SMT SHAMALA MADHUSUDHAN vs M/S K L NARAYANA COMPANY

- 1 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 09 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.649 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SMT. SHAMALA MADHUSUDHAN
W/O. K. N. MADHUSUDHAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
ST
RESIDING AT NO.19/4, 1 MAIN,
JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU-560 046.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUN K. S., ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S. K. L. NARAYANSA COMPANY
A PATNERSHIP FIRM,
ST
NO.19/4, 1 MAIN, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560 046,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI K. N. VENKUSA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

*

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2017
ON THE FILE OF LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62).

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Digitally
signed by
NAGARATHNA
M
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

- 2 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CAV ORDER

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition
praying to set aside the judgment and order dated
25.03.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2017,
by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-62).

2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as
follows:
The petitioner/Smt. Shamala Madhusudhan is a legally
wedded wife of Sri K.N. Madhusudhan, S/o. Late
K.L. Narayansa. The petitioner had filed an application
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”) in Criminal Miscellaneous No.41 of 2011 seeking
various reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act
against her husband/Sri K.N. Madhusudhan (respondent
No.1 therein) and seven other persons, including the
respondent partnership firm (respondent No.8 therein).
Sri K.N. Madhusudhan is stated to be one of the partners

- 3 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

of the respondent partnership firm, M/s. K.L. Narayansa
Company.
3. Upon consideration of the proceedings in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.41 of 2011, the learned Magistrate, by
order dated 25.05.2011, passed an interim protection
order in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property
st
bearing No.19/4, 1 Main, Jayamahal Extension,
Bengaluru, which is owned by respondent firm, wherein,
her husband has a share to an extent of 20%.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent
partnership firm, preferred Criminal Appeal No.1169 of
2017 before the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-62).
5. The respondent firm contended that the subject
property belonged to the partnership firm and that the
petitioner had obtained possession of the property
pursuant to the protection order. The petitioner, on the
other hand, relied upon the protection order passed by the
learned Magistrate and contended that she has been in

- 4 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

occupation of the property and that her possession has
been protected by the said order.
6. The learned LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City, after considering the rival
contentions, allowed Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2017 by
judgment dated 25.03.2021. The First Appellate Court
directed the petitioner to deliver/vacate the subject
property within a period of three months and further
observed that, in the event of failure to do so, respondent
firm is at liberty to take possession of the property in
accordance with due process of law. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has preferred the present criminal
revision petition.
7. Heard Sri Arun K.S., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for
the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
contended that the First Appellate Court has committed an
error in entertaining the appeal preferred by the

- 5 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

respondent against the order passed by the learned
Magistrate, as the respondent is neither an aggrieved
person nor a person having any right, title or interest in
the property in respect of which the learned Magistrate
had passed the order. He further contended that the
respondent/firm has no locus standi to challenge the order
passed by the learned Magistrate. He further contended
that the learned Magistrate has dismissed the petition filed
by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act, and that the
respondent had not sought any relief in the said
proceedings for redelivery of possession of the property.
Therefore, the First Appellate Court is not justified in
granting a relief in favour of the respondent with regard to
possession of the property, when no such relief had been
sought by the respondent before the learned Magistrate.
9. Learned counsel further contended that while
passing the protection order, the learned Magistrate had
recorded that the petitioner is in occupation of the
property and that her possession is required to be
protected. The respondent, despite having knowledge of

- 6 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

the said order, had not filed any application under Section
28 of the Act seeking modification of the protection order.
Hence, the First Appellate Court could not have granted
any relief contrary to the protection order passed by the
learned Magistrate. He further contended that the
protection order passed by the learned Magistrate
continued to remain in force unless and until the same is
modified or set aside by the First Appellate Court or this
Court. Since the said protection order had neither been
modified, nor challenged by the respondent, the
possession of the petitioner over the property is required
to be protected. Therefore, the First Appellate Court is not
justified in interfering with the protection order granted in
favour of the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel further contended that the First
Appellate Court has erroneously concluded that the
petitioner was not in possession of the property solely on
the basis of her cross-examination dated 21.09.2012,
wherein it is elicited that summons and notices had been

- 7 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

served upon her at No.202, Garden Apartments, Palace
Cross Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru.
11. Learned counsel further contended that the First
Appellate Court had erroneously proceeded on the sole
ground that the marriage between the petitioner and her
husband stood dissolved pursuant to the decree of divorce.
However, the First Appellate Court failed to note that
against the said decree of divorce, the petitioner has
preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7484 of 2015
before this Court and therefore, the relationship of the
petitioner with her husband is still in force.
12. Learned counsel further contended that the First
Appellate Court has also erred in placing reliance upon the
injunction order said to have been passed against the
petitioner in Original Suit No.3296 of 2011. However, the
said interim order of injunction was subsequently vacated
and, against the order vacating the interim injunction, the
respondent has preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal
No.1007 of 2012.

