In a significant legal development involving allegations of bigamy, forced miscarriage, and dowry harassment, the Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to Ravikumar H.G. alias Mohan and three of his family members. The order, delivered by Judge Smt. K.S. Jyothishree on January 27, 2023, provides a layer of legal protection to the accused family in a case that has seen nearly a decade of matrimonial litigation.
The petitioners, Ravikumar H.G. (38), his relative Savithramma (62), Ravikumar (45), and Lakshmi alias Sowbhagya (38), were seeking protection from arrest following an FIR registered at the Govindarajanagar Police Station. The case, filed under Crime No. 257/2022, includes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Background of the Matrimonial Discord
The complainant, the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner Ravikumar H.G., stated that their marriage was solemnized on February 11, 2008. According to her complaint, the early years of the marriage were marred by high dowry demands, alleging that the petitioners received 450 grams of gold at the time of the wedding.
The allegations against Ravikumar H.G., an executive who reportedly possesses knowledge of astrology and travels frequently for work, are severe. The complainant alleged that the petitioners forced her to undergo abortions on three separate occasions before she eventually gave birth to a daughter.
Furthermore, the wife claimed that the harassment escalated into physical violence involving sticks and hands, coupled with verbal abuse in filthy language. She cited receiving medical treatment at K.R. Hospital in Mysuru for injuries sustained during these assaults. Perhaps the most significant allegation is that in 2016, Ravikumar H.G. allegedly entered into a second marriage while still legally married to the complainant, subsequently neglecting her and their child entirely.
Legal Battle and Previous Litigations
The court noted that this is not the first time the parties have approached the judiciary. Since 2015, the couple has lived separately. Multiple legal fronts are already open:
- The complainant had previously moved the court for maintenance, resulting in an order for the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month.
- Ravikumar H.G. initiated G&W No. 259/2015 seeking custody of their child.
- Most recently, Ravikumar H.G. filed M.C. No. 2779/2022 seeking a formal decree of divorce.
The petitioners argued that the current criminal complaint is a retaliatory move designed to harass them and gain leverage in the ongoing divorce and custody proceedings. They maintained that petitioners No. 2 to 4 have had no involvement in the couple’s day-to-day marital life.
Prosecution’s Objection and Court’s Reasoning
The Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that the gravity of the offenses—specifically the charges of bigamy (Sec. 494), criminal intimidation (Sec. 506), and causing miscarriage without consent (Sec. 312)—warranted custodial interrogation. The state expressed concerns that the petitioners might influence or threaten the complainant if left at liberty.
However, Judge K.S. Jyothishree observed that the primary dispute is matrimonial in nature and has been ongoing for many years. The court highlighted that the husband had already initiated legal proceedings for divorce and child custody long before the current FIR was reached.
The judge remarked that the involvement of the extended family members is a matter of trial and is yet to be proven. Crucially, the court noted that the alleged offenses are not punishable by death or life imprisonment and are triable by a Magistrate. Consequently, the court found that there was no immediate necessity for the arrest of the petitioners during the investigation phase.
Final Order and Conditions of Bail
Allowing the application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the court directed the Govindarajanagar Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to the following conditions:
- Bond and Surety: Each petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000 with a surety of a like sum.
- Non-Interference: The petitioners are strictly prohibited from threatening the complainant or any other witnesses involved in the case.
This ruling ensures that while the investigation into these serious allegations continues, the accused family can participate in the legal process without the immediate threat of incarceration. The case remains one of the more complex matrimonial disputes in Bengaluru, involving a intersection of criminal law and civil family matters.