Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 125 (KAR)

R. Satish Kumar v. Raghaveni

2016-02-03

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2016
ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in regard to the admission of the matter. The present petition is filed under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, insofar as it relates to the judgment passed by the Trial Court -MMTC, Bengaluru under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Trial Court had ordered petitioner 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as monthly maintenance to his wife Smt. Raghaveni-respondent herein and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- each to her sons as maintenance apart from a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid as compensation. This order dated 1-9-2014 was called in question before the First Appellate Court in Cri. Appeal No. 1137 of 2014 under Section 29 of the above said Act. 2. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, after perusing the records and hearing the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties, has allowed the appeal in part and reduced the compensation payable to Raghaveni from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance. What is argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, no documentary evidence is made available to assess the maintenance to be paid and therefore, the Court has committed serious illegality. 3. Perused the impugned judgment of the Trial Court passed in Cri. M.C. No. 38 of 2013. At paragraph 13 of the judgment, useful admissions elicited from the mouth of petitioner 1 in regard to the houses let out under mortgage/lease have been referred. Even if the evidence is hazy and same will have to be assessed on the touchstone preponderance of probabilities keeping in mind the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Pande and Others v Collector, Raigarh AIR 1969 SC 255 . 4. While reassessing the entire evidence placed on record, the First Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the materials placed on record and has passed a detailed order giving cogent reasons as to why maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- will have to be reduced into Rs. 7,000/-. No glaring illegality is found in the approach of the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court to invoke the provisions of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision petition is unfit to be admitted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.