ORDER : Budihal R.B., J. Though this matter is listed for admission, but with the consent both sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner/husband, who is respondent No. 1 before the trial Court, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.202/2011 and also challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, in Cr.L.A.No.349/2012. 3. The respondent/wife, who is the petitioner before the trial Court, filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005, praying for protection order, monetary reliefs, compensation and to direct the respondents therein to return the gold ornaments of the petitioner therein/wife. 4. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court are that petitioner therein is the wife of the respondent therein. At the time of marriage, there was demand for dowry of Rs. 100 Lakhs, gold ornaments of Rs. 3,60,000/- and household articles and also the parents of the petitioner therein spent more than Rs. 7.00 Lakhs towards the marriage expenses of the petitioner therein. In the wedlock, a son is born by name Sanjay Kumar to the couple. It is also her contention that after the birth of said son, respondent No. 1 therein started harassing her and he has cultivated bad habits like smoking, consuming alcohol and coming home under the influence of alcohol and he used to assault her physically. In spite of the advise, he has not discontinued his habits. Hence, on these grounds petitioner therein/wife has approached the trial Court for the said reliefs. By filing the objection statement, the respondent No. 1 therein/husband has denied the entire allegations made against him; ultimately after considering the merits of the case, the trial Court disposed of the petition directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner therein/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor child, till he attains majority. It is also directed that the petitioner herein/husband has to look after the educational expenses of his son till he attains majority, so also awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be payable by respondent No. 1 therein/husband to the petitioner therein/wife within one month from the date of said order. 5. It is also directed that the petitioner herein/husband has to look after the educational expenses of his son till he attains majority, so also awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be payable by respondent No. 1 therein/husband to the petitioner therein/wife within one month from the date of said order. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, petitioner/husband has filed appeal in Crl.A.349/2002 and respondent/wife preferred an appeal in Crl.A. 352/2012 before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court passed the common judgment insofar as appeals preferred by the husband and wife; Cri.A.No.349/2002 preferred by the husband was allowed in part with little modification that it has reduced the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000,/- and the confirmed the rest of the judgment and order of the trial Court and Crl.A.352/2012 preferred by the wife has been dismissed. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband and also the learned counsel for respondent/wife. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband during the course of his arguments has submitted that petitioner is doing the Coolie work and is not having sufficient source of income to pay the maintenance amount awarded by the Courts below. It is his contention that the maintenance amount awarded by the Courts below is on the higher side, even though he has placed the materials before the Courts below, same were not properly appreciated and in spite of that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court awarded the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the wife and Rs. 1,000/- to the minor child. Hence, he has submitted that, the matter requires consideration in this petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, whatever the amount awarded by the Courts below is reasonable and proper and hence, no interference by this Court is necessary in this petition. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no merit in this petition and same is to be dismissed. 9. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. 10. Both the Courts below while fixing maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no merit in this petition and same is to be dismissed. 9. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. 10. Both the Courts below while fixing maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the minor son have taken into consideration the available materials placed on record and they have rightly came to the conclusion in awarding the said maintenance amount. Therefore, the petitioner/husband has not made out the case that there is any grave illegality committed by the Courts below in coming to said conclusion. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. No grounds are made out to interfere, either to set-aside or to modify, the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, petition is hereby dismissed.