ORDER :

1. This Revision Petition is by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 27.1.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 125/2014 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, whereby the Order dated 5.5.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate in M.C. No. 41/2012 is partly set aside by denying the maintenance to the Revision Petitioner modifying the maintenance amount to the children of the Revision Petitioner from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month each for the two daughters who born to them.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petitioner is as under:

A petition was filed u/s.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’ for short] contending that the Revision Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and their marriage got solemnized as per the rites and customs prevailed in their community on 11.7.1999 at Noor Mahal, Beeri, Mangaluru Taluk. After the marriage, the Revision Petitioner joined the matrimonial home and two daughters are born from the marriage. Thereafter, it is contended that the husband of the Revision Petitioner started ill-treating the Revision Petitioner in one way or the other and she tolerated the cruelty with a fond hope that the respondents may mend their behavior on one day or other. It is further contended that at the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash and 40 sovereign gold and one Rado watch was given to the first respondent. It is further contended that when she was unable to bear the ill-treatment, she complained to the elders and well-wishers who mediated the matter and her husband agreed to look after her properly. It is further contended that even after the said re-conciliation, there was a demand of Rs. 2 lakhs by the husband and threatened the complainant that if the said demand is not met, he would divorce her. Ultimately, she got issued a legal notice to pay the maintenance and stop the torture and return the dowry amount. It is further contended that thereafter a false and frivolous reply came to be issued alleging that she has illicit relationship with one Mohammad Haneef, which resulted in serious mental agony to the Revision Petitioner and therefore, she was constrained to file the present petition.

3. On service of notice, husband and the mother-in-law of the petitioner, appeared through their counsel and filed objections admitting the relationship. It is further contended that the Revision Petitioner left the house on and from November, 2007. But admittedly, the two children who are studying in 4th and 1ststandard are with the Revision Petitioner but denied any domestic violence and sought for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

4. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and passed the following Order:

“The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 Protection under of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby allowed.

The respondents are hereby restrained from committing further domestic violence against the petitioner.

The respondents are directed to return the golden ornaments to the complainant.

The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- each to her two children towards the maintenance from the date of petition.

The respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the petitioner.”

5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the husband and the mother-in-law of the Revision Petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru in Criminal Appeal No. 125/2014. On securing the records and hearing the parties, the first Appellate Court modified the Order passed by the learned Magistrate which reads as under:

“The appeal filed by the appellant under sec. 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is hereby allowed partly.

Consequent