The court established that the petitioner-husband's failure to pay maintenance and his remarriage while the first marriage was in subsistence constituted domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, entitling the respondent-wife to maintenance.

B.A. Patil, J.

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband assailing the judgment passed by the Fast Tack Court VIII, Bengaluru in criminal Appeal No. 45/2013 dated 22.04.2014 confirming the order passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court V, Bengaluru in Crl. Misc. No. 25/2011 dated 13.12.2012.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner husband and the learned counsel for the respondent wife.

3. Before going to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, for the purpose of brevity, I want to put forth the facts of the case as contended by the parties before the Courts below.

4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner husband and respondent wife are legally wedded and their marriage was solemnized on 16.03.1981. Out of the wed lock the respondent - wife gave birth to a female child and now, that child has also been given in marriage. It is the case of the respondent - wife that the petitioner - husband in lieu of settlement, had given a house property and he also used to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month and subsequently the same was enhanced up to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The respondent wife has stated that such maintenance was paid upto the year 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner husband has stopped payment of maintenance. Aggrieved by the same the respondent wife had filed petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as the D.V. Act). Said application was contested by admitting the relationship. It was contended in the objection statement that the respondent - wife is a adamant lady, is having uncooperative attitude and was not having any respect and regard and she started residing separately. As per the advice of the elders the matter has been settled and a property has been given in favour of the respondent wife and that includes the maintenance also. It is the further case of the petitioner husband that earlier petition was filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the Family Court, Bangalore and subsequently the said petition was withdrawn. Now the respondent wife has filed the petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act claiming maintenance and as such the said petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In order to substantiate her case the respondent wife got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The petitioner husband got himself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R.4. After hearing both the sides the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as maintenance. Assailing the same the petitioner husband preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No. 45/2013 and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner - husband that in view of the settlement entered into between the petitioner - husband and respondent wife a property has been given and after some time the property has been demolished by the respondent wife and she constructed a house and that she has also let out the said house and she is getting rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month and she is also doing tailoring business. As such, the respondent - wife is having sufficient means to maintain herself and in that light she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is his further submission that the said application has been filed after 27 years of living separately and a deed of settlement has been entered in this behalf. He further submitted that there is no domestic violence as contended by the respondent - wife. So when once there is no domestic violence, the respondent - wife is not entitled for any maintenance. He further submitted that maintenance which has been awarded is also on the higher side. On these grounds the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Court below.

7. Per contra learned counsel appearing