LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru:  B. Venkatesha, LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, dismissed an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act finding that the petitioner wife had proved the factum of domestic violence.

Appellant had filed the present appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 challenging the order passed on the file of Court of M.M.T.C.-2, Bengaluru.


Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contending that she was the aggrieved person and sought protection, residence and monetary reliefs as per Section 18 to 20 of PWDV Act. She had sought for grant of the protection order and that respondents 1 and 2 must not cause violence, other relatives or any person who gave assistance from Domestic Violence.

Respondent 1 had preferred present appeal contending that the trial court erred in believing the allegation of bigamy, terming emotional abuse caused on the petitioner by him by saying that it is nothing but domestic violence.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench stated that it was clearly shown that respondent 1 married another lady that caused emotional abuse to the petitioner. The facts made it clear that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence within the purview of Section 3 of the Protection of Women in Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Further, with regard to the grant of other reliefs, the trial court opined that as per the cross-examination version of respondent, he was getting Rs 94,000 gross salary during June 2018. Petitioner was getting sufficient income from Pottery Business.

Mere becoming a graduate or having any decree is not sufficient.

Due to petitioner’s age factor, she could not get a suitable job for her qualification. Respondent did not even dispute the marriage.

By taking into consideration the maintenance order and income of respondent, Court directed respondent to pay Rs 20,000 along with Rs 3,00,000 for mental agony suffered.

Bench while elaborating further, added that it was not in dispute that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of R1. There was no dispute that the petitioner had a domestic relationship with the respondents 1 soon after her marriage till the year 1996.

There was no dispute that there exists matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent 1.

It was clear that the petitioner was residing in a shared household though she was residing separately in a house that belonged to R1, and R1 has no evidence to show that the petitioner was working as a teacher as alleged by him. Since she was aged 50 years, possibility of getting jobs at that age was remote.


View of the trial court that the petitioner had proved that R1 subjected to domestic violence could not be interfered.

Court found the appeal to be devoid of merits.

Hence, appeal filed by the appellant under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed. [H.K Sreenivas v. C. Jayaanthi, Crl. A. No. 588 of 2020, decided on 4-10-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

For the appellant: Party in person

For the respondent: K. Shridara, Advocate

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.