SRI K.M.MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O LATE MALLAPPA vs SMT.C.S.MALA W/O K.M.MALLIKARJUNAPPA

The respondent- wife filed a petition under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An application was filed under Section 25(2) of the said Act seeking interim maintenance. The trial court allowed the application and awarded maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge who rejected the same. Hence, the present petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive. That the petitioner husband is already making payment towards maintenance. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent disputes the same.

On hearing learned counsels, I find there is no merit in this petition. Firstly, the learned counsel is not in a position to show the impugned order passed by the trial court wherein the maintenance was awarded. He refers to the noting made by the first appellate court in its Judgment. Even there too, there is no clarity as to what is the exact amount involved. It is contended that the trial court awarded Rs.8,000/- per month which is confirmed by the appellate Court. Keeping in mind all the facts & circumstances both the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned orders. I find no good ground to interfere with the same. The petitioner husband is an Employment Officer in the District Employment Exchange. The amount awarded is nothing but maintenance to his wife and two children. It is submitted at the Bar that the payments as ordered by the trial court have not been paid. It is only a fraction of it, that has been paid. Under the circumstances, when the amount involved is maintenance of wife and two children, I find no good ground to interfere. Revision petition is dismissed.