- 8 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

13. Learned counsel further contended that the First
Appellate Court has committed an error in holding that the
respondent is entitled to prefer an appeal and seek relief
against the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
However, the respondent had no independent right to seek
such relief in the absence of any claim having been made
before the learned Magistrate. Hence, on all these
grounds, the learned counsel prays to allow the petition.
14. Per contra , the learned counsel for the
respondent/firm has vehemently contended that, the
decree of divorce between the petitioner and her husband
has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7484 of 2015 and
the dissolution of the marriage has attained finality.
Consequently, the very basis upon which the petitioner
seeks to assert a continuing right of residence in the
premises no longer survives for consideration. The
contention of the petitioner that the respondent has no
locus to maintain an appeal under Section 29 of the Act
and that such an appeal can be preferred only by an

- 9 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

"aggrieved person" as defined under the Act is wholly
misconceived and untenable. Section 29 of the Act
expressly provides for an 'appeal' to the Court of Sessions
against an order made by the Magistrate and does not
restrict the statutory right of appeal only to an 'aggrieved
person' as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act. Further,
the respondent, against whom an order under the Act has
been passed and whose rights are directly affected, is
equally entitled to avail the statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, the objection
raised by the petitioner to the very maintainability of the
appeal filed by the respondent before the learned Sessions
Court is evidently misconceived.
15. Learned counsel further contended that once the
complaint/proceedings filed under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is dismissed,
the Court has the power to cancel the interim order that
allowed or protected the petitioner’s occupation of the
premises. The Court can restore the position that existed
before the interim order was passed. Therefore, after the

- 10 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

complaint is dismissed and the interim protection comes to
an end, the Court can direct the petitioner to vacate the
premises and hand over the possession to the respondent.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to retain possession
of the premises merely on the strength of an interim
protection which no longer survives. That apart, the
respondent is the absolute owner of the property in
question. Further, the petitioner cannot claim an
indefeasible or perpetual right to remain in occupation of
the respondent's property merely by describing the same
as a "shared household" or "matrimonial home".
Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband have been
residing separately since the year 1995, the marriage
between them has subsequently been dissolved by a
decree of divorce, the said decree has been confirmed by
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner
herself did not challenge to the dissolution of the marriage
and confined her claim before the Hon'ble Division Bench
to monetary relief by way of alimony/maintenance. In
such circumstances, the interim protection granted during

- 11 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

the pendency of the proceedings cannot be converted into
an independent or perpetual right of occupation in a
property belonging to the respondent. Hence, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
16. After hearing the learned counsel on both side,
the following point arises for determination in the present
revision petition:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue
residing in the property of the respondent/firm,
particularly in view of the subsequent
dissolution of her marriage, and whether the
property qualifies as a “shared household”
within the meaning of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner married
Sri K.N. Madhusudhan on 06.04.1988. On 03.06.1987, the
partnership firm came into existence. On 29.01.1993, the
respondent/firm purchased the schedule property. Since
1995, the petitioner and her husband began to reside
separately. In the year 2011, the petitioner filed Domestic
Violence petition under Section 12 of the Act and on

- 12 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

31.07.2017, the same came to be dismissed. Insofar as
the matrimonial proceedings are concerned, the petition
for divorce filed by Mr. Madhusudhan was allowed on
29.08.2015 in Matrimonial Case No.1838 of 2011. The
petitioner’s appeal against the said decree was dismissed.
18. The petitioner has further asserted that the
property in question was constituted her matrimonial
home and shared household since the date of application.
Now, a pivotal issue that arises is whether, upon the
dissolution of marriage and consequent cessation of the
matrimonial relationship, the petitioner retains a right of
residence in the schedule property under Section 17 of the
Act.
19. Section 17 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides as under:
“17. Right to reside in a shared
household.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, every
woman in a domestic relationship shall have

- 13 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

the right to reside in the shared household,
whether or not she has any right, title or
beneficial interest in the same.
(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted
or excluded from the shared household or
any part of it by the respondent save in
accordance with the procedure established
by law.”
20. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse the
term 'shared household' as defined under Section 2(s) of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, which reads as under:
"Section 2(s): ”shared household" means a
household where the person aggrieved lives
or at any stage has lived in a domestic
relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household
whether owned or tenanted either jointly by
the aggrieved person and the respondent, or
owned or tenanted by either of them in
respect of which either the aggrieved person
or the respondent or both jointly or singly
have any right, title, interest or equity and
includes such a household which may belong

