-. ORDER : 1. As both the Criminal Revision Cases would arise from one Judgment, and the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.R.C.No.1744 of 2008 under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed on behalf of the petitioner/husband and another Crl.R.C.No.1894 of 2008 is filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife assailing the Judgment dated 30.09.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.25 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru (for short "1st Appellate Court") whereby the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the relief granted in vide No.2 at Para-7 i.e. the appellant-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation within three months from the date of order to the 1st respondent-wife vide order dated 18.01.2008 in D.V.C. No.14 of 2007 passed by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (Excise), Eluru (for short "the trial Court"). 3. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the petitioner/wife in D.V.C., in brief, is as follows: The petitioner, Tadepalli Lavanya, married the 1st respondent, Tadepalli Issac Kumar, on 11.08.2006 at the RCM Church in Kantamanenivarigudem, following Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage, her parents gave a dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and a Hero Honda motorcycle. She joined the respondent's household with items worth Rs.50,000/-. After moving to Eluru, the petitioner discovered that the 1st respondent was involved in an extramarital relationship with one Natta Prajna and was addicted to various vices. He often returned home late at night, harassed her, and demanded additional dowry, allegedly instigated by his aunt, Tadepalli Manikyam (3rd respondent). A compromise was attempted through the elders on 08.01.2007, and she 4 rejoined the respondent. However, his behaviour remained abusive, both physically and mentally. On 13.09.2007, in a drunken state, he pressured her to consume alcohol and attempted to kill her when she resisted. She escaped and sought refuge at her elder brother Nallamilli Srinivas's home. Following consultation with her family, she lodged a police complaint. 5. The respondents filed a counter, denying all allegations except the fact of the marriage. On 13.09.2007, in a drunken state, he pressured her to consume alcohol and attempted to kill her when she resisted. She escaped and sought refuge at her elder brother Nallamilli Srinivas's home. Following consultation with her family, she lodged a police complaint. 5. The respondents filed a counter, denying all allegations except the fact of the marriage. They stated that the petitioner lived with the 1st respondent at the 3rd respondent's house for only one month before leaving for her parental home under the pretext of collecting saree saman, and never returned. Despite several mediation efforts, both personally and through mediators, the petitioner refused to rejoin the 1st respondent. The respondents claim the present case is false and baseless. 6. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner/wife was examined as P.W.1 and marked as Exs.P1 to P9. The 1st respondent/husband was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf. 7. The trial Court on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the petition vide order dated 18.01.2008 in D.V.C. No.14 of 2007 wherein the following reliefs have been granted i.e., (1) prohibiting the 1st respondent from committing an act of domestic violence under Section 18(a) of D.V.C. Act; (2) the 1st respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, within five months in lump sum as per section 22 of the Act and (3) the 1st respondent was directed to hand over the household articles and the vehicle given towards her marriage to petitioner within one week under Section 19(2) & (8) of the Act. 8. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the unsuccessful 1st respondent/husband filed Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2008 before the 1st Appellate Court and the 1st Appellate Court partly allowed the Criminal Appeal and modified the relief granted by the trial Court vide No.2 at Para-7 was set aside and the appellant-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- 5 instead of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation within three months from the date of the order to the 1st respondent-wife and the other reliefs granted by the trial Court holds good. 9. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid Judgment, the appellant/husband, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1744 of 2008 and the 1st respondent/wife, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1894 of 2008, preferred these Revisions. 10. 9. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid Judgment, the appellant/husband, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1744 of 2008 and the 1st respondent/wife, who is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1894 of 2008, preferred these Revisions. 10. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the Judgment, dated 30.09.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2008, on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, is sustainable in law and facts in terms of legality, regularity or propriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? 11. Sri B.V.S.S. Balakrishna Ranjith, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband in Crl.R.C. No.1744 of 2008, submits that the 1st appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal only in part, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and violation of natural justice principles. He argues that the trial court failed to consider the admitted fact that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent lived together for barely three months. The 2nd respondent produced no material evidence to support her claim regarding payment of dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs, and giving of Hero Honda motorcycle, and other household items at the time of marriage. He further contends that the appellate Court overlooked the fact that the trial court had passed orders under Sections 18(a) and 18(b) of the Domestic Violence Act not only against the petitioner but also against four others, including three women, to whom these provisions do not apply. He asserts that the appellate Court should have noted that the 2nd respondent left the petitioner's home within a short span of marital life, and the allegations against the petitioner are implausible within such a limited period. 12. Sri I.V.N. Raju, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/wife in Crl.R.C. No.1894 of 2008, submits that the 1st appellate Court erred in partly setting aside the well-reasoned order of the trial court. He contends that the 6 appellate Court's interpretation of the trial court's order is incorrect, illegal, and improper, and that it committed a manifest error in curtailing the relief granted. He further argues that the appellate Court's flawed Judgment has caused substantial injustice to the petitioner, affecting her financial stability. 13. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. He further argues that the appellate Court's flawed Judgment has caused substantial injustice to the petitioner, affecting her financial stability. 13. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand, (2004) 7 SCC 659 that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well 1st Appellate Court.” 14. The Apex Court in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 held that: 9. ....if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re-appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. The higher Court does not sit as a regular court of appeal. Its function is to ensure that law is being properly administered. Such a court cannot embark upon fruitless task of determining the issues by reappreciating the evidence. 