RAKESH KUMAR DUTTA vs MRS DIPA KAYAL DUTTA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.936 OF 2026
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. RAKESH KUMAR DUTTA
S/O GUNODHAR DUTTA
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO 72, KUMBHAI VILLAGE,
CHAS (BOKARO), BOKARO - 827013
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. R. CHINNASWAMY MANOHAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS DIPA KAYAL DUTTA
W/O RAKESH KUMAR DUTTA
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT 3RD FLOOR, NO 921, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, SINGASANDRA
AECS LAYOUT, B BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560068
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. J P DARSHAN.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 397 R/W 401 CR.PC (FILED
U/S 438 R/W 442 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DTD
02.05.2026 PASSED BY HONBLE LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-70) IN
CRL.A.NO.1306/2025 IN PARTLY MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD
04.07.2025, PASSED BY THE LRD.MMTC-II, BENGALURU IN
CRL.MISC.NO.5/2023.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.10.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This is the criminal revision petition filed under
Section 438 r/w Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS, 2023') by the
revision petitioner/respondent No.1 praying for setting
aside the judgment dated 02.05.2026 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1306/2025 on the file of LXIX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) (in short,
'the appellate Court') in partly modifying the order dated
04.07.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No .5/2023 on IA No.2, on
the file of MMTC-II, Bengaluru, (in short 'the trial Court').
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the trial Court for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. The aggrieved person (the wife) has filed
Crl.Misc. petition before the trial Court against her
husband and his family members i.e. respondent Nos.1 to
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
6 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'the Act'), praying
for passing orders under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the
Act.
4. In the said petition, the wife has filed IA No.2
under Section 20 r/w Section 23(2) of the Act, seeking
monetary relief to meet her expenses incurred and losses
suffered by her. Since all her movable property in the
shared household is removed and vacated and she has to
shift to another rental house.
5. Initially, after filing this application by
considering the objections of the respondents and also by
considering the fact that respondent No.1 i.e. husband is
drawing salary of ` 1,49,000/- whereas, the wife is drawing
salary of ` 94,000/- i.e. nearly ` 1,00,000/- and her income
is more than her expenditure, the trial Court held that the
aggrieved person is not entitled for any of the monetary
relief under Section 20 of the Act and thereby, dismissed
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
the same by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
1
Apex Court in Rajnesh v/s Neha and Another .
6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/wife has
preferred the Criminal Appeal No.1306/2025, wherein the
appellate Court by considering the provision of Section 20,
23(2) and as there is allegation of forcible eviction and
deprivation of belongings in her shared house, the
appellate Court has modified the order of the trial Court
and directed to pay a sum of ` 20,000/- per month as
interim monetary relief towards alternate accommodation
and incidental expenses from the date of order to the
appellant subject to final adjudication of the main petition.
7. Aggrieved, by the same, the revision
petitioner/husband is before this Court.
8. Heard arguments of both sides.
9. The learned counsel-Sri Mayur for Sri
M.R.Chinnaswamy Manohar for the revision
petitioner/husband would submit that his wife has filed the
petition under Section 29 of the Act praying for several
1
(2021) 2 SCC 324
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
reliefs available to her under the said Act. She has also
filed an interim application for monetary reliefs. The said
application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground
that, the wife is earning around ` 1,00,000/-; whereas the
husband was earning ` 1,49,000/- as per the assets and
liabilities submitted by both sides. Thus, the monthly
income of the petitioner is more than the expenditure
mentioned by her. She is also getting HRA, travel
allowance and other allowances. Hence, she is not entitled
for monetary relief as prayed. He places reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case
cited supra of at paragraph Nos.77 and 78.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
would further submit that, even though the learned
Magistrate rejected the interim monetary relief application
with cogent reasons, the appellate Court interfered with it
on erroneous grounds.
11. The learned counsel-Sri J.P.Darshan for the
respondent would submit that the intent of the social
legislation of the Act is to procure safety to the wife. This
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
is love-cum-arranged marriage. Only because the
differences arose between the parties, the wife cannot be
thrown out from the shared household. Section 20 of the
Act empowers the Magistrate to grant monetary relief not
only to meet the maintenance but also for other reliefs
i.e., the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or
removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved
person. In this case, the husband has removed the wife
from the shared household; he removed her control on the
articles mentioned in her affidavit; and thus, she is an
aggrieved person. The person who committed domestic
violence cannot be left without punishment; just because
the wife is highly qualified and getting substantial salary.
Considering these aspects, the appellate Court has granted
`
maintenance of 20,000/-, which requires no interference.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
12. The learned counsel for the respondent places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case
of Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
2
And Another and on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Shome Nikhil Danani v/s Tanya Banon
3
Danani at paragraph No.17.
13. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying
the appeal papers and trial Court records, the point that
arises for consideration is:
`
"Whether granting monetary relief of 20,000/- to the
wife by the appellate Court towards her alternate
accommodation and miscellaneous expenses is
perverse, grossly unreasonable?"
14. The finding of this Court on the above point is in
Affirmative for the following:
REASONS
15. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very
limited. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kuntegowda v/s Thurubaiah in Criminal Appeal
2
(2014) 10 SCC 736
3
(2019) SCC OnLine Del 8016
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
No.3654/2026, (Arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.2247 of 2024 dated 04.08.2026
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1485 . In the aforesaid
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7.1.
to 7.3 has discussed the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court, which reads as follows:
"7.1 This Court, in the State of Maharashtra
vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand, (2004) 7
SCC 659 observed that the High Court, in exercise
of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot embark upon an
in-depth roving re-examination of the oral evidence
and medical evidence and come to a conclusion
contrary to the consistent one reached by two
courts below. In the facts of the present case, in
the impugned judgment, the High Court gravely
erred in upsetting the concurrent findings of
conviction of the trial court and the Appellate Court
by substituting its own conclusions and reasoning
on the merits of the case and thereby erred in
setting aside the well-reasoned and correct
judgement and orders of the trial and appellate
courts.
7.2 Upon perusal of the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.10.2023, it is apparent that the
High Court went into great detail into each of the
testimonies, documents and merits of the case
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 9 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
which could have been avoided especially when the
subject matter had come under its revisional
jurisdiction. Instead, acting as an appellate Court,
the High Court deemed it fit to go into the merits of
the case, something which is generally
impermissible unless a glaring contradiction is
apparent on the face of record. In State of Kerala
vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri,
(1999) 2 SCC 452, while considering the scope of
the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court this
Court has laid down the following:
"5.... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High
Court can call for and examine the record of
any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying
itself as to the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In
other words, the jurisdiction is one of
supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High
Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But
the said revisional power cannot be equated
with the power of an appellate court nor can it
be treated even as a second appellate
jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not
be appropriate for the High Court to
reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion on the same when the evidence has
already been appreciated by the Magistrate as
well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless
any glaring feature is brought to the notice of
the High Court which would otherwise
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 10 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. On
scrutinizing the impugned judgment of the
High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we
have no hesitation to come to the conclusion
that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
interfering with the conviction of the
Respondent by reappreciating the oral
evidence...."
7.3. The contours for exercise of revisional
jurisdiction has been well settled by the judicial dicta
of this Court wherein time and again it has been
observed that the High Court shall not interfere with
the orders of the lower court unless:
i. The order or finding of the lower court is
perverse, grossly erroneous, glaringly
unreasonable or wholly unreliable or untenable
in law.
ii. The lower court has passed the impugned
order after considering an immaterial or
irrelevant material or no material at all.
iii. There is a non-consideration of any relevant
material or the judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily or capriciously."
16. Thus, only if the judgment of the trial Court
confirmed by appellate Court is perverse or grossly
erroneous, or grossly unreasonable, or wholly unreliable,
or wholly untenable, or the trial Court considered an
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 11 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
immaterial or irrelevant, material or no material or not at
all relevant material or judicial discretion has been
exercised arbitrarily and capriciously, the revisional Court
can interfere with such judgment.
17. The facts which are not in dispute are that the
marriage of the aggrieved person and respondent No.1-
husband has taken place on 21.02.2021 as per the
customs prevailing in their community. After the marriage,
both of them lived together for sometime and according to
the aggrieved person, she was forced to leave the shared
house on 11.11.2022.
18. In paragraph Nos.22 to 24 of the affidavit
annexed to IA, it is narrated that the police advised the
aggrieved person to reside separately and thus, she had
been to the house of her friend and stayed there and her
mother and sister also came and resided with her for a few
days. On 13.11.2022, she has lodged the complaint
against her husband and his family members which is
registered in Crime No.288/2022. She has came to the
shared house on 13.11.2022 to collect her belongings from
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 12 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
the shared house, at that time respondent No.1 snatched
her necklace and mangalasutra in presence of police and
did not allow her to take all her belongings. She had been
to her friend's house at Doddanekundi; on 16.11.2022,
visited Nirbhaya Kendra with respondent No.1 and then
she shifted to PG on 25.11.2022 and obtained a house on
rent and moved to rented house on 27.12.2022 and
presently, she is in a rented house.
19. In paragraph No.28, the aggrieved person has
narrated 21 items belonged to her were in the shared
house. She has narrated in paragraph Nos.13 to 21 that
what happened after Shivarathri festival in March-2022 till
11.11.2022 in a sequence.
20. In all these paragraphs, the wife has made
serious allegations against the family members of her
husband who were made as respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the
petition.
21. The petition against respondent Nos.2 to 6 was
dismissed by the trial Court by its order dated 09.06.2023,
which was in challenge in Criminal Appeal No.1309/2023.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 13 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
The appellate Court has passed the detailed order and
confirmed the dismissal of the petition against respondent
Nos.2 to 6. As it is, the petition is continued only against
respondent No.1-husband.
22. Thus, the allegations made in the affidavit
annexed to the IA against family members of the
respondent No.1 cannot be looked into to decide whether
prima facie, there is domestic violence on the complainant.
23. As per the directions given in Rajnesh's case
cited supra, both aggrieved person and respondent No.1-
husband have submitted their assets and liabilities before
the trial Court.
24. According to the assets and liabilities, the
expenses of the aggrieved person is ` 48,500/- per month
which includes rent, household expenses, medical bills and
`
transportation and her salary was 96,000/-; the expenses
`
of respondent No.1 - husband is more than 1,00,000/-
`
and his salary is 1,48,000/-.
25. In this revision petition, the salary slip of wife is
produced by the husband, which is not in dispute.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 14 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
According to this document, the wife is getting HRA and
other facilities from her employer.
26. Under Section 20 of the Act, the aggrieved
person is entitled for monetary relief to meet the expenses
incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and
any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the
domestic violence and such relief may include the loss of
earnings, the medical expenses, the loss caused due to
the destruction, damage or removal of any property from
the control of the aggrieved person and the maintenance
for the aggrieved person as well as her children including
an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short 'Cr.P.C.') or any other law for the time being in
force.
27. The relief that can be granted under Section 20
of the Act is after trial. However, Section 23 of the Act
empowers the Magistrate to grant interim relief under
Section 20 also. But before granting such a relief, the
Magistrate shall satisfy himself that an application prima
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 15 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
facie discloses that the respondent is committing or has
committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a
likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of
domestic violence then the Magistrate may grant an ex-
parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form as
may be prescribed of the aggrieved person under the
reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act.
28. Now the case is limited only to Section 20 of the
Act because the monetary relief alone is claimed under
Section 20 along with 23 of the Act by the aggrieved
person.
29. With this background, the relief sought in the
main petition is to be looked into.
30. In the main petition under Section 20 of the
Act, the relief sought by the aggrieved person is directing
respondent No.1 to pay a sum of ` 1,00,000/- per month
towards maintenance and direct respondents to execute a
bond for ` 10,00,000/- with surety for like sum for
preventing the commission of domestic violence. The other
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 16 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
reliefs as prayed in the interim application were not sought
in the main petition.
31. The Magistrate is empowered to grant ex-parte
relief. However, in the present case only after appearance
of the respondents, the relief was granted and only after
considering the objections filed by the respondent No.1,
the trial Court has rejected the relief but the appellate
Court granted the relief in favour of the aggrieved person
on the ground that the wife is entitled for the amount of
`
20,000/- per month as the legislation is a social welfare
legislation and the Court must adopt a purposive
interpretation balancing the rights of both parties. The
appellant is highly qualified professional drawing a
substantial salary; but there is statutory obligation not
only moral and legal on the husband, to ensure that the
wife is not economically disadvantaged due to the
matrimonial discord.
32. The appellate court further held that at the
interlocutory stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a
detailed trial and there should be prima facie foundation.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 17 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
The materials placed indicate that the wife is residing
separately and incurring rental expenses whether it is
voluntary or compulsory is a matter of trial and thus
awarded ` 20,000/- towards alternative accommodation
and incidental expenses. However, the appellate Court has
not observed that the wife is getting HRA and other
facilities from her employer. Hence, there is need to
interfere with the order of the appellate Court.
33. As stated above, the wife is getting the HRA
from her employer at ` 25,879/- as on January-2024. But
it is clear that even as on the date of filing of the petition
and IA, the wife is employed in the same bank and she
was getting HRA, it may be little bit less. However, she is
already getting house rent allowance and thus, to make
alternative accommodation, there is no problem to the
wife.
34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case cited
supra at paragraph Nos. 77 and 78 held as follows:
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse
is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 18 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of
maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the
court inter alia are the status of the parties;
reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children; whether the applicant is educated and
professionally qualified; whether the applicant
has any independent source of income; whether
the income is sufficient to enable her to
maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
whether the applicant was employed prior to her
marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife
was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child
rearing, and looking after adult members of the
family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife.