- 14 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

to the joint family of which the respondent is
a member, irrespective of whether the
respondent or the aggrieved person has any
right, title or interest in the shared
household.”
21. The First Appellant Court in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.41 of 2011 dated 31.07.2017, at
paragraph Nos.20 and 22 to 24, has categorically held as
under:
“ 20. Notwithstanding, the petitioner despite
being conscious of the fact that the
respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5 in their
capacity as partners of M/s. K.L. Narayanasa
Company was in physical and actual
possession of property bearing No.19/4,
Jayamahal extension, Bangalore and it being
the registered address for carrying out its
everyday business operations, the petitioner
with a fraudulent intention concocted and
contrived Ex.P.4 a complaint in Crime
No.70/2011 dt.21-05-2011 against the
respondents with a deliberate deception and
by playing fraud on the Hon'ble Court for
securing an interim order dt.25-05-2011 of

- 15 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

which the petitioner is not lawfully entitled.
The act of fraud could easily inferred from
the perusal of the record itself. The law
frowns at illegal dispossession and that too
when not in physical possession of the
property under the guise of interim
protection order dt.25-05-2011. In fact, the
petitioner in her petition averments has
admitted of having knowledge of the pending
proceedings in O.S.No.3296/11 instituted
against her by the said partnership firm
restraining the petitioner and her men from
forcible entry into the schedule premises
owned by the partnership firm. However, the
petitioner despite having knowledge of the
fact that the premises in dispute is the firm's
asset and that the petitioner did not or never
was in possession of the same or was never
in occupation as it being her shared
household or that it was never held by the
respondents as their joint family property
that the petitioner and the respondent No.1
never lived together in the premises owned
by the partnership firm deliberately made an
act of misrepresentation to secure an interim
protection order dt.25-05-2011 for residence

- 16 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

in respect of the premises owned by the
partnership firm.

xxx xxx xxx

22. A perusal of the evidence at Ex.R.3, an
order sheet in O.S.No.3296/11 and the
entries therein would reflect that the Hon'ble
City Civil Court had granted an order of
temporary injunction against the petitioner
herein as way back as 9th May 2011 itself.
The court upon being satisfied on a prima
facie consideration had issued a temporary
order of injunction against the petitioner
restraining her from interfering with the
premises in question. Upon issue of notice
and summons by the said Hon'ble Court
exhibited at Ex.R.4, Ex.R.5, Ex.R.6 and
Ex.R.122 the notices and the suit summons
issued by the said court in O.S.No.3296/11
had been served on the petitioner at
"No.202, Garden Apartment palace cross
road, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore". This fact
has been reiterated by the petitioner herself
in the course of cross-examination dt.
21-09-2012 at internal page No.8 as
stated above and the relevant portion of the
cross-examination reads thus:

- 17 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

. . .3296/11 .202,
ಓ ಎ ನಂ ರ ಮ ಮ ೆ ನಂ

ಾಡ ಅ ಾೆಂ ಾೆ ಾ ರ ೆ ವಸಂತನಗರ ೆ!

ಬಂದು ಮೆ ಸುಮನ%ನು& 'ಾ( )ಾ*+ಾ,-ೆ ಎಂದು
,
ಸೂ/0+ಾಗ ಾ1ಯು 3ೌದು ಅ5ೕನರು ಬಂದು ನನ ೆ
.
ಸಮ % 'ಾ( )ಾ+ಾ,-ೆ ಎಂದು ನುದರು

23. Having regard to elicitation made in the
cross-examination of the petitioner (P.W.1) it
is rather a foregone conclusion and it is
proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was
not residing at the premises No.19/4, 1st
Main Jayamahal extension on the date of
issue of protection order dt.25-05-2011. This
material evidence at Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.6 and
Ex.R.122 has been deliberately suppressed
and concealed by the petitioner at the time
of filing of the complaint before this Hon'ble
Court on 25-05-2011 with a deliberate
deception to commit fraud on the Hon'ble
Court. Automatically, it would be implicit that
the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Court
with tainted hands to secure the protection
order dt.25-05-2011. The petitioner in
connivance with the J.C. Nagar police station
fabricated the police complaint at Ex.P.4
which stands belied by having regard to

- 18 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.122 as well as
simultaneous comparison of petitioner's
statement of objections dt.09-10-2013.

24. No other view is possible having regard
to the evidence at Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.6 and
Ex.R.122 all of which has been served on the
petitioner by the court 'Ameen' at No.24,
Garden Apartments, palace cross road,
Vasanthanagar, Bangalore. The false claim of
the petitioner that on 21-05-2011 (Ex.P.4)
she was in occupation of property bearing
No.19/4, Jayamahal extension, Bangalore
does not stand the test of truth. In the
course of cross-examination dt.21-09-2012
the petitioner has made categorical
admission that she was served with the
notice in O.S.No.3296/11 a proceeding
instituted by the respondent No.8 in respect
of the property No.19/4, Jayamahal
Extension, Bangalore served on her at the
above mentioned Garden Apartments on
23-05-2011. Therefore, the contradiction in
the pleading as well as in the evidence of the
petitioner goes to prove beyond doubt that
the petitioner fabricated and concocted
Ex.P.4 for the purpose of the above case.
Despite that the property bearing No.19/4 of

- 19 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

which the respondent No.8 have been in
possession were illegally thrown out under
the guise of protection order dt.25-05-2011
and with the help of the jurisdictional police.”

22. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming her
right over the schedule property as 'shared household',
but the material available on record does not indicate that
the petitioner was residing in the schedule property as her
matrimonial home or shared household. The First
Appellate Court, upon appreciation of the documentary
and oral evidence, particularly Exs.R.4 to R.6 and R.122
and the petitioner's admission in cross-examination dated
21.09.2012, has categorically found that the respondent-
firm was in actual and physical possession of property
bearing No.19/4, Jayamahal Extension, Bengaluru, which
was being used for its business activities, and that the
petitioner was neither residing, nor in possession thereof.
The proceedings in Original Suit No.3296 of 2011
concerning the same property, wherein notices were
served upon the petitioner at No.202, Garden Apartments,
Palace Cross Road, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru. Merely

- 20 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

because the petitioner's husband was a partner of the
respondent-firm, his interest in the firm does not, by itself,
establish that the firm's property constituted the
petitioner's matrimonial home or shared household.
Therefore, the foundational requirement for invoking the
right of residence under Section 17 of the Act has not been
established.
23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
Kuldeep Kaur v. Swaran Kaur Through Lrs, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593, categorically held in
paragraph Nos.26 and 27 as under:
“26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satish
Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja reported
in (2020) 11 SCC 770 clarified that a
woman may assert her right of residence
in a “shared household” even where the
property is neither jointly owned nor
rented by the husband, so long as she has
lived there in a domestic relationship. The
Court emphasized that the term “shared
household” must receive a purposive
interpretation to advance the object of the

- 21 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

PWDV Act. Similarly, in Prabha Tyagi v.
Kamlesh Devi , reported in (2022) 8 SCC
90, it was held that the protection of
residence may extend even beyond the
husband's lifetime, provided the household
was indeed a shared one during the
subsistence of the relationship. These
pronouncements underscore that the
foundation of the right lies in the existence
of a domestic relationship, and that such
protection is not automatically
extinguished by the absence of proprietary
rights or by the demise of the husband.

27. Nonetheless, the statutory protections
under Section 17 of the PWDV Act are
firmly anchored in the existence of a
“domestic relationship.” Section 2(f) of the
PWDV Act defines a domestic relationship
as a relationship between two persons who
live, or have at any point of time lived,
together in a shared household when they
are related by consanguinity, marriage, or
a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Once the marriage stands dissolved by a
valid decree of divorce, the domestic
relationship comes to an end.

- 22 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

Consequently, the substratum upon which
the right of residence is founded no longer
survives, unless a contrary statutory right
is shown to persist.”

24. In the present case, the marriage between the
petitioner and Mr. Madhusudhan was dissolved by a decree
of divorce dated 29.08.2015. Though the said decree was
challenged by the petitioner before this Court in
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7484 of 2015, but the same
came to be dismissed. Significantly, in the said appeal, the
petitioner did not raise any claim with regard to her right
of residence or protection in the shared household and
confined her claim to maintenance. Further, the Division
Bench of this Court in the said appeal has already granted
interim maintenance Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The
petitioner, therefore, cannot seek to sustain an
independent right of residence in the schedule property in
the absence of any subsisting order or finding establishing
such right under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.

- 23 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

25. It is also relevant that the domestic violence
proceedings initiated by the petitioner themselves
culminated in dismissal of the application filed under
Section 12 of the Act. The relief of residence under Section
19 of the Act is consequential to the proceedings under the
Act and can be granted only upon the requisite foundation
being established. Once the allegations of domestic
violence have not been established and the proceedings
have been dismissed, no independent or continuing right
of residence can be claimed on the basis of the earlier
proceedings, particularly when the schedule property itself
has not been established to be the petitioner's shared
household. On the contrary, the respondent/firm has
prima-facie established its title to the schedule property.
Further, the petitioner failed to establish that schedule
property exclusively belong to her husband. Now, the
domestic relationship between the petitioner and her
husband came to an end and the petitioner is nothing to
do with the schedule property which is owned by
respondent/firm. In view of the dismissal of the domestic

- 24 -
CRL.RP No.649 of 2021

violence proceedings, dissolution of the marriage,
dismissal of the appeal, and the absence of any
established right of residence in the schedule property, no
further relief can be granted to the petitioner in the
present revision petition. Accordingly, the First Appellant
Court has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent/firm and ordered for eviction of the petitioner
from the schedule property. Therefore, the criminal
revision petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed .
In view of the dismissal of the revision petition,
pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
dismissed.

Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE

KVK