Bangalore District Court
Harish R vs Sriraksha D on 19 July, 2025
1 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
KABC010254762024
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
:Present:
Smt. Shirin Javeed Ansari, B.A.,LL.B (Hon`s) LL.M.,
LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2025
Crl.A.No.1596/2024
Appellant: Sri Harish.R
S/o Ramakrishna Achari
Aged about 34 years,
R/at. No.135, Near Anjaneya Temple
Koramangala 8th Block
Bangalore
(Sri Chetan.S, Advocate for
Appellant)
Vs.
Respondent: Smt. Sriraksha.D
W/o Harish.R.
Aged about 27 years
R/at. No.330/A, 18th Main Road
4th A Cross
4th T Block, Jayanagar
Bengaluru-560 041
(Sri N.M.Parameswara, Advocate for
respondent)
2 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal under Section 29 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
directed against the order dated 22.06.2024 passed on I.A.
No. 1 in Crl. Misc. No.62/2023 by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Traffic Court-2, Bengaluru, whereby the
learned trial court allowed the interim application filed
under Section 23(2) of the said Act and directed
respondent No.1 to pay a monthly maintenance of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and also to bear 50% of the
annual educational expenses of the minor child born from
their wedlock.
2. The Respondent in Crl.Misc.62/2023 before the
trial court having preferred the instant appeal against the
petitioner/applicant as the appellant and the respondent
are hereby assigned with their original ranks before the
trial court i.e., the appellant as respondent and respondent
as original petitioner in the instant discussion for the
purpose of brevity and convenience to avoid the confusion
and perplexity.
3 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
3. The respondent before the trial court, now the
appellant herein, being aggrieved by the quantum of
maintenance awarded and the procedure adopted, has
approached this Court with various grounds challenging
the legality and propriety of the said order.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent herein filed a petition under the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of the appellant
and that she has been subjected to physical, emotional and
verbal abuse by the appellant and his family members. She
further contended that the appellant, despite being
financially sound, neglected to maintain her and their
minor child. In support of her claim, she produced certain
documents including wedding photographs, invitation
card, copy of charge sheet in C.C. No. 90/2021, and
photographs of certain immovable and movable assets
alleged to be in the name of the appellant.
5. Despite service of notice and appearance
4 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
through counsel, the appellant / husband did not file any
formal objections to I.A. No.1. However, his counsel
submitted oral arguments opposing the claim.
6. The trial Court upon consideration of the
available material, allowed I.A. No.1 in part and passed the
impugned order.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order Dated;
22.6.2024 the appellant/ respondent before the trial court,
has filed this appeal on the following among the other
grounds.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
a) The trial Court erred in not allowing the
entire claim of the appellant. The Court
below has failed to consider the documents
produced by the appellant. Under this
circumstance, it is just and necessary to
order for lower of compensation.
b) The trial court has awarded interim
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to
respondent which is bad in law because the
amount which is awarded to respondent is
5 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
at very higher side and also for educational
expenses.
c) It is further submitted that the appellant is
suffering from financial difficulties and he is
finding it difficult to bear expenses and
other basic necessities.
d) The trial court has not considered the fact
that the appellant is having no source of
income and has no immovable property in
his name or on the names of the other
Appellants, further the Respondent has not
produced any iota of document showing the
income of the appellant Even though the
Respondent has not produced any single
document showing that the Appellant was
working оr his income, the trial court has
passed the impugned order of interim
maintenance based on probability only.
e) The arguments raised by the appellant are
not at all considered by the trial court and
passed the vague order.
f) The appellant further submits that he needs
to take care of his aged parents who are
suffering from different alignments, hence
6 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
on this ground awarding amount liable to be
cancelled.
g) The respondent has not produced any
document to prove the income of the
appellant.
h) The trial court has not given proper reasons
while passing the impugned order on IA-1.
i) The trial court has passed the impugned
order without application of its judicial
mind.
j) The respondent has filed the domestic
violence just to harass the appellant and to
make the appellant to heed to the illegal
demands of the respondent.
k) The respondent has not produced any
documents pertaining to the income of the
appellant before the trial court. But same
was not considered by the trial court.
l) The Respondent in her petition has not
disclosed the section 12 of D.V Act or
harassment, torture, dowry demand or ill
treatment meted by her and she has not
produced any documents in this regard.
