Bangalore District Court
Aged About 32 Years vs Aged About 31 Years on 1 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY(CCH-57)
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2016
Present;- Sri. K.R. Nagaraja, B.A., L.L.B.
LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru City.
Crl.A.No. 37/2015
1.G.L.Mohan Maiya
Appellants : Aged about 32 years
s/o Lakshminarayana Maiya
2. G.Lakshminarayana Maiya
aged about 67 years,
s/o G.Venkataramana Maiya
3. G.Latha Maiya
Aged about 57 years
w/o Lakshminarayana Maiya
All three residing at
Vishalakshi Bhavan
Oppl Holy Family Church,
Ramamurthy Nagar Main Road,
Bengaluru- 560 016.
(By Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty,
Advocate)
VS
Akshatha Bhat
Respondent: Aged about 31 years,
d/o Lakshmikantha Bhat,
r/a No. 17, `Madhura`
Near RR School,
Dhodda Bhommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore 560 081.
(By Sri K.Chandrasekaran, Adv.)
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015
2
: JUDGMENT:
This appeal of Respondents before court below, who will be hereinafter referred as Respondents is directed against final order dated 19.12.2014 in Crl.Misc. No. 36/12 on the file of MMTC III, Bengaluru, partly allowing main application of aggrieved person/wife/Respondent herein (who will be hereinafter referred as wife) filed u/sec. 12 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005, ordering prohibiting order, preventing Respondents from repeating cause of domestic violence against wife, providing assistance of Jurisdictional Police for implementation of such prohibiting order, awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of wife and monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favour of daughter from the date of petition, ordering for accommodation of separate residential house, directing first Respondent to pay delivery expenses of Rs. 51,680/-, awarding compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the cause of physical and mental domestic violence to his wife and ordering litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/- and also directing suitable direction to jurisdictional Police for protection to wife.
2. Essential material events and facts leading to this appeal are as follow:
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 3 Wife laid application u/sec. 12 of P.W.D.V. Act 2005 for multiple reliefs i.e. direction, prohibiting order, residential order, monitory order, direction order for handing over educational records of wife and bridle items i.e. personal articles of wife from husband, compensation u/sec. 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act in Crl.Misc. No. 36/2012 before court below attributing domestic violence against Respondents. Respondents resisted application through their objection statement. In their objection statement, Respondents have admitted existence of domestic relationship between wife and first Respondent. Respondents have pleaded in their objection statement as follow;
First Respondent laid petition in MC No. 4383/2011 u/sec. 13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore against wife for dissolution of their marriage. Wife after receipt of notice in the above proceedings, got issued legal notice making false allegation against her husband as a counter blast and has sought for restitution of conjugal rights. Matter was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre for appearance of wife. Mediation failed. Matter was referred back to Family Court. Respondents, who have indeed subjected for mental agony by wife. Since there is no domestic violence committed by husband, question of granting any relief under the P.W.D.V. Act would not arise. Wife is not the aggrieved person as Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 4 there is no domestic violence against her. Husband denied that he has been working as a Assistant Manager, Deloitte Centre, Anchorage II, 100/2, Richmond road, Bangalore 25 as stated in the application. Respondent/husband tendered his resignation on 12.7.2012, due to harassment and cruelty of his wife. Respondent/husband has been earning meagre amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month as a junior advocate. Wife withdrawn company of her husband without any cause. Since wife voluntarily withdrawn the society of husband and caused substantial mental cruelty to husband and his parents and there is no domestic violence against wife by the husband, she is not entitled for any relief claimed in her application. Respondent does not possess custody of any of the school, college and experience certificates of wife. Therefore, question of any direction for production of them does not arise. Respondent claimed that there are no bridal items and personal articles of wife in the possession of husband. Husband is not responsible for conception and for delivery of child. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any expenses for the delivery of the baby. Respondent has been living independently along with his parents. When wife refused company of her husband, he is not liable for any monitory relief, food, clothe and medication and other basic necessities claimed by wife. Respondent, who married his wife on 29.3.2010 at Sujatha Kalyana Mantapa, Rajajinagar, Bangalore lived with her till 6.12.2010.
