ORDER : Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner-husband is before this Court assailing the order dated 3/3/2016 passed in Crl.Misc.No.66/2013 by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kudligi, (for short ‘the Trial Court’), allowing the petition in part and directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-to the wife, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5050/2016 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary sitting at Hospet, (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), vide judgment dated 6/8/2019 by dismissing the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein is the wife and the revision petitioner is the husband. The wife filed Crl.Mis.66/2013 against the husband seeking monthly maintenance by filing a petition under Sections 43, 9(B) and 32(2)(C) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’ for the sake of brevity). 4. It is the contention of the wife before the Trial Court that she had married the revision petitioner herein on 8/5/2011 in Birapura village and at the time of marriage, the husband had demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. After marriage, she started residing in her matrimonial house. The husband was working as Principal in the Government Pre-University college at Chornur, Sandur taluk. Both the parties have shifted their residence to Davangere, and resided there for six months. Thereafter, again they shifted their residence to Kudligi and the husband used to travel from Kudligi to Chornuru. In the meantime, the wife conceived but the husband got it aborted. It is alleged that the husband used to treat the wife with cruelty as he was having illicit relationship with another lady. Several panchayaths were held in this regard. Even then the husband was not ready and willing to heed to the advice of the elders. It is stated that the husband was drawing salary of Rs.50,000/-p.m. but still he was not providing basic necessities to the wife. Therefore, she sought for direction to pay maintenance from the husband. 5. The husband appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the claim of the wife. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. All other averments made by the wife were denied by the husband. Therefore, she sought for direction to pay maintenance from the husband. 5. The husband appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the claim of the wife. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. All other averments made by the wife were denied by the husband. It is contended that the wife is having doubtful nature and she used to suspect the character of the husband. It was the wife who used to assault the husband and treat him with cruelty. The husband but could not tolerate the misbehaviour of the wife and got issued legal notice on 27/12/2012 seeking divorce. The wife without issuing any reply started to pick up quarrel with the husband and abused him in filthy language in the public place. Therefore, the husband filed MC No.23/2013 before the Family Court at Dharwad seeking divorce. It is stated that husband has paid Rs.5,000/-on 12/3/2013 and Rs.8,000/- on 24/4/2013. Therefore, the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 7 in support of her contention. The husband examined himself as RW1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the husband is liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of maintenance, the wife preferred Crl.A.No.5035/2010 whereas the husband challenged the order by preferring Crl.A.No.5050/2016. The Appellate Court considered the contentions of the parties in both the appeals and dismissed Crl.A.No.5050/2016, while allowing Crl.A.No.5035/2016 and directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife. The husband is before this Court being aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.A.No.5050/2016 by preferring Crl.RP.No.100307/2019 and Crl.RP.No.100308/2019 against allowing Crl.A.No.5035/2016. 8. Heard Sri. Neelendra Gunde, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Aruna R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 9. The learned counsel representing the revision petitioner filed no instruction memo stating that even though he had issued notice to the revision petitioner husband and even though the said notice was served on him, there is no instructions from the petitioner. He was permitted to retire and Sri. Neelendra Gunde is appointed to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie on behalf of the revision petitioner. 10. He was permitted to retire and Sri. Neelendra Gunde is appointed to assist the Court as an Amicus Curie on behalf of the revision petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The wife was treating the husband with cruelty and they were living separately since December 2012. It is stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 8/5/2011 and within one and half hears, they could not pull on together. No children are born in the wedlock. The husband is earning meager amount as he was working as Principal in the Government PU College. He also filed MC No.23/2013 seeking divorce. The impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court directing payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/-and judgment passed by the Appellate court dismissing his Criminal appeal and allowing the criminal appeal filed by the wife enhancing monthly maintenance from Rs.7,000/-to 15,000/-is without any basis and therefore, prays for allowing both the criminal petitions and to rejected the claim made by the wife. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent wife resisted the claim of the husband contending that even though the marriage had taken place on 8/5/2011, since then husband was treating her with cruelty. The husband is working as Principal in Government PU College and was drawing salary of Rs.42,000/-during 2013. During the course of cross examination of her husband, who was examined as RW1 before the Trial Court he admitted that he was drawing Rs.55,000/-. The learned counsel submitted that the husband being the Principal of the Government PU college is now drawing more than Rs.60,000/-. Under such circumstances, the maintenance awarded by the Appellate Court at Rs.15,000/- p.m. is reasonable and there is no reason to interfere with the same. She further drew my attention to the order sheet dated 7/10/2020 and submitted that this Court has observed that there is arrears of maintenance of Rs.8,15,000/-as on 18/9/2020 and directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-within a period of two weeks. But there is no compliance of the said direction. Learned counsel submitted that husband is paying a meager amount now and then and the same is not sufficient to maintain the wife. Hence, she prays for rejection of both the petitions as devoid of merits. 12. But there is no compliance of the said direction. Learned counsel submitted that husband is paying a meager amount now and then and the same is not sufficient to maintain the wife. Hence, she prays for rejection of both the petitions as devoid of merits. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration are as under:- 1. Whether Crl.RP.No.100307/2019 is to be allowed? 2. Whether Crl.RP.No.100308/2019 is liable to be allowed?” My answer to the above points are in the ‘Negative’ for the following : REASONS 13. The relationship between the parties as husband and wife is not in dispute. Their marriage had taken place on 8/5/2011. It is stated that from December 2012, the parties are residing separately. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that MC No.23/2013 filed for divorce by the husband is still pending for consideration. There is nothing on record to show that the husband is making any payment to the wife towards maintenance. Admittedly, the wife is not employed and there is no earning for her livelihood. When the relationship is admitted, it is the duty of the revision petitioner to maintain her by paying reasonable amount as maintenance. The conduct of the revision petitioner in not paying any amount towards maintenance and not even complying with the direction of Court vide order dated 7/10/2020 to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-within a period of three weeks towards arrears of maintenance is also to be taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that the husband is working as Principal in Government PU College, Chornur. During cross examination, the revision petitioner categorically stated that he is earning Rs.55,000/-as salary i.e. during January 2016. Under such circumstances, the amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Appellate Court towards maintenance of the wife is quite reasonable and there is absolutely no justification for denying the legitimate claim of the wife towards her maintenance. 14. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned common judgment passed by the Trial Court or the common judgment passed by the Appellate Court. In view of the above, I answer the above points in the ‘Negative’. Both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and they are accordingly dismissed.