SMT. G LATHA vs SMT. D JAYAMMA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6036 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

SMT. G. LATHA
D/O GOVINDAPPA
W/O LATE CHIKKEERAIAH
AGEDA BOUT 55 YEARS
R/O DODDAHOSAHALLY
PURUVARA HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572175
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI. MANJUNATH T.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. D. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKEERAIAH @ CHIKKAVEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O DEVALAPURA VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI
TUMAKURU DISTRICT–572138
…RESPONDENT


Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. ASHA S., ADVOCATE, (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE PASSED BY HONBLE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, DATED
11.09.2020 (ANNEXURE-A) THEREBY REGISTERING A
CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.39/2020 AROUSED OUT A PCR
NO.7/2017 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 462 AND
471(a) OF IPC.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent.
3. This Court had made it clear on the previous
occasion that if learned counsel for the respondent remained
absent on the next date of hearing, the matter would be heard
in the absence of the respondent.
4. The order challenged before this Court is the order
passed by the revisional Court in Crl.R.P. No.5017/2019
wherein the revisional Court set aside the order passed by the
trial Court and remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate
with a direction to take cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 419, 420, 462 and 471(a) of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) against the accused and to proceed further in
accordance with law.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




5. While passing the said order, the revisional Court,
at paragraph No. 19, observed that the right to claim family
pension would continue to be with divorced wife as well, so long
as she remained unmarried. There is absolutely nothing on
record to suggest that the complainant had remarried, and no
material to that effect has been placed on record. Further, even
the decree of divorce has not been produced before the Court.
6. The revisional Court undertook a detailed discussion
in paragraph Nos. 19 to 21 and considered the documentary
evidence marked as Exs. C1 to C7. It observed that, in the
absence of documentary evidence about the valid decree of
divorce and the complainant's remarriage, there was no basis
to deny her right to claim family pension as the widow of her
deceased husband. On this basis, the revisional Court observed
that the accused must be prosecuted for the alleged
commission of the offences and remitted the matter to the trial
Court.
7. The main contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there is a clear admission on the part of the
respondent-complainant that there was a divorce. It is

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




contended that the impugned order passed by the revisional
Court is erroneous, as it failed to take note of the complainant's
deposition in her sworn statement, wherein she stated that the
petition for divorce filed by her husband had been allowed.
Learned counsel submits that the trial Court had rightly
considered this aspect, whereas the revisional Court committed
an error in not considering the same.
8. Learned counsel further vehemently contends that
the deceased Chikkeraiah had obtained a divorce and married
again, and that the petitioner is his second wife. It is also
contended that PW-2, who is the accused, is the second wife of
Chikkeraiah, which shows that the complainant was not
residing with him.
9. Further, Ex.C4, the decree passed in O.S. No.
57/1985 filed by the deceased Chikkeraiah against the
complainant, shows that there was no marital harmony
between them, which is contrary to the complainant's claim. On
these grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned
order is unsustainable in law.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently
contends that the petitioner's name is mentioned as the
nominee in the service records. It is further submitted that the
documents issued by the Treasury Department clearly indicate
that pension was sanctioned to the deceased and that the
nominee is shown as Smt. Latha, the accused. Hence, there
mens rea
was no on the part of the accused, as alleged by the
complainant.
11. Learned counsel further contends that the offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC are not
attracted and creation of documents and use of such
documents have not been established. Accordingly, learned
counsel submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in
law.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
also perused the reasoning of the revisional Court and the
revisional Court has rightly observed that merely because a
divorce is alleged to have taken place, the same would not be a
bar for the divorced wife from claiming family pension, unless
she has remarried. In the present case, no material has been

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




placed on record to show that the complainant had remarried.
Further, the decree of divorce has not been produced before
the Court.
13. In the absence of such material, and when the
complainant's status as the wife of the deceased is not in
dispute, the dispute is with regard to the claim for family
pension and the alleged creation of documents and use of such
documents as genuine, attracting Sections 462 and 471(a) of
the IPC, requires reconsideration by the trial Court.
14. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner would not press the offences punishable
under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC are concerned. To that
effect, learned counsel is at liberty to advance arguments
before the trial Court, at the stage of framing of charge, as to
whether the ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC are attracted.
15. In view of the above observations and the liberty
reserved, no ground is made out to set aside the order passed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57634
CRL.P No. 6036 of 2020

CNR: KAHC010329912020




by the revisional Court. Accordingly, the criminal petition
stands disposed of .
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


VMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16