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 5 Wife has been quarrelling from the date of marriage with her husband for no reason. She married first Respondent/husband for the sake of force of her parents. First Respondent learnt that his wife was in love with one Sagar, which his wife herself informed to her husband. Wife had forwarded a mail sent by Sagar to her husband. Husband tried to pacify his wife to forget her past and lead happy married life. Wife was not ready to accept the same. She continued her quarrels on indefinite attitude. She has been refusing to cohabitate with her husband. She was not preparing food for many days. He was made to starve for food, which led his life misery. Wife was not satisfied to live with husband and parents of her husband. She was demanding for a separate residence by taking share in the property. Since first Respondent has ailing parents, could not meet out above demand of wife. Wife was went on moving away from the house of husband. Husband in order to maintain cordiality in the family left searching for separate accommodation at Vidyaranyapura and he started living with his wife. In the said place also wife started quarrelling with husband and tried to blackmail husband for unwanted and unwarranted reasons. She is in the habit of blackmailing and threatening her husband to commit suicide if her demands are not met. Husband learnt that his wife was in the habit of attempting to commit suicide and suicidal tendency even prior to marriage. Wife has continued same attitude even after Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 6 marriage. Parents of wife did not cooperate with the husband to see the tendency of wife is shelved. Parents of wife suppressed the suicidal tendency of their daughter. Husband took his wife to her parents house at Jamnagar, Gujrath on 23.7.2010 and requested them to provide medical counselling for their daughter. Parents of wife assured husband that they will guide their daughter properly, On 13.9.2010 wife returned to Bangalore alongwith her daughter. She apologized with her husband and parents and undertook not to repeat her misbehaviour. Husband believing the words of wife took her to the matrimonial home. Within a week, wife changed her version and started to show her true colour and started repeating her earlier acts. On 26.11.2010 wife started blackmailing husband and threatened to commit suicide. She in continuation of said act ran to kitchen took kerosene bottle and threatened that she will consume the same, which was thwarted by husband. Husband requested parents of wife to come and advise her, for which they did not show any interest. On 6.1.2010 wife left to Udpi to attend marriage. On 16.12.2000 wife, her mother and aunt Prabhavathi Bhat came to the house of husband. Wife started quarrelling with husband and his parents and created scene in the locality. At the instance of wife she was sent to Baroda alongwith her mother on 20.12.2010. Even from Baroda wife used to telephone husband and abuse him and his parents with filthy language. On Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 7 3.1.2011, a panchayath held in the house of Sathyanarayana Bhat uncle of wife. She was advised not to repeat any mischief with husband and to lead happy married life with him. On 6.1.2011, father of wife telephoned and informed husband that wife has conceived and asked husband to come to the house of Satyanarayana Bhat. Husband was shocked to hear the news and immediately called wife telephonically and asked her how can she conceived in the absence of his cohabitation. Wife did not respond the question of husband. Wife met husband personally and told him that child in her womb is of husband and if he will precipitates the matter she would commit suicide. Husband did not persuade the matter as his wife had suicidal tendency. He asked his wife to come to his uncle`s place. In 2nd week of January, wrote a apology letter to husband and handed over the same to him where she admitted her misdeeds. She requested husband that she will not repeat her misdeeds and will rectify herself. From 23.2.2011, husband took separate rented house and started living in the said premises from 18.3.2011 with the wife. Even there she did not mend her attitude and continued to quarrel with husband by using filthy language by shouting at the peak of her voice. On 17.5.2011 wife quarrelled with husband took a knife and attempted to cut her hand. Husband immediately rushed to her and snatched the knife, as a result of which husband suffered simple injuries. This act of Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 8 wife was informed to her uncle Sathyanarayana Bhat and Prabhavathi Bhat. Both of them visited house and took wife to their house. From that day onwards wife has not returned to the house of husband. On 18.5.2011, husband laid complaint against her wife about her misdeeds and attitude. He informed police that she is a weak and she will commit suicide as she is suffering from suicidal tendency. The act of wife was informed by husband to her parents` and requested them to come over to Bangalore and accompany his wife. In the third week of July 2011 husband