing in any sheet house. It also appears that he is
making improvements during the cross examination by
30
Crl.Misc.167/2018
deposing about being ousted from his mother’s house to
the sheet house in order to conceal about his actual
residence. Petitioner by submitting Ex.P.46 and 52A to
C is able to probabalize that respondent No.1 is leading a
comfortable life with his 2nd wife and child in a duplex
house seen in Ex.P.52C. Since, respondent No.1 is not
submitted documents relating to Ex.P.52C house an
adverse inference can drawn against him that he has not
produced the document purposefully and if the
documents are produced they would go against him.
29. Further from Ex.P.46 and 48 petitioner is able
to probabalize that respondent’s 2nd child Bhaavika
Gowda is attending a premier school. Respondent No.1
in this regard has stated that, his wife Nethra Gowda is
paying school fees of the child. However, he has not
submitted any document to substantiate his contention.
Therefore, it is not believable that the entire educational
expenses of the child is being borne by his 2 nd wife.
Moreover, respondent No.1 has stated that, he is
spending Rs.15,000/- towards his mother’s expenses but
in his cross examination he has admitted that his
mother has 6 houses in Tavarekere which she has given
on lease. Therefore, it is unbelievable that he is spending
Rs.15,000/- per month for maintaining his mother. He
31
Crl.Misc.167/2018
has further stated that, all the properties are in his
mother’s name and he does not have any share in the
same and he is not in good terms with his mother. This is
also unbelievable as respondent No.1 himself has
admitted in his cross examination that he is cultivating
the land belonging to his mother in Ex.R.7 and he is
receiving income from the same. It is the contention of
the petitioner that, he is also receiving rents from
various house in Tavarekere. However, petitioner has not
submitted any documents in this regard. Petitioner has
submitted Ex.P.22 to 26 which is the sale deed and EC
with respect to site No.8 in Tavarekere standing in the
name of respondent No.2. Even respondent No.1 has
admitted about his mother owning Ex.P.22 property. But
petitioner is unable to prove that respondent No.1 is
receiving any rent from Ex.P.22 property. From an
overall scrutiny of evidence on record petitioner is able
to prove that respondent No.1 has income more than
Rs.15,000/- claimed by him in his assets and liability
affidavit. Further adverse inference has to be drawn
against the respondent No.1 for concealing his true
income from the Court.
30. Petitioner in her assets and liability affidavit
has stated that, she is working as a house keeper and
32
Crl.Misc.167/2018
cook and earning Rs.16,000/- per month. She has
stated that, she does not have any functioning bank
account. Respondent No.1 has not been able to submit
any proof to show that petitioner has a bank account.
Petitioner has stated that, her monthly expenses is
Rs.46,000/-. She has not submitted any bills in this
regard. She has stated that, she is paying rent of
Rs.12,000/- in her cross examination but she has not
submitted her rental agreement. She has stated that,
her daughter is suffering from piles and she is spending
Rs.8,000/- per month towards her medical expenses but
she has not submitted any medical documents in this
regard. She has further stated that, she is spending
Rs.25,000/- for two months towards education of the
child. In this regard she has submitted child’s fee receipt
got them marked as Ex.P.21, 27, 29 series and Ex.P.31.
Respondent No.1 in his cross examination has admitted
the expenses incurred by the petitioner towards the
education of the child. Petitioner has stated that, she
has availed loan of Rs.50,000/- from IIFL. She has
submitted Ex.P.32 in this regard which reveals that
petitioner has availed loan of Rs.48,345/- for cloth sales
and she is paying EMI of Rs.2,740/- every month
towards the said loan. She has further stated that, she
has availed hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from her mother
33
Crl.Misc.167/2018
and Rs.50,000/- from a private lender but she has not
submitted any document in support of her claim. She
has stated that, she has availed two wheeler vehicle loan
of Rs.80,000/- principle and Rs.1,16,000/- including
interest and GST and she is paying Rs.4,399/- per
month towards the said vehicle loan. However, she has
not submitted any documents in this regard.
