VENKATESHA Vs. LAKSHMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order dtd. 10/7/2015 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadradavthi in C.Misc.No.1/2012 awarding a sum of Rs.3,000.00 as maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment dtd. 26/9/2018 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, sitting at Bhadravathi in Crl.A.No.5027/2016, by which, the order of the trial Court was confirmed.

(2.) The respondent submitted a complaint before the Protection Officer under the Protection of Women from Demotic Violation Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2005' for short) for a protection order under Sec. 18 and for monetary reliefs under Sec. 20 of the Act, 2005. The respondent claimed that she was given in marriage to the petitioner and that they had 2 daughters and a son from the marriage. She alleged that the petitioner did not make any arrangement for her maintenance and maintenance of her children. She claimed that the petitioner had developed an illicit relationship with a lady named Anjamma and that he had totally neglected to maintain respondent and her children. She claimed that the petitioner was a sweeper in the City Municipal Corporation and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000.00 to Rs.20,000.00 per month. She therefore sought for an order for maintenance from the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the petition and claimed that he was no way concerned with the respondent. He claimed that he had married Anjamma and that he had a daughter from the said marriage. He claimed that during the year 2003-2006, he was suffering from mental disorder and was availing medical facilities at Andhra Pradesh. He claimed that during his stay at Andhra Pradesh, the respondent had trespassed into the house and started residing there and claimed the status of wife. He contended that the respondent was not his wife and was attempting to exploit the situation laying a claim to his income. He contended that his salary was only a sum of Rs.1,951.00 and that he had to maintain his wife-Smt.Anjamma and their daughter. Based on these contentions, the trial Court set down the case for trial. The respondent was examined as PW.1 and she marked Exs.P1 to P18. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and a witness was examined as RW.2 and they marked Ex.R1.

(3.) Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the respondent had established that she was the wife of the petitioner and therefore, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000.00 per month as maintenance to the respondent and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as compensation under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.5027/2016, which was dismissed.