came to know that his wife had left Bangalore and went to her parents` house at Baroda, Gujrath. The wife had not even informed her leaving from Bangalore. Husband had vacated the premises at Vidyaranyapura in the second week of September, 2011. He shifted his house to K.R.Puram. Wife had the last menstrual period on 29.11.2010 and left the matrimonial home on 6.12.2010 and thereafter 18.3.2011 to 17.5.2011 lived with husband and finally she left to Baroda, as such there was no cohabitation between wife and husband. Husband received telephone information on 6.1.2011 that wife has conceived. Conception within 8 days is not possible. Husband is fully justified in believing that the child Krithika is not born out of the wedlock of the husband. Wife had requested for DNA to confirm parentage. She threatened her husband for dire consequences and she would commit suicide. Husband was forced to kept mum to avoid Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 9 any untoward instances and unpleasantness. On 9.12.2011, wife, her parents, her uncle Sathyaranarayana Bhat, aunt Prabhavathi Bhat alongwith some goonda elements have come near house of husband and created seen in the locality. They forced the father of husband to accompany them to the car where parents of the wife and her uncle sat alongwith some goondas and anti social elements and the father of husband was coerced to sign certain papers relating to property of husband. 2nd Respondent prevented the same by raising alarm. Complaint has been lodged in this regard with the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore. The wife and her people are interested in knocking off the self acquired property of husband`s father by resorting to illegal methods in addition to the legal methods like the present petition. Wife resorts to this proceeding as a counter blast to the family dispute raised by husband. With these objections husband prayed to dismiss the application of wife.
3. Wife in order to probabalize her claim and claim supporting allegations herself examined as PW 1 and got marked 5 documents exhibited as Ex.P.1 to 5.On the other hand husband himself examined as RW 1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 6. It is important to note that during the course of proceeding on the application of husband, wife and husband were subjected to DNA examination by Forensic Science Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 10 Lab, Hyderabad on 1.10.2014. With consent of husband for DNA examination at FSL, Hyderabad both were subjected to DNA examination. Forensic Laboratory Hyderabad submitted report stating that husband is the father of the child of wife. Husband sought to obtain expert opinion on the paternity of the child of his wife from FSL, Hyderabad. Said application came to be rejected on 30.6.2014. This order was challenged by husband before High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No. 4034/2014. High Court of Karnataka with consent of both parties at the choice of husband directed court below to obtain opinion on the paternity of child through DNA. Again husband sought to discard the report and to obtain expert opinion from FSL, Bangalore. This application came to be rejected by court below on payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-. Again husband sought to summon author of DNA report for his examination before court. This application was also came to be rejected on payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- on 19.12.2014. Thereafter, court below after hearing parties and examination of written arguments submitted by counsel for parties and also material available on record through impugned order found existence of domestic violence against wife from husband and consequently passed the above noted impugned order against husband.
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 11
4. Respondents feeling aggrieved by above order preferred this appeal wherein interalia while reiterating all the above noted events have contended that there is no domestic violence as defined u/sec. 3 of the Act against wife from the husband. It has not been properly appreciated by court below. It is further contended that court below adopted a wrong approach in appreciating the case. It failed to apply correct principles of law. The finding of court below on existence of domestic violence by husband against wife is not based on any acceptable evidence. The court below failed to appreciate the fact that when the wife herself has been residing with her family and parents and she has been indeed harassing husband, she is not entitled for any relief claimed. Hon`ble court below failed to properly appreciate Ex.R.3 in a proper prospective. Court below failed to appreciate the fact that husband has disputed the DNA report. Court below failed to appreciate the financial capacity of husband while awarding above quantum of maintenance and compensation. Court below failed to apply the proper law in fixing quantum of maintenance and compensation. Impugned order of court below is baseless. With these main contentions husband prays to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the application of his wife.
