PRECELINE GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision is by the respondent in a proceeding under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short 'the Act') on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Ernakulam. The petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings, the 2nd respondent herein, claimed various reliefs under the aforesaid Act, alleging that the revision petitioner, a doctor by profession, who married her on 07/06/2009, committed domestic violence on various counts entitling her to the reliefs canvassed. All the reliefs claimed by her in the petition, except the claim for maintenance were turned down by the learned magistrate. The claim for maintenance raised by her was allowed in part, directing the revision petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of the petition. The order of the magistrate awarding maintenance as aforesaid was challenged in appeal, but that was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc - II), Ernakulam. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent in the MC proceedings has preferred this revision.

(2.) Notice given, petitioner / claimant in the MC has entered appearance. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the revision petitioner and the claimant. I heard the counsel on both sides.

(3.) The order passed in favour of the claimant awarding her maintenance at the rate as fixed above by the magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal is assailed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as unsustainable in law and facts. There are no specific pleadings in the petition filed under S.12 of the Act by the claimant as regards the monetary claim raised towards maintenance, which had been allowed by the two Courts below, is the submission of the counsel, stressing upon that Form II provided under the Rules of the aforesaid Act mandate of furnishing of specific particulars of the monetary claims. If only such particulars are furnished, then alone, the opposite party can meet the claims raised thereof, and otherwise it would cause prejudice to him, is the submission of the counsel to contend that allowing of the claim for maintenance without there being specific particulars furnished in the application has resulted in serious prejudice to the revision petitioner and also miscarriage of justice. It is further contended by the counsel that where the imputations and allegations made as regards 'domestic violence' against the revision petitioner to seek prohibitory and protective orders and also compensation as enjoined by the Act, had been turned down by both the Courts, the awarding of maintenance, a monetary claim, in favour of the claimant was patently improper and cannot be sustained at all. Even in her petition, the claimant has stated that she is a teacher and when that be so she could be reasonably expected to get sufficient income from her vocation and, thus, disentitled to claim any maintenance from the revision petitioner, is the submission of the counsel, to contend that both the Courts below have not examined the claim for maintenance despite such a specific admission made as to her employment as aforesaid. Interim maintenance awarded in the proceedings ex parte had been reversed by this Court upholding the challenge raised thereto by the revision petitioner by way of a writ petition is also highlighted by the counsel among other grounds as aforesaid to contend that there was total misappreciation of the facts and circumstances by the both the Courts below in awarding maintenance to the claimant.