Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(e) The learned Magistrate erred in granting only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The learned Magistrate has not considered the fact that appellant has defended many litigations instituted by the respondents.

The trial court ought to have awarded litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-.

(f). The trial court is erred in holding that the respondents have not committed any domestic violence of physical or emotional nature on the appellant by applying rule of strict proof.

c/w. 633/2012

67. The petitioner has also sought for litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent No.1. The learned Trial Judge has awarded Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner in her appeal has also challenged the said finding of their trial court. She has contended that the trial court ought to have awarded litigation expenses as prayed for by her in the petition. As it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has suffered monetary loss in contesting the petition filed by her before the trial court. The respondent NO.1 had also filed divorce petition against the petitioner. She has also suffered monetary loss in contesting the said petition. Further, respondent No.1 has also filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner has to defend the same. Further, the petitioner has also approached the Hon'ble Hight Court of Karnataka challenging the order of non payment of maintenance to her. Further, the petitioner has also suffered monetary loss in contesting this petition. By considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that awarding of Rs.5,000/- by the learned Trial Judge towards litigation expense seems to be very meagre.

c/w. 633/2012 Hence, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Hence, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner.

68. The petitioner / appellant of Crl.A.633/2012 has proved that the Learned Trial Judge erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. But the appellant has failed to prove that impugned order in so far as rejecting her claim for monetary relief and protection order and residence order is unsustainable. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in partly in affirmative. The respondent No.1/appellant of Crl.A.633/2012 has failed to prove that the trial court erred in directing him to pay compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, I answer point No.2 in Negative. The petitioner has proved that the interference of this court is required with some of the findings of the trial court as stated above. The interference of this court is not required to other findings as discussed above. Accordingly, I answer point No.3 in partly affirmative.

c/w. 633/2012

69. Point No.(iv) and (v):- The petitioner has proved that the impugned order of the trial court is unsustainable so far as awarding of compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The compensation is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.55,00,000/- and litigation expenses is ordered to be enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to get medical expenses of Rs.10,000/-. As such, I am of the opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner is deserves to be partly allowed by modifying the impugned order. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in partly Affirmative. It is already held and discussed above that there is no merits in the appeal filed by the respondent No.1/appellant of Crl.A.645/2012. It is held that the respondent NO.1 has failed to prove that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. As such, I am of the opinion that Crl.A.645/2012 is deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, I answer point No.5 in the Negative.