G. JAGADISH BABU Vs. DIVYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is preferred by the petitioner-husband against respondent No. 1-wife and also against respondents 2 & 3 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.7.2011 passed in Crl.A. No. 533/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court (Sessions)-XI, Bangalore, wherein the appeal of the revision petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the order dated 24.6.2010 passed by the VII ACMM, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.750/2009.

(2.) The revision petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders of Courts below on the grounds that they are illegal, improper and unsustainable in law; Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective which resulted in miscarriage of justice; Courts below have grossly erred in not noticing the fact that the 1st respondent has been living separately from the conjugal company of petitioner from April 2007 and as such, there could not have been any occasion for the 1st respondent to suffer mental depression or agony so as to be compensated by pecuniary measures. The trial Court ignoring hard and ground realities had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to the 1st respondent for the alleged mental depression forgetting the respondent had been living in adulterous life with the 2nd respondent. The Courts below have also grossly erred in ignoring the fact that the 1st respondent who has been living separately from April 2007 made up her mind to tap the doors of the trial Court after long lapse of time only with a view to make wrongful gain for herself and cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. The Courts below have grossly erred in not noticing the fact that complaint allegations and the reliefs claimed by the 1st respondent would show that the 1st respondent has been making endeavour to snatch as much as possible from the petitioner. Courts below have not taken into consideration the status of parties, financial stability of the petitioner and reasonable requirements of the 1st respondent and simply directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. The Courts below have lost sight of the fact that there was no contra evidence placed on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has given a cake walk to the 1st respondent. The learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated the evidence on record with a pinch of salt. The approach of the Courts below is highly erroneous and same are based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, sought to allow the petition.

(3.) The 1st respondent-wife filed the petition before the trial Court under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 against the revision petitioner-husband herein seeking protection and to restrain the husband from committing any act of domestic violence on her and also seeking monthly maintenance and also compensation from the husband. The revision petitioner husband opposed the said petition by filing objection statement denying the allegations made in the petition. Then the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded by the trial Court and after hearing the arguments, ultimately, trial Court has allowed the petition in part and passed the order restraining the revision petitioner-husband from committing any kind of domestic violence on the wife and granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the wife, so also, awarded compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs.