Sumalatha @ Kusuma vs Harishcharda Alva and Divakara Alva

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner/wife is before this Court challenging the order dated 3.4.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 18/2010 by the XI Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, dismissing her appeal filed seeking for enhancement of the maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m. and compensation of Rs. 6,000/- granted by JMFC, Buntwal, in M.C. No. 258/2007 by order dated 15.1.2010. The petitioner/wife filed petition u/s. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before the Learned Magistrate praying to direct the respondents, who are her husband and father-in-law to pay monetary relief. of Rs. 5000/- p.m. and compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is her case that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and their marriage had been performed on 19.12.2001 at Puttur Darbe Pushpanjali Kalamandir. At the time of marriage parents of the petitioner had given a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- in cash to the respondents and 10 pavan gold jewellery to her. After the marriage for some time she led a cordial marital life along with the accused in her marital home. Thereafter differences arose on account of demand for dowry for which she was subjected to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically. It is her further case apart from ill-treating her the respondents did not provide her the basic amenities of life inasmuch as food, shelter and clothing. The respondents are well placed and have sufficient means to maintain her. She has no other source of income to maintain herself. It was specifically contended the respondents own agricultural lands in which Areca trees and Coconut trees are standing. She also contended that the second respondent is working in a Shamiyana shop. Her husband is having sufficient income from his avocation as Beedi Roller. Therefore, she sought for the relief from the learned Magistrate.

The said application was opposed by the respondents. They contended that they have not neglected to maintain the petitioner. She on her own has deserted them. They further contended they do not have sufficient income as claimed by the petitioner to pay separate maintenance to her. The second respondent contended that he is working as a coolie in a Shamiyana Shop. The income that he derives. from his work is sufficient to sustain himself. They do not have any income from the agricultural lands owned by them. Therefore, they contended the petition be dismissed.

At the trial the petitioner got. herself examined as PW1 and one more witness as PW2, produced seven documents which came to be marked as exhibits P1 to P7. The respondents in support of their case got examined themselves as RWs 1 and 2, produced 11 documents which came to be marked as R1 to R11.

The learned Trial Magistrate on going through the evidence and the documents on record came to the conclusion that the wife has been deserted and neglected to be maintained by the respondents. Further on the basis of the material on record it held that she is entitled to maintenance and also compensation. Accordingly, it awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- p.m. as maintenance and Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to her.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance and compensation awarded, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 18/2010 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the respective parties and on going through the records called for in the case dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Judge.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders impugned by not granting sufficient quantum of maintenance and compensation as prayed for by her is in revision before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends the courts below have erred in not appreciating the documents that are placed on record by the petitioner to show that the respondents have got sufficient means to pay maintenance to her. He further contended the admission of the respondents would clearly go to show they have sufficient income from the agricultural lands. The admission made by the respondents has been grossly ignored by the courts below. In view of the fact that the respondents apart from their own earning have also income from agricultural lands, the petitioner/wife is. entitled to more amount of maintenance and also compensation than what has been awarded to her by the trial Judge and confirmed in appeal. Therefore, he prays that the revision be allowed, the maintenance amount and the compensation awarded in the case to her be enhanced as prayed for by her in the petition.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended at the outset the respondents are prepared to take back the petitioner and maintain her. He further contended the petitioner is getting sufficient income through her parents. The income earned by these respondents is not sufficient even to sustain themselves. The Courts below on an appreciation of the entire material on record have come to the right conclusion that the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- and compensation of Rs. 6,000/- is just amount to be awarded to the petitioner and the same does not call for any enhancement. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

The jural relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is not disputed. The first respondent has admitted that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife. If that is so, it is incumbent upon him to maintain her and provide her basic amenities which is required for a lady to sustain herself. The impugned order discloses that the learned trial Judge has awarded only Rs. 500/- as maintenance to the petitioner and compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. In these hard days a sum of Rs. 500/- p.m. to maintain herself is too meager. The learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have missed the practical aspects of life which a lady has to lead in the present day Society. The respondents in their evidence have admitted that they own agricultural lands on which Areca trees and also Coconut trees are standing. It is also admitted by them that the first respondent/husband is a Beedi Roller by avocation. Being a Beedi Roller his income cannot be less than Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 8,000/- p.m. This figure could be arrived taking the first respondent to be an ordinary coolie who would earn Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- per day having regard to his age of 29 years as on the date he has tendered evidence before the Trial Court. If that is so, the maintenance awarded to the petitioner/wife is too meager as pointed out above. In view of the fact that they also own") agricultural lands in which Areca trees and Coconut trees are standing, it would go to show they have additional income from these lands. Apart from the same as already indicated by working as a Beedi Roller and in Shamiyana Shop, they are getting sufficient income. Therefore, the petitioner/wife is entitled to enhancement of maintenance amount per month and also compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances the petitioner in my view is entitled to monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:--

i) Criminal Revision petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned orders of the Courts below are set aside.

iii) The petitioner/wife is awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. which amount shall be paid by the respondents from the date of petition till today and thereafter to continue to pay the said amount on or before 10th of every month. In addition they shall also pay compensation amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner/wife.