Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 192 (KAR)

D. Rajeshwari v. Ramaiah

2023-02-01

R.NATARAJ

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed by the wife, challenging the order dtd. 28/12/2012 passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Ramangara in DVC.No.16/2008 in so far as it relates to rejection of her claim under Sec. 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2002 (henceforth referred as the Act, 2002). She has also challenged the judgment dtd. 20/9/2013 passed by I Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanagara in Crl.A.No.1/2013 by which it confirmed the order of the trial Court. 2. The petitioner initiated proceedings under Sec. 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2002 for reliefs under Ss. 18, 17, 19 20, 22 of the Act, 2002. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition in part and granted maintenance of Rs.3, 000.00 and also passed an order of injunction restraining the respondent from evicting the petitioner from the house and also restrained him from committing acts of domestic violence. However, the claim of the petitioner for compensation under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2002 was rejected, as the petitioner was found collecting the rent from the house and shops that belonged to the respondent. The trial Court also held that the petitioner did not place on record any material to substantiate her claim for a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 under Sec. 22 of the Act, 2002. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.1/2013 and the appellate Court heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. It held that the claim for compensation was not justified and that the petitioner did not establish it by acceptable evidence. It also noticed that the petitioner was collecting the rents of the building belonging to the respondent and that the petitioner did not produce any adequate material to justify the claim for compensation. The appellate Court thus dismissed the appeal in terms of its judgment order dtd. 20/9/2013. Being aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent were absent and therefore this Court in terms of the order dtd. 7/12/2022 had appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner as well as for the respondent, in view of the judgment of supreme Court in the case of MADAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent were absent and therefore this Court in terms of the order dtd. 7/12/2022 had appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner as well as for the respondent, in view of the judgment of supreme Court in the case of MADAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. RAJIV THAPAR AND ORTHERS in Crl.A.No.1150/2004 reported in 2007(7) SCC 623 . 4. Learned Amicus Curiae representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had four children from the marriage and that she had spent enormous sum of money for their education and for their upbringing. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have passed an order regarding compensation as the responsibility of raising the children was completely upon the petitioner as the respondent took no responsibility. He submitted that the trial Court ought to have gauged by human experience as to what would be the reasonable amount of compensation that has to be awarded in the case. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the petitioner admittedly was receiving the rent of the shops in the building belonging to the respondent and that she was residing in the house belonging to the respondent. He therefore, contended that unless the petitioner established that the income generated from the shops of the building was insufficient to meet the needs and necessities of the petitioner and her children, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim under Sec. 22 of Act. He therefore contended that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner as well as the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent. 6. The records of the trial Court disclose that the petitioner claimed that she had spent a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for her medical treatment and education expenses of the children and she also claimed that the respondent had deprived her for a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 which he had agreed to pay at the time of marriage of the elder daughter. In her crossexamination, she admitted that she and her children were residing in the house that belonged to the respondent. She also admitted that the marriage of the first daughter was solemnized by respondent No.1 and that her marriage was performed by all of them. In her crossexamination, she admitted that she and her children were residing in the house that belonged to the respondent. She also admitted that the marriage of the first daughter was solemnized by respondent No.1 and that her marriage was performed by all of them. Though she had claimed that she had met the expenses of the marriage, no document or no witness was examined in that regard. She did not examine Sri.Lakshminarayan from whom she allegedly raised a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 to perform the marriage of her daughter. She admitted that she led a peaceful married life with the respondent for the first 15 years. It was therefore improbable to accept the claim of the petitioner that she had spent a sum of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for her medical expenses and for education expenses of her children. It is also improbable that she had spent a sum of Rs.3, 00, 000.00 for the marriage of her eldest daughter. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have considered the material on record and have rightly returned a finding that the petitioner did not place enough material to sustain her claim for compensation. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot over turn the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court in a revision petition. Even otherwise, the evidence on record do not justify the claim of the petitioner for compensation under Sec. 22 of Act, 2002. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. The Services rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner as well the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent is appreciated and their fees is fixed at a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each payable by the Registry.