10. This Court would not ordinarily interfere with the concurrent findings on pure questions of fact and review the evidence again unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the normal practice. 8. ....The position may undoubtedly be different if interference is one of law from [the] facts admitted and proved or where the finding of fact is materially affected by violation of any rule of law or procedure." 15. The aforesaid view was further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill vs. The State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 3283 thus: "8. ....The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'CrPC') vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings." 16. As evident from the record, while passing orders in D.V.C. No. 14 of 2007, the learned Magistrate granted a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner/wife. The learned Magistrate also granted certain other reliefs, addressing all the claims raised in D.V.C. No. 14 of 2007. 17. The respondent/husband preferred Crl.A. No. 25 of 2008 before the Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal, directing the appellant to pay a reduced compensation of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to be paid within three months. The other reliefs granted by the trial Court were upheld by the first appellate Court. 18. The husband filed Crl.R.C. No. 1744 of 2008, challenging the reliefs granted by the first appellate Court, particularly the order reducing the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and affirming the other reliefs. According to the revision petitioner (husband), he is not liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/-, and the other reliefs granted by the Court are also liable to be set aside. Conversely, the contention of the wife, who filed Crl.R.C. No. 1894 of 2008, is that the first appellate Court erred in reducing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. 19. Insofar as the other reliefs are concerned, both the trial Court and the appellate Court have rendered concurrent findings. Upon perusal of the orders passed by both Courts, it is evident that the reliefs were granted after due consideration of the material on record and on proper appreciation of the evidence produced. I find no illegality or procedural irregularity in the orders. 20. With regard to the relief of compensation, a controversy exists. The trial Court awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, a reading of the order does not reflect that the financial capacity of the petitioner was taken into account when fixing this amount. The trial Court, in its order at Paragraph 6, noted as follows: “6. 20. With regard to the relief of compensation, a controversy exists. The trial Court awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, a reading of the order does not reflect that the financial capacity of the petitioner was taken into account when fixing this amount. The trial Court, in its order at Paragraph 6, noted as follows: “6. xxx The allegations made by the petitioner that she was pressurized by the 1st respondent to obey to his dictates on watching blue films and harass her to obey for undesirable activities, when read along with the written undertaking given by respondent himself marked Ex.p1 shows that the petitioner at the tender age of 20-21 must have suffered mental and emotional distress, which needs to be compensated appropriately in the present situation where the petitioner is coming up to the Court in filing cases against the 1st respondent and others. Accordingly, the 1st respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation within five months in lumpsum as per Section 22 of the Act.” 21. The 1st appellate Court, in its Judgment, observed, in Para 18, as follows: “18. The trial Court directed the 1st respondent-husband to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh as compensation, within five months in lump sum as per Section 22 of the Act. Since the compensation awarded is one way is monetary relief, a separate monetary relief as prayed under Section 20 of the Act is not given and also granted other reliefs as mentioned in its order. The complainant-P.W.1 categorically established before the trial Court in marking Exs.P1 to P9 which are the letter and photos. As I have already stated that in Ex.P1 letter the husband who is the appellant herein admitted his behavior and guilty and also admitted that he was having illicit intimacy with another women and requested in that letter to pardon him and prayed to given one chance to rectify his mistakes and also giving an undertaking that he will receive the wife back with a promise to live with her and to look after he well and if breaches the said promises, he is bound to abide the action taken by them.” 22. A reading of the orders passed by both Courts clearly illustrates the humiliation suffered by the wife due to the acts of the husband. A reading of the orders passed by both Courts clearly illustrates the humiliation suffered by the wife due to the acts of the husband. However, the first appellate Court observed in its Judgment at Paragraph 21 as follows: “21. According to the appellant he has no source of income and financial position and that the amount payable by him to the wife to a tune of Rs.1.00 Lakh in lump sum is higher in side. He further submitted that he is a Postgraduate and he is an unemployed person working in private institutions as tutor for his livelihood and for the maintenance of his mother-widow. Though, the wife contended that the husband is working as lecturer and thereby getting salary of Rs.20,000/- and also having immovable properties, no proof to that effect is filed. In that view of the matter, the compensation amount awarded at Rs.1.00 Lakh by the trial Court is higher in side.” 23. The first appellate Court has provided valid reasons for reducing the compensation amount. No material has been presented to the Court to demonstrate that the observations made by the first appellate Court regarding the husband's financial capacity are unsupported by the evidence. 24. Considering the age of the wife and the harassment established against the husband, as well as taking into account the husband's financial capacity, the first appellate Court fixed the compensation amount at Rs. 50,000/-. In light of the facts of the case, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the first appellate Court, which provided cogent reasons for reducing the compensation. There is nothing on record to indicate that these reasons lack evidentiary support. 25. The first appellate Court rightly reached its conclusion, providing sound and justifiable reasons, and analyzed the evidence to arrive at a just and proper conclusion in reducing the compensation amount. Therefore, the petitioners request for interference lacks merit. A re-appreciation of the evidence reveals no misdirection or misinterpretation by the first appellate Court. Upon careful reconsideration, there is no flaw in the findings of fact by the first appellate Court. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal revision cases are dismissed, and the Judgment of the first appellate Court is confirmed. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Cases, therefore, deserve dismissal. 26. Therefore, the finding of the first appellate Court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal revision cases are dismissed, and the Judgment of the first appellate Court is confirmed. The impugned order is neither perverse nor illegal, and no interference is warranted. The Criminal Revision Cases, therefore, deserve dismissal. 26. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated above, both Criminal Revision Case Nos. 1744 and 1894 of 2008 fail and are hereby dismissed. The Judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2008, dated 30.09.2008, stands confirmed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. -