AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Jagannathan
Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.V. Narasimhan for the petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 471/09 and also in Crl. R.P. No. 59/09 for the respondent. None appears for the respondent in Crl.R.P.No.471/09 and for the petitioner in Crl. R.P. No. 59/09.
The aforesaid petitions arise out of one and the same judgment of the lower appellate court in Crl.A.No. 143/08. The order passed by the trial court in Crl. Mis. No. 393/07 on the petition filed by the wife u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, was modified by the lower appellate court insofar as the compensation amount is concerned and in respect of the relief of residence, the lower appellate court directed the husband to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month towards the rent. Aggrieved by the modification of the trial court''s order by the appellate court, both the parties are before this court in these petitions.
Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Narasimhan for the wife submitted that the lower appellate court could not have reduced the compensation amount from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 15.000/- and secondly, the amount awarded towards the rent is on the lower side and considering the status of the respondent-husband who works as an Inspector in the Excise Department at My sore, the wife could have been awarded a higher amount as far as rent is concerned.
Having thus heard the learned counsel for the wife and after going through the orders passed by the courts below, the lower appellate court has given valid reasons for reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 36,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- and has given sufficient reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the amount of compensation given by the trial court is on the higher side and after reducing the amount to Rs. 15,000/-, the lower appellate court has also taken note of the fact that, between the parties, cases are pending at Hassan Court in respect of maintenance and divorce and therefore the trial court could not have awarded heavy amount under such circumstances. Therefore, I do not see any error on the part of the lower appellate court in reducing the compensation amount to Rs. 15,000/-
As far as the residence is concerned, learned Judge of the lower appellate court has observed that the wife is residing at her parents house and therefore the court thought of awarding Rs. 1,000/- per month towards the rent. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the wife that the wife is entitled to a higher sum taking into account the status of the husband who works in Excise Department as an Inspector at My sore and also taking note of the cost of living, the said amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month can be increased to Rs. 2,000/- per month.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition filed by the wife i.e., Crl. R.P. No. 471/09 is partly allowed and the one filed by the husband is rejected.