D.RAJESHWARI Vs. RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the wife, challenging the order dtd. 28/12/2012 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramangara in DVC.No.16/2008 in so far as it relates to rejection of her claim under Sec. 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2002 (henceforth referred as the Act, 2002). She has also challenged the judgment dtd. 20/9/2013 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara in Crl.A.No.1/2013 by which it confirmed the order of the trial Court.

(2.) The petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2002 for reliefs under Ss. 18, 17, 19 20, 22 of the Act, 2002. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and granted maintenance of Rs.3,000.00 and also passed an order of injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioner from the house and also restrained him from committing acts of domestic violence. However, the claim of the petitioner for compensation under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2002 was rejected, as the petitioner was found collecting the rent from the house and shops that belonged to the respondent. The trial Court also held that the petitioner did not place on record any material to substantiate her claim for a sum of Rs.3,00,000.00 under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.1/2013 and the appellate Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. It held that the claim for compensation was not justified and that the petitioner did not establish it by acceptable evidence. It also noticed that the petitioner was collecting the rents of the building belonging to the respondent and that the petitioner did not produce any adequate material to justify the claim for compensation. The appellate Court thus dismissed the appeal in terms of its judgment order dtd. 20/9/2013. Being aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent were absent and therefore this Court in terms of the order dtd. 7/12/2022 had appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner as well as for the respondent, in view of the judgment of supreme Court in the case of MADAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. RAJIV THAPAR AND ORTHERS in Crl.A.No.1150/2004 reported in 2007(7) SCC 623.