Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantadevi W/O Siddanagouda ... vs Shiddnagouda on 9 February, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawazpresided Bymnj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100138 OF 2017
BETWEEN
SMT. SHANTA
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NANDAWADAGI,
TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHIDDNAGOUDA
S/O NINGANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER
GOVERNMENT BOYS SCHOOL,
MACHAKNUR, POST: BILARI,
YADAGIRI TQ, KALABURGI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.J. S.SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010, DATED 17.2.2017 AND
CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2009 PASSED BY THE
ADDL. JMFC AT HUNAGUD IN PDV NO.4/2008.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
In this revision petition, the order dated
17.02.2017 passed by the Court of Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Crl.A.No.3/2010 is
under challenge.
2. I have heard both side and perused the
material on record.
3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife
of the respondent. She filed a petition under
Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'DV Act') claiming the
relief of separate residence, compensation and
damages to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and also
maintenance at Rs.5,000/- per month. The said
petition was contested by the respondent/husband.
The learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.12.2009
in PDV No.4/2008 was pleased to allow the petition
in part and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per
month from the date of petition with alternate
accommodation at the cost of the respondent.
Further, learned Magistrate held that she is entitle
to receive a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards
compensation amount.
4. The order passed by the learned
Magistrate was challenged by way of an appeal by
the respondent/husband before the Sessions Court.
The learned Sessions judge vide impugned order
confirmed the said order insofar as granting
maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife,
however, set aside the order of awarding
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.
5. Insofar as, confirmation of the order
granting maintenance to the wife, the same has not
been questioned by the respondent herein. The
petitioner/wife has preferred this revision petition
against the order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, setting aside the order awarding
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.
6. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view
that in terms of clause (a)(b)(c) of Section 20 of the
DV Act, the trial Court was within its power to grant
compensation only when the petitioner satisfies the
requirement of the said provisions. The learned
Sessions Judge has proceeded to hold that petitioner
has not made out any grounds that there was any
loss of earning on account of domestic violence or
there is no evidence to show that she was required
to spend money for medical expenses or the loss
caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of
any property from the control of the aggrieved
person. Hence, learned Sessions Judge held that, if
there is no evidence satisfying these requirements,
then there is no question of awarding compensation
to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner would
rely on Section 22 of the DV Act, 2005 to contend
that the learned magistrate has got power to pass
an order to pay compensation and damage for the
injuries, including mental torture and emotional
distress, caused by the acts of domestic violation, in
addition to other reliefs as may be granted under
the act. He therefore contends that the
compensation awarded by the learned magistrate is
legal and proper and it is in accordance with law.
8. It is relevant to see that under Section 20
of the DV Act, it is not necessary that the monitory
relief can be paid to an aggrieved person only in
respect of expenses incurred and loss suffered as
mentioned in clause (a)(b) or (c) but it is in addition
to other expenses and losses suffered by the
aggrieved person as a result of the domestic
violence. The findings recorded by the trial Court is
that the petitioner was put to greater harassment,
ill-treatment even with regard to food and shelter
and therefore she is entitled for claiming
compensation from the respondent for the injuries
suffered by her and such injuries are physical as
well as mental. Therefore, the grant of compensation
cannot be held to be illegal.
9. Insofar as awarding monthly maintenance
of Rs.1,500/- is concerned, the same is awarded as
against the claim of Rs.5,000/- per month, taking
into consideration that a sum of Rs.1,000/- was
already awarded towards maintenance in O.S.
No.47/2003 filed before the Civil Court by the
petitioner. The quantum of maintenance awarded by
the trial Court has not been challenged by the
petitioner.
10. Considering the over all facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering that
the trial Court has directed to pay the maintenance
with alternative accommodation with the cost of the
respondent, the order awarding compensation can be
modified from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-.
Hence, I proceed to pass following;
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed.
ii) The order dated 17.02.2017 passed
in Criminal Appeal No.3/2010 is
hereby set aside, insofar as setting aside
the order of awarding compensation to the
petitioner herein by the trial Court.
iii) Further the respondent is directed to pay
compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees
One lakh twenty five thousand only/-) to
the petitioner herein instead of
Rs.1,50,000/- as ordered by the trial
Court. To that extent the order of the trial
Court is modified.
iv) The amount shall be deposited within six
weeks from today and the respondent is
directed to pay the entire arrears if any
and shall continue to pay maintenance as
per the order.
v) I.A No.1/2017 does not survive for
consideration, the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB/ PJ