7 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
m) The Respondent in her petition says only
about the harassment and ill treatment
meted by her and she has not produced any
medical documents to the ill treatment.
n) It is submitted that, the Respondent has not
made further appellants objection to main
petition is filled and Respondent evidence
pending. When the Appellants were present
on two dates of hearing the counsel of the
Respondent has failed to produce any
income documents to establish the income
status, other stage of the trial pending
before the trial court and filed application
for further evidence of the Respondent.
o) It is submitted that, on 05.10.2023 the
Appellants objection to main petition at
present stage and was next to petitioner
evidence and the Appellant has not
furnished his asset liabilities and objection
to application by non-abilities of bank
statement or his income documents which
has not been marked by the trial court has
passed this impugned order against the
Appellants.
Hence, the Appellant pray before this Court to set
8 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
aside the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2024 in
Crl.Misc.62/2023 passed by MMTC-II, Bengaluru by
allowing this Criminal Appeal in the interest of justice and
equity.
8. Having meticulously perused the record, the
grounds of appeal, and the rival contentions, the following
pivotal points emerge for determination in this appeal:
1. Whether the appellant has made out a
sufficient and bona-fide cause for
condonation of delay of 60 days in
filing the present appeal?
2. Whether the order dated 22.06.2024
passed on I.A. No.1 in Crl. Misc. No.
62/2023 by the learned Magistrate
warrants interference by this Court and
whether the matter requires remand for
fresh consideration?
3. What order?
9. This court upon re-appreciation of available
materials on record with reference to prevailing law of the
land, proceeds to give findings to the above points as
follows:
Point No. 1 :- In the Affirmative
Point No. 2 :- In the Affirmative
9 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 JudgmentPoint No. 3 :- As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
10. Point No.1: On perusal of the affidavit filed in
support of the application, it is clearly evident that the
delay of 60 days in preferring the present revision petition
has been satisfactorily explained. The Petitioner has
averred that the delay was not deliberate or wanton but
occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, more
particularly, on account of financial constraints and
personal obligations in taking care of his aged and ailing
parents. The Petitioner has further stated that his father
was recently hospitalized, and being the only son, the
entire burden of caregiving fell solely upon him, thereby
causing an unintentional delay in initiating the revision
proceedings.
11. It is well settled that when a litigant provides a
plausible and bona-fide explanation for the delay, and no
mala-fide intention or gross negligence is made out, the
courts should adopt a liberal approach in the matter of
condonation of delay, especially when substantial justice is
10 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
pitted against mere technicalities. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
[(1987) 2 SCC 107] has categorically held that a pragmatic
and justice-oriented approach must be adopted while
considering applications under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, and ordinarily, a litigant should not be shut out from
litigation on technical grounds.
12. In the present case, the Petitioner has promptly
filed the application seeking condonation of delay along
with an affidavit furnishing reasonable and acceptable
grounds. There is no material on record to infer any
deliberate latches or inaction on the part of the Petitioner.
Furthermore, no prejudice or irreparable harm is shown to
have been caused to the Respondents if the delay is
condoned, as the matter would be adjudicated on its own
merits, thereby sub-serving the ends of justice.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the explanation offered for the delay appears to be
genuine, bona-fide, and reasonable. Denial of condonation
in such cases would amount to miscarriage of justice.
