ORDER :

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner husband being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the I Additional Sr. Civil judge and C.J.M. Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.31/2010 and also confirmation of the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl.A.No.58/2016 against him.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband.

3. The respondent though served with notice and engaged the counsel, remained absent.

4. The gist of the case before the Court below is that respondent/wife got married with the petitioner/husband on 08.12.2011. At the time of marriage dowry is given in the form of cash and gold. Thereafter, for a period of one year the petitioner looked after the respondent/wife very well. Thereafter, he started harassing and forcing her to bring further dowry. On 12.06.2010 she has been forced out of the house of the petitioner and she filed a complaint. Thereafter, the husband assaulted and has not provided the required maintenance and she has filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband that the court below without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record and not looking into the documents, only on presumption and assumptions has awarded the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month, the same is on higher side. He further submitted that though the respondent/wife got produced RTC extracts, they are standing in the name of the grand father of the petitioner and no partition has taken place in between the members of the joint family. If the partition takes place, at the most, after-all the respondent/husband’s father is entitled to only 3 acres and out of that his brothers and others have to get a share and with that little portion of land, he will not be in a position to pay the maintenance as ordered by the Court below. He further submits that the respondent/wife has voluntarily went out of the house, without there being any restriction from the respondent/husband. When herself has deserted the house, under such circumstances she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned orders.

6. The respondents and their counsel remained absent.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also perused the records. As could be seen from the records in order to prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner has got examined five witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and respondent has got examined RW1 to RW4 and got marked R1 to R9. It is not in dispute that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent and out of the said wedlock the petitioner gave birth to a female child by name H.G. Hamsa. The only contention which has taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the trial court has not been properly appreciated the fact that she has herself has deserted and as such, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance. But as could be seen from the records when the respondent/wife was sent out of the house for demand of dowry, she has filed a petition and a case has been registered in this behalf and even the respondent husband has not made any efforts to call her back or he has not filed any petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, under the said facts and circumstances, the fact remains with the petitioner/husband is that he has sent out her in demand of dowry by ill-treating and harassing her and thereafter he has not provided any maintenance and as such, his contention does not appear to be acceptable. The second contention which has been taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court has not looked into the RTC extracts produced in this behalf. As could be seen from the records as per Ex.P8 which has been produced by the respondent/wife, thou