N. SATISHKUMAR Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the revision petitioner. This is not a first time this petition has been left without any representation on behalf of the revision petitioner. Hence, this court deems it fit to pass an order after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and upon perusing the records.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent. 2nd respondent minor Petchi is their daughter. Alleging failure to maintain them and commission of domestic violation, proceedings were initiated on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar in Crl.M.P.No.2110 of 2009 under section 20 r/w section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Even before the said court, the present revision petitioner did not appear and contest the matter, as a result of which proceedings were conducted ex-parte and an order came to be passed on 22.01.2010 directing the revision petitioner herein to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500.00 per month and at Rs.1,000.00 per month respectively to the first respondent herein and the 2nd respondent herein, from the date of filing of the said petition and also directing the revision petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 as compensation under section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 together with a sum of Rs.2,000.00 as litigation costs.

(3.) THIS court, after perusing the judgments of both the courts below, comes to the conclusion that there is no defect or infirmity in the finding of the trial court holding the revision petitioner to have committed a domestic violence and upholding the plea made by the respondents for an order directing payment of maintenance and also compensation. The amount fixed by the trial court as monthly maintenance for the first respondent was only Rs.1,500.00. However on appeal, the same was reduced to Rs.1000.00. The same cannot be construed to be either unreasonable or excessive. Clear evidence has been adduced to the effect that the revision petitioner refused to take the first respondent along with him, when he would go out, stating that she was ugly and that she was not fit to accompany him. Evidence has also been adduced to the effect that harassment was also caused by causing a threat to set her on fire and that thus the first respondent suffered ill-treatment affecting her health, both physically and mentally. The courts below, on proper appreciation of the averments and evidence, arrived at the conclusion that the revision petitioner had committed a domestic violence and that both the respondents were entitled to monthly maintenance and the first respondent was entitled to compensation for the mental agony caused. Though the trial court would have fixed the compensation at Rs.2,00,000.00, the learned appellate Judge has reduced it to Rs.1,00,000.00 which amount cannot be stated to be either exorbitant or unreasonable.