11 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
Therefore, this Court finds it just and appropriate to
condone the delay of 60 days in filing the present revision
petition, and the application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act deserves to be allowed in the interest of
justice and equity. Hence I answer point no.1 in the
affirmative
14. POINT NO.2:- At the very outset, it is pertinent
to note that proceedings under the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are of a quasi-civil
nature, where interim reliefs under Section 23(2) may be
granted upon prima-facie satisfaction of the Magistrate
with respect to allegations of domestic violence and
financial hardship.
15. In the present case, the respondent/wife has
averred specific instances of domestic abuse and
abandonment, and has also asserted the financial capacity
of the appellant. However, while documents were placed in
support of her claims, the appellant failed to file a formal
reply or objections, nor did he furnish any affidavit of
assets and liabilities, which is crucial in determining
12 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
quantum of interim maintenance.
16. Nevertheless, it emerges from the records that
the appellant had appeared through counsel and oral
arguments were addressed, albeit without accompanying
rebuttal documents or pleadings. Thus, this Court is
constrained to observe that the right to contest on merits
was not effectively exercised, although opportunity was
granted.
17. In a quasi-judicial proceeding involving personal
status and financial survival, particularly involving minor
children, equity and fairness must be balanced with
procedure. While the learned Magistrate was justified in
proceeding in the absence of objections, this Court is of the
considered view that the magnitude of interim maintenance
awarded–Rs.25,000/- per month–warrants a more
detailed inquiry, especially in view of the appellant’s
specific plea of financial incapacity.
18. In Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, 2014 AIR
SCW 5709 the Hon’ble Supreme court held that it is
incumbent upon the trial court to insist on the income
13 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
affidavit of both parties, especially in matters of
maintenance. In Dnyaneshwar Ganeshrao Dhawale vs
The State Of Maharashtra C riminal Application (ABA)
NO. 192/2021, decided on 3.12.2021 it was observed
that denial of opportunity to file objections justifies
remand.
19. Maintenance proceedings are remedial in
nature, not penal, and while the wife and child must not
suffer due to procedural delays, at the same time, the
principles of natural justice demand that the husband
must have a fair opportunity to contest the claim and place
his financial status on record.
20. In the considered view of this Court,
interference is warranted, not with the entitlement of the
respondent to interim relief, but with the quantum and the
procedure adopted by the trial court. Hence, a limited
interference and remand is justified, ensuring protection to
the wife and child while granting one final opportunity to
the appellant to contest the claim in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to
14 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
the learned trial court for fresh consideration, subject to a
protective condition. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the
Affirmative, warranting remand.
21. Point No.2:- In light of my answer to point
No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The application filed by the appellant
under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 60 days is hereby
allowed. The delay of 60 days in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
The appeal filed by the appellant under
Sec.29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby
ALLOWED.
The impugned order dated 22.06.2024
passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate
Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru, in Crl. Misc.No.
62/2023 on I.A. No.1 is hereby set aside.
1) The matter is remanded back to the
trial court for fresh consideration of I.A.
No.1, in accordance with law.
15 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment
2) The appellant is directed to file
detailed objections along with an affidavit of
assets and liabilities and relevant
documentary proof of income within 15
days from the date of first appearance
before the trial court.
3) The trial court shall afford
reasonable opportunity to both parties and
decide the application afresh, uninfluenced
by the earlier order, preferably within two
months from the date of remand.
4) However, as an interim measure, the
appellant shall continue to pay an amount
of Rs.12,500/- per month to the respondent
(50% of the maintenance originally
ordered), with effect from 22.06.2024, until
the disposal of I.A. No.1 afresh by the trial
court.
5) The said amount shall be paid on or
before the 10th day of every calendar
month, without default, directly to the
respondent’s bank account or as otherwise
agreed between the parties.
6) Both parties are directed to appear
before the learned Magistrate on
16 Crl.A.No.1596/2024 Judgment19.08.2024 without further notice.
Office is directed to return the trial
court records forthwith along with copy of
this order without delay.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the
computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open
court on this the 19th day of July, 2025)
(Shirin Javeed Ansari)
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
