Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Roopa B.C., filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) against her husband, Sri Tharesh, seeking monthly maintenance. The Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli, in PCR No. 316/2016, convicted the respondent and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 6 months or to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the petitioner. The respondent appealed against this order in Crl.A. No. 15003/2007 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District. The appellate court, by judgment dated 19.12.2017, set aside the conviction order. The petitioner then filed a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the appellate order. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both parties. The court noted that the appellate court had set aside the conviction without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-complainant, which is a violation of Section 29 of the D.V. Act. The High Court held that the appellate court must hear both parties before deciding the appeal. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2017, and remitted the matter back to the appellate court for fresh disposal after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides. The court directed the parties to appear before the appellate court on 04.08.2025.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Domestic Violence - Appeal - Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Opportunity of Hearing - The appellate court set aside the conviction order without hearing the complainant, which is a violation of Section 29 of the D.V. Act. The High Court held that the appellate court must provide an opportunity of hearing to both parties before deciding the appeal. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted back for fresh disposal after hearing both sides. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's order setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-complainant is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Revision petition allowed; impugned order dated 19.12.2017 set aside; matter remitted to appellate court for fresh disposal after hearing both parties; parties to appear on 04.08.2025.
Law Points
- Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 provides for appeal to Court of Session
- Appellate Court must hear both parties before setting aside conviction
- Non-compliance with Section 29 vitiates appellate order.