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 12
5. After securing appearance of wife and LCR, heard the arguments of counsel for parties. Counsel for wife has placed written arguments. Counsel for husband also filed written arguments. Counsel for husband filed application u/sec.91 of CPC praying to direct Mohan and Chandrashekar, partners in `Mohan and Chandrashekar Chartered Accountants Firm` to produce salary account statement of its employee for the period from 1.1.2013 to 31.3.2015 and also produce appointment letter and salary slip of wife with memo. This application has been objected by the wife wherein interalia contended that court has no power to entertain the above prayer and she denied the employment as claimed by husband and accordingly sought to dismiss application.
6. Perused the papers.
7.In the light of above materials following points fall for decision making of this court:-
1. Whether court below has properly appreciated available material while giving finding on the existence of cause of domestic violence by husband against wife and awarding above quantum of maintenance and compensation in favour of wife?
2. Whether impugned order of court below is correct and proper?
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 13
3. Whether husband deserves for leave of this court to summon documents from Mohan and Chandrashekar Chartered Account Firm as prayed in application?
4. What order?
8. This court upon re-appreciation of available materials with reference to prevailing legal aspects, give finding to the above points as follow:-
POINT NO.1 - Affirmative except for the finding of quantum of compensation;
POINT NO.2 - Partially affirmative
POINT NO.3 - Negative
POINT NO.4 - As per final order on the following;
:REASONS:
9. POINT NO.1 TO 3: As these points are interconnected have been discussed together. At the outset it is to be stated that there is no dispute on the existence of domestic relationship between husband and wife. Wife attributes above noted cause of domestic violence against her by her husband. Details of them need not be reiterated. On the other hand husband admitting his dispute regarding paternity of the female child born to his wife during subsistence to his marriage with his wife, denies any kind of domestic violence against wife. It is the main contention of husband that his wife has childish attitude and she attempted to commit suicide on several occasions and Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 14 she threatened him and his parents to commit suicide. Husband being acumen of law has written the detailed story from the date of marriage till the multiple family litigations started before court of law. He claims that there is no domestic violence as defined u/sec. 3 of the Act existed against his wife. The husband to probabalize his contentions and non existence of alleged domestic violence much relied on Ex.R. 2 and 3 which alleged to have been admitted by wife in her evidence before court. Before appreciating the evidentially value on the materials, which pressed into service by both parties, it is necessary to note that the material in a proceedings under PWDV Act to be appreciated on application of `doctrine of preponderance of probabilities`. No strong rules of evidence has application for appreciation of all material under the proceeding on hand. For the better appreciation of above mentioned contention of husband let advert on Ex.R.2 and 3. Ex.R.2 is the Xerox copy of print out of mail from the mail of husband which alleged to have been sent by Lakshmikanth Bhat. Lakshmikanth Bhat is the father of wife. Through Ex.R.2 father of wife informed to husband through E-mail message that wife Akshatha is pregnant and requested husband not to rude with her and do not give her any tension which affects on the child as prescribed by the Doctor and requested him to call his wife at once and check report of her health and he did not lift the above persons call made on several occasions. Ex.R.2 is admitted Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 15 by wife. It need not be proved. It is important to note that on 11.1.2011 husband was informed on the confirmation of pregnancy of his wife.
Ex.R.2 does not probabalize the plea of husband that wife has been harassing husband and in-laws as claimed by him. Infact Ex.R.2 shows that husband was having a rude behaviour with his wife and he should not become rude with his wife and she became pregnant and act of husband will affect on the child. Therefore Ex.R.2 will not render any assistance to husband to contend that there was no domestic violence against his wife from him.
10. Ex.R. 3 is stated to be the another letter of wife given to husband. It is necessary to cull out contents of Ex.R.3. Ex.R.3 reads thus;
" please tear this letter after read.
(To my loving husband) don`t show this to anyone) I am really sorry Mohan to and ur family. I will never do this again but remember one thing I am not happy staying without U far away. I want U. I will do anything for that.
