LAWS(KAR)-2023-3-130

SYED DILDAR Vs. SALMA TAJ

Decided On March 13, 2023
Syed Dildar Appellant
V/S
Salma Taj Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition is filed under Sec. 397 Cr.PC challenging the judgment and order dtd. 12/8/2014 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.305/2012 which has been confirmed by the Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.25149/2014 vide judgment and order dtd. 13/2/2015.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this revision petition as revealed from the records are, the marriage of petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 3/2/2005 and from the wedlock, the couple have a male child born on 8/1/2008. It is the case of the respondent-wife that after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members were ill-treating the respondent and abusing and assaulting her on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry. They were also pressurizing her to bring additional dowry from her parents house. In respect of one such incident on 1/7/2008, the respondent had given a police complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner had undertaken in the police station to take care of his wife and child. Inspite of that, he had continued his misbehaviour and on 10/11/2011, he had assaulted the respondent and thrown her out of the house along with the child. It is under these circumstances, the respondent was constrained to take shelter in her parents house. It is the further case of the respondent that the petitioner has thereafter married another lady and is presently residing with her and he has failed to provide any maintenance to the respondent and her son and has completely neglected them. Under these circumstances, the respondent had filed a petition under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (for short, 'the Act') before the Trial Court.

(3.) In the said proceedings, the petitioner had entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections admitting his marriage, but he had denied the other allegations made against him. He has stated that the respondent was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house without there being any reason and she had failed to take care of him and that as per her demand, he had shifted his residence from Kaiwara to Bengaluru and even in Bengaluru, she had fought with him and left his company and had voluntarily taken shelter in her parents house.