ORDER :

“Whether the First Appellate Court committed any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in modifying the order of the trial Court regarding quantum of maintenance, compensation and right of private accommodation ?” is the question involved in this case.

2. These proceedings arise out of Crl.Misc.No.235/2012 on the file of MMTC-III, Bengaluru. The said proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’).

3. The Marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 22.02.1981 in Arasikere as per the Hindu rites. Out of the marriage, the couple begot one son and one daughter. They are married and living separately.

4. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.235/2012 against the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging that respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. She alleged that the respondent was addicted to vices and when she questioned that, he threatened that he will murder her and her children. Therefore, she did not initiate any legal action against him. She further claimed that he failed and neglected to maintain her despite having monthly salary of more than Rs.25,000/, rental income of Rs.25,000/-per month and Rs.90,000/-from money lending business. She further claimed that he owned several properties in Belagavi, Panaji and Goa and his total monthly income was more than Rs.25,00,000/-.

5. The respondent initially did not appear before the Trial Court. Therefore, on 27.06.2013 the trail Court on recording evidence and hearing the petitioner, partly allowed the petition, granted monetary relief of Rs.5,000/-per month, protection order, order of residence and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent challenged the said order in Crl.A.No.63/2014 before Fast Track Court-XI, Bengaluru. The Sessions Court on 8.8.2014 allowed Crl.A.No.63/2014 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give opportunity to both side and dispose of the matter afresh.

6. After remand the respondent filed statement of objections denying domestic violence, quantum of his income and financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner led the further evidence. Respondent though led examination in chief did not tender himself for cross examination. Therefore his evidence was closed.

7. Thereafter on hearing both counsel, the trial Court by order dated 8.4.2015 partly allowed the petition awarding the following reliefs:-

(i) Protection order against domestic violence.

(ii) Maintenance of Rs.12,000/-per month till the lifetime of the petitioner or till she remarries.

(iii) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for Domestic Violence suffered by her.

(iv) Direction to provide private residence to the petitioner.

(v) Litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-.

8. The respondent challenged the said order before the LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.633/2015. The First Appellate Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the trail Court as follows:-

(i) The Order of right of residence was set aside;

(ii) The monetary relief was reduced from Rs.12,000/-to Rs.6,000/-per month;

(iii) The compensation was reduced from Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-.

9. The petitioner/wife has challenged the said order in the above Criminal Revision Petition. Reiterating the grounds of the Revision petition Sri.T.H. Avin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent owned several houses and open sites in several places. He submits that apart from immovable properties respondent also owned shares of Reliance Company etc., got terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore, the First Appellant Court was not justified in reducing the maintenance and compensation and reversing the order of right of residence.

10. Per Contra, Sri. G. Jairaj, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the impugned order of the First Appella