K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgment of the trial Court and first Appellate Court.

2. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to their relationship. For the purpose of convenience and easy understanding, I would like to refer the parties as per their ranks before the trial court.

3. The petitioner Smt. Vaishali wife of the first respondent Anil Appanna Randewadi had filed a matrimonial case in Crl. Misc.No.130/2010 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Khanapur under Section 12(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming various reliefs against the respondents. The Respondents therein appeared and contested the proceedings by filing their objections.

4. In order to prove her case, petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to 7. Respondent No. 1 himself examined as RW1 and also examined one witness as RW2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R34.

5. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the petition. Accordingly, the trial court has ordered to restrain respondent No. 1 from committing any kind of Domestic Violence against the complainant/petitioner and also directed him to provide alternate accommodation to the complainant with all basic necessities apart from the maintenance awarded in a sum of Rs. 4000/- p.m. to the complainant/Respondent and a sum of Rs. 2000/- p.m. to her daughter for their maintenance as monetary relief's.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award, the petitioner has approached the Vth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.41/2015. The first Appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials on record has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, it has dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel Sri. V.S. Teli, strenuously argued before this court, that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the relationship or with regard to other reliefs granted by the trial Court. He further contended that the trial Court and the first Appellate Court having not properly considered the plea taken up by the respondent therein with regard to the earning capacity of the petitioner (wife), though sufficient materials were produced before the court that she was earning by working as Pigmi Agent. Therefore, her earning capacity should have been taken into consideration by both the courts as such contends that this court, while exercising power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. can set right the said illegality committed by both the courts.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent contends before this court that though certain materials are placed before the trial court by the respondent, but it is not proved to the satisfaction of the trial court with regard to what exactly the amount she was earning. Further, he contends before the court that when the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have rendered the judgment after appreciating the oral an documentary evidence, this court normally should not interfere unless there is any injustice caused to the parties. Hence, pleaded for dismissal of the revision petition.

9. On careful perusal of the judgment of the trial Court at paragraph No.22, the trial Court has observed that the respondent was paying Rs. 3,000/- per month to her and it was not sufficient to maintain herself and small school going daughter. Therefore, she claimed maintenance and monetary relief before the court. The trial Court has also observed, with reference to the plea taken up by the respondent and with reference to the documents produced. It is observed by the trial Court that