Purposefully I did not do nothing. I have done my childish acts. But I`ll become very matured in future.
But pls tell ate and mava aruakka n anvakka.
U always be happy.
I`ll always keep U happy in future. If u r happy then only I can go happily.
I am sorry I`ll change , and I`ll never do this again. I am not a bad girl Mohan. Pls trust me and I am in conformity. Bye. Be happy (Akshatha)"
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 16 No doubt wife has admitted during her cross examination that above letter was given by her in favour of her husband. On plain reading of above letter it is clear that husband was requested to tear the above letter after reading and donot show to anyone. Husband has preserved this letter and committed breach of trust against his wife. She with expressing deep love against husband sought cooperation for future marital life. She whispered happiness to her husband. Nowhere she admitted the allegation of husband. Merely because wife sought excuse expecting future marital life with husband, it does not mean that husband was not causing domestic violence against him. Ex.R.3 would show that there is no violation against his wife. Counsel for wife has contended that Ex.R.3 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is not proved as required under law. Since the wife has admitted Ex.R.3 court of law has to straight away accept contents of Ex.R.3. No doubt court below declined to rely on Ex.R.3 as husband committed breach of trust and confidence expressed on him by his wife in the letter. The approach of court below in discarding Ex.R.3 is not correct. Even assuming that Ex.R.3 is existed it does not mean that contents of Ex.R.3 rule out commission of domestic violence against wife by husband. Hon'ble court below was pleased to accept the mental domestic violation caused by husband based on the baseless claim of husband denying the paternity of the child. It is not in dispute that Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 17 husband has denied the paternity of female child born to wife during subsistence of marriage. Infact both parties were subjected to DNA test by Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad on the request of husband. The premier Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad on DNA test has given positive report after due test that husband is the father of child born to wife. Husband again attempted to disprove the DNA report by resorting to summoning expert for examination before court, but the application of husband came to be rejected by court below. He has not challenged the rejection order of the court below. Our Hon'ble` Supreme Court of India in case of Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik Crl.Appeal No. 24/2014 reported in 2014(2) SCC 576 was pleased to hold that the report of DNA test is a conclusive proof and other material or presumptions cannot stand. In the present case also husband has not put forth any sustainable grounds to disbelieve the genuineness of report of DNA test. Therefore claim of husband denying his paternity to the female child born to his wife is unsustainable. Whether this unsustainable baseless plea and baseless allegations that wife had illicit relationship with one Sagar would definitely amounts to cause of mental violation to wife by the husband. No doubt wife has admitted that she had contact with Sagar prior to her marriage. Merely wife had contact with Sagar and she had conversation through mobile, it cannot be said that wife has been living Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 18 in adulterous life with Sagar. With the conclusive proof of DNA test paternity of husband to the child born to wife is established. Any kind of allegations of husband questioning the chastity of wife cannot be accepted. If anybody carefully read the section 3 of the Act the act of husband in making above baseless allegations which physically harms and injures mental condition of wife. Moreover the above allegations of husband is nothing but a mental abuse and harass to the wife. Therefore, as rightly held by court below baseless claim of husband on disputing his paternity to the child born to his wife is itself sufficient to hold the existence of domestic violence against his wife by the husband. Therefore trial court rightly and correctly believed the existence of domestic violation against wife by the husband. When the existence of domestic violation is established husband is liable for all the relief contemplated under the Act in question. Court below was pleased to award monthly maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of wife and monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- in favor of child from the date of application. As held by our Hon'ble` Supreme Court of India in Cr.A.No. 1331/2014 in case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others the grant of maintenance from the date of application is perfectly correct. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of husband that grant of maintenance from the date of application is unsustainable.
