ORDER :

Aggrieved by the order granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to respondents No.1 to 3 each by way of monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act’) and confirmation of the said order by the IV Addl. District and Sessions, D.K.Mangaluru, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of the petitioner. The marriage of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 15.01.2004 as per their customs. Out of the said wedlock, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born on 11.11.2004 and 03.04.2007 respectively.

3. Respondent No.1 filed complaint before the Bantwal Rural Police Station in Crime No.215/2009 alleging that the petitioner subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in connection with his unlawful demands.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed M.C.No.106/2010 against the petitioner and his two brothers – Ismail and Lethief under Section 12 of the DV Act claiming the protection order, right of residence, monetary relief, compensation etc. In that petition the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the petitioners.

For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The gist of the complaint in M.C.No.106/2010 was as follows:

The respondents subjected petitioner No.1 to physical and mental cruelty in connection with their unlawful demands. Respondent No.1 contracted second marriage and the said second wife intermittently used to visit their house and stay for some days. Respondent No.1 used to assault petitioner No.1 and drove the petitioners from his house, therefore, they have taken shelter in the parental house of the first petitioner. Respondent No.1 has failed and neglected to maintain them. They claimed the reliefs of protection order, right of residence, monetary relief and compensation etc.

5. The defence of the respondents was as follows:

The relationship between the parties was admitted. Petitioner No.1 herself was atrocious and most incompatible. She herself divorced respondent No.1 under Ex.R1 on 14.01.2008 and since then she is residing separately with the children. Respondent No.1 got issued notice Ex.R2 calling upon petitioner No.1 to confirm the divorce effected under Ex.R1. For that she issued confirmation by way of reply under Ex.R8. Under Ex.R1 and Ex.R8, petitioner No.1 has given up the right of herself and her children to claim any relief against the petitioner. Petitioner No.1 has contracted second marriage with one Ibrahim under Ex.R13 on 25.05.2007. Therefore, she is not entitled to any relief under the DV Act.

6. The parties adduced evidence. The trial Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 rejected the defence of respondents and awarded maintenance of Rs.3,000/-per month to each of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. in Crl.A.No.273/2014. The first appellate Court accepting the reasons and findings of the trial Court dismissed the appeal.

8. Sri Prasanna, learned Counsel representing the husband seeks to assail the impugned order on the following grounds:

(i) PW.1 has admitted her signatures on Ex.R1 and Ex.R8 whereunder she has confirmed the fact of she giving divorce;

(ii) PW.2 the father of petitioner No.1 admits the service of notice Ex.R2 on petitioner No.1;

(iii) On the same allegations, respondents were prosecuted in C.C.No.52/2010 and they were acquitted. The trial Court failed to appreciate such documentary evidence.

9. Per contra, Sri Lethief, learned Counsel representing wife seeks to justify the impugned order on the following grounds:

(i) Though PW.1 admitted her signatures on Ex.R1 and Ex.R8, she denied the contents of the same. Her defence that respondent No.1 obtaining her signature on blank papers has manipulated the documents, was rightly accepted by the trial C