35. In this case it is to be noted that the wife is the
aggrieved person to decide whether she is entitled for any
interim maintenance as ordered by the appellate Court.
36. The facts narrated by the wife in her affidavit
are completely denied by the husband in his objection
statement. Anyway, it is a matter of trial to decide
whether there is any domestic violence caused to the wife
or not. It is not in dispute that the wife has lodged criminal
case against her husband and his entire family members
alleging the offence under Section 498-A and other
offences and she has made the similar allegations which
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 19 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
she has made in the present case also in that case. The
further proceedings in that case are stayed by Co-ordinate
bench of this Court. Anyway as it is, prima facie no
material is produced by the wife to say that respondent
No.1 has committed the act of domestic violence against
her.
37. As discussed above, the allegations of wife is
more on family members of her husband rather than on
the respondent No.1. As discussed above, already the
petition against family members of the husband of the
aggrieved person is dismissed, which is confirmed by the
appellate Court and became final.
38. In Juveria's case cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the monetary relief as stipulated under
Section 20 of the Act is different from maintenance which
can be in addition to an order of maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C., or any other law. Such monetary
relief can be granted to meet the expenses incurred and
losses suffered by the aggrieved person and child of the
aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 20 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
which is not dependent on the question whether the
aggrieved person, on the date of filing of the application
under Section 12 of the Act is in a domestic relationship
with the respondent.
39. The aforesaid judgment came into existence
when a divorced wife filed a petition under Section 12 of
the Act claiming to be the aggrieved person against her
divorced husband. After completion of trial, the judgment
passed by the trial Court was considered in the aforesaid
case. However, as discussed above, the present case is
still under interim stage. Only if the Magistrate is satisfied
that there exists a domestic violence and because of such
domestic violence, the wife suffered monetary losses
prescribed under Section 20 of the Act, then the
Magistrate can grant the relief.
40. In the instant case, as discussed above, the
Magistrate was not satisfied about the existence of
domestic violence and monetary relief was not granted.
The appellate Court has considered that Section 20 of the
Act is having wide application and granted the relief of
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 21 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
` 20,000/- as maintenance per month towards alternate
accommodation and miscellaneous expenses. However, as
discussed above already the wife is getting HRA from her
employer in respect of alternate accommodation. Her
assets and liabilities disclose that her expenditure is about
50% of her salary and remaining 50% is her savings
whereas the husband's assets and liabilities discloses that
he was getting ` 1,48,000/- but his expenses are more
than ` 1,00,000/- and he is having the responsibility to
maintain his grandparents and parents, etc., but the wife
is not having any such responsibility. Admittedly, the wife
and the husband are not having any children from their
wedlock.
41. As discussed above, the domestic violence
attributed against the husband is still to be established.
The relief prayed in the interim application is not prayed in
the main petition. Under these circumstances, without
prima facie establishing that the wife has suffered
monetary loss that all her movable property in the shared
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 22 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
house mentioned in the paragraph No.28 of the petition is
removed and vacated; she is not entitled for interim relief.
42. In Shome's case cited supra at paragraph
No.17 held as follows:
" 17 . Cleary the scope of Section 20 of the DV
Act is much wider than that of Section 125 CrPC.
While Section 125 CrPC talks only of maintenance,
Section 20 DV Act stipulates payment of monetary
relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered as a result of the domestic violence
including but not limited to loss of earning,
medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction,
damage or removal of any property from the
control of aggrieved person. Further, Section
20(1)(d) of the DV Act clearly provides that “In
proceedings under the DV Act, the Magistrate may
direct the Respondent to pay the maintenance to
the aggrieved person as well as her children, if
any, including an order under or in addition to an
order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC or
any other law for the time being in force.”"
43. The powers under Section 20 of Act vested
with the Magistrate are clearly explained in the aforesaid
judgment. But prima facie the wife should establish her
contention, which is not forthcoming in the present case.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 23 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
This is not the ex-parte order; but after receipt of
objection statement; when the order is being passed then
the Court cannot ignore the facts narrated in the objection
statement and thus, it requires trial which is yet to be
commenced.
44. Under these circumstances, this Court holds
that granting interim monetary relief by the appellate
court to the wife is not in accordance with Section 20 of
the Act by the appellate Court and is erroneous and thus,
requires interference.
45. Accordingly, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal revision petition is allowed.
ii. The judgment dated 02.05.2026 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1306/2025 on the file of LXIX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70)
(in short, 'the appellate Court') in partly modifying
the order dated 04.07.2025 passed in
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 24 -
CRL.RP No. 936 of 2026
Crl.Misc.No .5/2023 on IA No.2, on the file of MMTC-
II, Bengaluru is hereby set aside .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SPV