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 19
11. Hon'ble` court below was pleased to award compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the above noted domestic violence caused by husband. Undisputedly wife has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order of court below. Now this court has to re-appreciate whether husband is capable of paying above quantum of maintenance and compensation. Husband by placing reliance on Ex.R.4 i.e. copy of resignation letter addressed to his previous company has claimed that he has no income. He claimed that he is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as a junior advocate. He has not produced any proof on this fact. Ex.R.4 shows that husband was not dismissed from service for any lapse or failure of his duty which resulted from the family litigation initiated by wife. Ex.R.4 shows that husband voluntarily resigned service from the company. When the husband took the decision that he has to resign from the company he should have a mind that he can earn more income from other company. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the monthly income of husband for Rs. 10,000/- as claimed by him. Eventhough he resigned to the company where he was working, it is to be held that the husband has a capacity to earn as he was earning in the company by name Deloitte Center. Husband admitted in his evidence to the effect that " £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä deloitte JA§ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¤d. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß PÀqÉAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À 40 ¸Á«gÀ ªÀiÁºÉAiÀiÁ£À EvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 20 PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ¢B 2.7.2012 gÀAzÀÄ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É " From the above unequivocal admission of husband it is clear that husband is capable to earn Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is true that husband neither pleaded nor produced any material to show that wife has been working and she has been earning. No doubt through the present application husband wants to summon details from Chartered Accountant Firm. Except above referred application of husband there are no other material in this regard. Therefore, it is to be held that there is no source of income for the maintenance of wife and her child. Out of Rs. 40,000/- husband can definitely contribute Rs. 13,000/- per month in favour of wife and child as awarded by court below. Hon'ble court below rightly awarded payment of medical expenses against husband towards delivery expenses of child. He is also capable to pay the same.
12. Now this court has to re-appreciate whether there is any basis for awarding compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- against husband. Hon'ble court below without any discussion and assistance on the determination of quantum of compensation was pleased to award the same. At the same time capacity of husband to be appreciated in this regard. Husband has no property to get any source for payment of compensation. Therefore quantum arrived at by trial court for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not correct and not in proximity with Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 21 the capacity of husband. Having considered the nature of domestic violation and also financial capacity of the husband it is proper to modify compensation for Rs. 7,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Rest of the order passed by court below does not call for interference by this court. Viewed from any angle court below rightly and perfectly found existence of domestic violation against wife from husband and also rightly awarded monthly maintenance in favour of wife. Hon'ble court below was not right in awarding Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation. Rest of the order of court below is perfectly correct. In the result points No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
13. In the light of finding on above point and in the absence of any material to show the employment of wife, it is not proper to summon the document as prayed by husband. Moreover at a belated stage that too after husband went in suspecting his paternity to the child of his wife has putforth this prayer through IA No.1. Having considered above noted factor husband does not deserve for grant of prayer as prayed in application filed u/sec. 91 of CPC. Accordingly this point is answered in negative.
14. Point No.4: In the light of finding on above point, appeal on hand to be allowed partially. In the result, this court proceeds to pass the following:
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015
22
: ORDER :
Appeal is partially allowed. Application filed u/sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Entire impugned order of court below is confirmed except modification to the extent that husband is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of wife towards compensation for the mental domestic violence caused by husband against wife.
Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 3000/- in favour of his daughter from the date of petition till marriage of his daughter and till further order in respect of his wife and Rs. 51,680/- toward delivery expenses in favour of his wife and compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of his wife and litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/-.
Rest of the order of court below regarding protection, prohibition are maintained undisturbed.
Send copy of this judgment to court below along with LCR for needful.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by her, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of February, 2016) (K.R. Nagaraja,) LVI Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 23 Judgment Crl.A.37/2015 24 Dt 1.2.2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER Appeal is partially allowed.
Entire impugned order of court below is confirmed except modification to the extent that husband is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of wife towards compensation for the mental domestic violence caused by husband against wife.
Husband shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.
10,000/- in favour of wife and Rs. 3000/- in favour of his daughter from the date of petition till marriage of his daughter and till further order in respect of his wife and Rs. 51,680/- toward delivery expenses in favour of his wife and compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of his wife and litigation expenses of Rs. 1000/-.
Rest of the order of court below regarding protection, prohibition, maintained undisturbed.
Send copy of this judgment to court below along with LCR for needful.
(K.R. Nagaraja,) LVI Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.