31. It is the argument of the counsel for the
respondent No.1 that, it is not believable that petitioner
is earning Rs.16,000/- per month and paying rent of
Rs.12,000/- and paying EMI of Rs.4,399/- towards
vehicle loan and paying EMI of Rs.2,740/- towards loan
from IIFL. Hence, her statements are not believable and
she is suppressing her true income. Although, petitioner
has not submitted her rental agreement it is a fact that
she is residing separately and she is bound to be paying
rent. It appears that, petitioner has inflated her
expenses but since she is in custody of the child she is
bound to incur expenses towards education, medical and
day to day activities of the child. Moreover, petitioner
has to maintain herself out of her own income.
Petitioner cannot be expected to produce documents to
prove the hand loan and day to day expenses of herself
and her child. Respondent No.1 being the husband of
34
Crl.Misc.167/2018
the petitioner and father of the child is duty bound to
maintain them. It is also argued by the respondent
counsel that since both petitioner and respondent No.1
are earning equally both have to contribute equally
towards the maintenance of the child. In this regard he
has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in AIR 2000 SC 1398 wherein it is held that when both
parents of the child are employed they are obliged to pay
maintenance in proportion to their salaries. There is no
quarrel with this proposition of law and it has been
upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the Judgment
passed in Rajnesh V/s Neha. However, in this case as
already discussed respondent No.1 has actively
suppressed his true income from the Court and from the
evidence submitted by the petitioner by confronting to
the respondent No.1 during the cross examination and
the answers elicited from him during the cross
examination clearly prove that respondent No.1 is
enjoying income from his mother’s property, he is
residing in a duplex house and sending his 2 nd child from
his 2nd marriage to a premier educational Institution.
Therefore, it is proved that he has a reasonably high
standard of living and the income to support such
standard of living. Therefore, even though petitioner is
earning respondent No.1 and petitioner cannot be
35
Crl.Misc.167/2018
expected to contribute equally towards the maintenance
of the child as petitioner’s income is too meager and
requires support from respondent No.1. Even the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above quoted judgment
has held that both parents must contribute in proportion
of their salaries. Petitioner is earning only Rs.16,000/-
and she is paying for 2 loans from the said salary and
she has been maintaining the child till now. The income
of the petitioner is too meager. As already discussed
respondent No.1 definitely has higher income than
Rs.15,000/- as claimed by him. Therefore, respondent
No.1 has to contribute more towards the maintenance of
the child. Moreover, petitioner is residing in a rented
house along with the child which she cannot afford from
her income alone. Hence, respondent No.1 has to
contribute towards rent for petitioner and the child.
32. In the case on hand just because petitioner is
earning certain sum cannot deprive her of maintenance.
With regard to earning wife Hon’ble Apex Court in case
Rajnesh Vs Neha & Anr has held as under :-
(c) Where wife is earning some
income The Courts have held that if
the wife is earning, it cannot operate
as a bar from being awarded
maintenance by the husband. The
36
Crl.Misc.167/2018Courts have provided guidance on
this issue in the following
judgments.
In Shailja & Anr. v Khobbanna, this
Court held that merely because the
wife is capable of earning, it would
not be a sufficient ground to reduce
the maintenance awarded by the
Family Court. The Court has to
determine whether the income of
the wife is sufficient to enable her to
maintain herself, in accordance with
the lifestyle of her husband in the
matrimonial home. Sustenance does
not mean, and cannot be allowed to
mean mere survival.
In Sunita Kachwaha & Ors. v Anil
Kachwaha the wife had a
postgraduate degree, and was
employed as a teacher in Jabalpur.
The husband raised a contention
that since the wife had sufficient
income, she would not require
financial assistance from the
husband. The Supreme Court
repelled this contention, and held
that merely because the wife was
earning some income, it could not
be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance.
33. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan
Singh vs. Meena: (2015) 6 SCC 353 held that “the
concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead
37
Crl.Misc.167/2018
the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown
away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance
somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the
similar manner as she would have lived in the house of
her husband. That is where the status and strata come
into play, and that is where the obligations of the
husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a
proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take
subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with
dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the
time of marriage and also in consonance with the
statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of
the husband to see that the wife does not become a
destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly
created where under she is compelled to resign to her
fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally
impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render
the financial support even if the husband is required to
earn money with physical labour, if he is able-bodied.
There is no escape route unless there is an order from
the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance
from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.
34. As per the mandate of the Supreme Court the
wife is entitled to lead the life as she was enjoying in her
38
Crl.Misc.167/2018
husband’s house. In the instant case the petitioner has
not supported her expenses with cogent evidence. She
has given bills with respect to school fees of the child.
Apart from that she has not given any documents with
respect to her other expenditure. On the other hand
respondent No.1 has stated that his mother is dependent
on him but this statement cannot be further away from
truth since respondent No.1 himself has admitted that,
his mother has rental income. It is an admitted fact that,
respondent No.1 has a 2nd wife and child however this
aspect cannot taken into consideration as he has entered
into 2nd marriage illegally.
35. While deciding the quantum of maintenance
the court should also take into consideration the self
expenditure of the respondent i.e., his personal
expenditure, household expenditure, transport
expenditure, home loan, vehicle and health insurance
etc., It is no doubt that the petitioner is earning a sum of
Rs.16,000/- p.m. and she has expressed that she is
unable to meet her and her child’s expenditure with that
sum. While deciding maintenance the court has to strike
the balance between the both the parties and if the same
is applied to the present case mere quoting expenditure
of Rs.50,000/- is not tenable with regard to income of the
39
Crl.Misc.167/2018
parties. In the case on hand the respondent No.1 has
not provided any maintenance to petitioner. In such
circumstances he cannot escape from liability of
providing maintenance by citing the employment of the
petitioner. It is the duty casted upon the husband to
maintain wife and children.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajanesh V/s
Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 it is held that, when
both spouses are earning they have to contribute
towards the expenses of the child proportionately. The
respondent No.1 is duty bound to maintain the child.
The petitioner is earning way less than the respondent.
Further, respondent has also admitted that he has no
objection to allow all the reliefs claimed by the petitioner
in his cross examination. Hence, under such
circumstance even the petitioner is entitled for
maintenance.
37. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the above case the Court has to
consider the status of the parties, earning capacity of the
parties, needs and expenses of the petitioner, number of
dependents on the respondent, expenses of the
respondent, educational qualification of the parties,
40
Crl.Misc.167/2018
whether the petitioner has independent source and
whether the same is sufficient to enable her to maintain
herself, standard of living as she was accustomed to in
the matrimonial home, whether she was working before
marriage, cost of litigation for a non working wife etc.,
while ordering for maintenance. The maintenance
awarded should not be in form of a penalty to the
respondent. Considering all the above factors petitioner
is entitled for maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month,
petitioner’s child is entitled for maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month which is inclusive of educational
expenses, medical expenses, day to day expenses of the
child and respondent is directed to pay rent of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and pay Rs.1,00,000/-
towards security deposit refundable to the respondent
No.1 on efflux of the rent agreement. Petitioner is
directed to submit her rent agreement to the Court.
38. The petitioner has sought for direction to the
respondent to pay compensation and damages of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the physical and mental torture
suffered at the hands of the respondent. Sec.22 of PWDV
Act states, Magistrate may grant compensation in
addition to the other reliefs that may be granted under
this Act and direct the respondent to pay compensation
41
Crl.Misc.167/2018
and damages for injuries including mental torture and
emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic
violence committed by the respondent. As discussed in
point No.1 it is proved that the respondent No.1 has
subjected the petitioner and her child to domestic
violence and she has incurred litigation expenses as well.
It is pertinent to note that this petition was filed when
the child was just one year 4 months old and respondent
No.1 has refused to make any voluntary contribution
towards the maintenance of the child and petitioner was
forced to run from pillar to post to secure herself and her
child since even the interim maintenance granted was
recalled. The respondent No.1 has not maintained the
child and he has not paid for child’s school fees. Hence,
U/Sec.22 of PWDV Act, petitioner is entitled for
compensation. Hence, respondent No.1 is directed to pay
an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only)
each to the petitioner and her child towards
compensation.
39. Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the
respondent No.1 not to commit any act of domestic
violence against petitioner U/Sec.18 of PWDV Act. It is
an admitted fact that, petitioner and respondent No.1
are not residing in the same house and they have been
42
Crl.Misc.167/2018
living separately since 2018. Therefore, it is not
necessary to grant protection order U/Sec.18 of PWDV
Act. Petitioner has sought for return of her brass
articles, clothes and suitcase. However, she has failed to
prove that these articles are with respondent No.1.
Hence, respondent No.1 cannot be directed to return
these articles to petitioner. Hence, point No.2 answered
partly in the affirmative.
40. POINT No.3 :- In view of the materials placed
before this court, pleadings, deposition and documentary
evidence this court proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner
under Sec.12 of The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as
against respondent No.1 is allowed in part.
Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to
pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees
seven thousand only) per month towards
maintenance to the petitioner and
Rs.10,000/- per month towards rent to the
43
Crl.Misc.167/2018
petitioner and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards
security deposit to the petitioner
refundable to the respondent No.1 on
efflux of the rent agreement. Petitioner is
directed to produce rent agreement to the
Court.
Petitioner is entitled for maintenance
and rent from the date of petition till her
life time or till she gets re-married
whichever is earlier.
Further, respondent No.1 is hereby
directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand only) per month to
the petitioner’s child towards maintenance
inclusive of medical, educational and day
to day expenses from the date of petition
till she attains majority.
Further, respondent No.1 is directed
to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs only) each to the
petitioner and her child towards
compensation within 3 months from the
date of this order.
44
Crl.Misc.167/2018
Office is directed to furnish a copy of
this order free of cost to the petitioner.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by
her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on
this the 20th day of May 2026).
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PETITIONER:
PW.1 : Radha K.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 : Birth certificate
Ex.P.2 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.3 : Complaint & FIR
Ex.P.4 : Complaint dated 07.07.2018
Ex.P.5 : 1 CD & 7 Photos
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Charge sheet in CC
No.7626/2019
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Crime No.144/2018
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of complaint dated
25.04.2018
Ex.P.9 : 6 witnesses statement
Ex.P.10 : Letter dated 26.04.2018
45
Crl.Misc.167/2018
Ex.P.11 : Letter dated 02.05.2018
Ex.P.12-13 : 2 Witnesses statement
Ex.P.14 : Witness statement dated 14.12.2018
Ex.P.15 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.16-17 : Wound certificates
Ex.P.18 : Statement dated 26.04.2018
Ex.P.19 : Marriage invitation card
Ex.P.20 : Marriage certificate
Ex.P.21 : School receipt dated 17.06.2022
Ex.P.22 : Sale deed dated 06.04.2002
Ex.P.23 : Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.24 : RTI-Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.25 : RTI-Khata transfer application
Ex.P.26 : Encumbrance certificate 01.04.2002 to
31.03.2004
Ex.P.27 : School fee documents
Ex.P.28 : Marriage invitation card
Ex.P.29A to I : Education fee receipts
Ex.P.30 : Medical bills
Ex.P.31 : School fee receipt
Ex.P.32 : Loan statement
Ex.P.33 : Assets and liabilities affidavit of respondent
Ex.P.34 to 52 : Photos
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
R.W.1 : Chandrashekar Gowda
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex.R.1 to 4 : 4 Aadhar cards
Ex.R.5 : Respondent No.1's brother Marriage
invitation card
Ex.R.6 : Respondent No.1's sister marriage invitation
card
46
Crl.Misc.167/2018
Ex.R.7 & 8 : 2 RTCs
Ex.R.9 : School fee receipt
Ex.R.10 : Bank statement
(Akhila H.K.)
JMFC (Traffic Court-VI),
Bengaluru.
