_ 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4"' DAY OF AUGUST. 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B ;_. I
CRIMINAL PETITION No.629g2o.1p'_"-..VV.
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Kempe gowda
S/0 Mari Gowda
Aged about 28 years
R/at No.54, 9th Main .
Nagendra Block " . _
Bangalore ---- 560 050." ' '
2. Smt.Puttam1f:ia
W/0 Era}_;a1iia»h " ' V I
Aged abou'i_36"'3rears-..
R/at No.54;i53Q, '9?' Main Road
Nagendra Block I ~ I '
Bangaiore -- 550 -.050: ....PETI'I'IO1\EERS
" {B§f"SfiLIDayananda, Adv.)
I ' . . . . . .. 'V
Cfiaifrat 4VP~uftamada1nma
W/'0 K,.eImj5e L}Qw*d'a
Aged about 25 years
R/at: Iooyara'Go11ahal1i Post
~ .. , Thagadegowrdana Doddi
_ I' V Ifiaidnanagaram District
I' I{aaakétpuraTa1uk. ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri.G.1\/Iuniswamappa, Adv.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED "DO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2010 OF ISSUING T71-IE ¥'ROCESS
AGAINST THE ¥'E'I'I'I'IONERS AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
-2"
MISC.NO.1/2010 PENDING BEFORE C.J. & JMFC
KANAKAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
[JR.DN.}
THIS PETiTION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS naéfras
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: .
ORDER
Petitioners have called in questionptheltlprlocecedirigsb. in
Crl.Misc.No.i/2010 on the file of JMFC’;.bKa-naiiaplura. ‘
2. Respondent claiming to wife of :t’1″lQ:.v-1St.’:”p€tVIt1’0I1€1′
filed Criminal Miscellaneous..gnde’r”Seetion”-12 of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence
3. Learned for that, as on
the date of filing tliewcomplainant and the
pefitionersa_hlaye_A a:ndl.._subseoluently their marriage was
aiso dissolved the By virtue of decree dated
19.6.2009 .. marriage”bet\is}een the petitioner No.1 and the
:,t:’complaiSnant”ihas been dissolved.
for the respondent complainant
subrnits”tha’t:, respondent was not aware of the decree passed.
came to” know only after the notice issued in this petition
subrnits that, the said decree has been called in question.
5. Fact that the divorce decree has been passed is not in
dispute. It is also not the case of the complainant that she is
claiming in any other capacity other than the wife. Since there is