N. Shivakumar vs Tharashri @ B.A. Mangala <BR> Tharashri @ B.A. Mangala Vs Shri. N. Shivakumar

N. Ananda

The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 633/2011 is the husband. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 4412/2011 is the wife. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 4412/2011 was before the trial court seeking certain reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ''the Act''). The trial court having regard to the fact that parties have two children and they are being taken care of by the wife and considering the mental agony and other factors awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 22 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the husband was before I-appellate court in Criminal Appeal No. 75/2010. The learned Sessions Judge while confirming the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge has reduced compensation from Rs. 5,00,000/to Rs. 2,50,000/- having regard to the fact the husband had not received any dowry and taking into consideration mental torture undergone by the wife and amount required to take care of the children.

I have heard Learned Counsel for parties.

It is not in dispute that parties have fallen apart. It is not in dispute that children of parties namely Mohith Raj and Bhanupriya are being taken care of by the wife. The husband has been working as a Teacher. During the month of June, 2011 his gross salary was Rs. 15,599/- per month.

The Learned Counsel for petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 4412/2011 would submit that compensation should not have been reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-.

The Learned Counsel for petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 633/2011 would submit that the trial court should not have awarded compensation and the I-appellate court should have set aside the compensation awarded by the trial court.

Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which provides for monetary reliefs reads thus:-

Monetary reliefs.-(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,-

(a) the loss of earnings;

(b) the medical expenses;

(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force:

(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in-charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

(5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

(6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

One of the considerations for grant of compensation is the amount required for maintenance of aggrieved person. u/s 20(2) of the Act, it is stated that the monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.

It is not in dispute that the husband has been working as a Teacher and he is entitled to annual increments. As per the salary certificate produced by the wife as on 09.01.2012, gross salary of husband was Rs. 17,591/- per month. The wife has to take care of herself and her children; she has to spend for their health and education. Above all, compensation awarded to the wife and children will have to be taken into consideration while granting maintenance/permanent alimony. If the wife has already initiated proceedings or if she were to initiate proceedings for maintenance/permanent alimony, the husband after paying the amount in terms of the impugned order can plead such payment as an extenuating factor in such proceeding.

The contention of the wife that the I-appellate court should not have reduced compensation is not tenable as the I-appellate court has assigned valid reasons to reduce the compensation.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion the order made by I-appellate court does not call for interference. In the result, I pass the following: -

ORDER

Criminal Petition No. 633/2011 and Criminal Petition No. 4412/2011 are dismissed.