ORDER :

Though these matters are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner-husband is before this Court assailing the order dated 3/3/2016 passed in Crl.Misc.No.66/2013 by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Kudligi, (for short ‘the Trial Court’), allowing the petition in part and directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-to the wife, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5050/2016 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bellary sitting at Hospet, (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), vide judgment dated 6/8/2019 by dismissing the appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein is the wife and the revision petitioner is the husband. The wife filed Crl.Mis.66/2013 against the husband seeking monthly maintenance by filing a petition under Sections 43, 9(B) and 32(2)(C) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’ for the sake of brevity).

4. It is the contention of the wife before the Trial Court that she had married the revision petitioner herein on 8/5/2011 in Birapura village and at the time of marriage, the husband had demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. After marriage, she started residing in her matrimonial house. The husband was working as Principal in the Government Pre-University college at Chornur, Sandur taluk. Both the parties have shifted their residence to Davangere, and resided there for six months. Thereafter, again they shifted their residence to Kudligi and the husband used to travel from Kudligi to Chornuru. In the meantime, the wife conceived but the husband got it aborted. It is alleged that the husband used to treat the wife with cruelty as he was having illicit relationship with another lady. Several panchayaths were held in this regard. Even then the husband was not ready and willing to heed to the advice of the elders. It is stated that the husband was drawing salary of Rs.50,000/-p.m. but still he was not providing basic necessities to the wife. Therefore, she sought for direction to pay maintenance from the husband.

5. The husband appeared before the Trial Court and resisted the claim of the wife. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. All other averments made by the wife were denied by the husband. It is contended that the wife is having doubtful nature and she used to suspect the character of the husband. It was the wife who used to assault the husband and treat him with cruelty. The husband but could not tolerate the misbehaviour of the wife and got issued legal notice on 27/12/2012 seeking divorce. The wife without issuing any reply started to pick up quarrel with the husband and abused him in filthy language in the public place. Therefore, the husband filed MC No.23/2013 before the Family Court at Dharwad seeking divorce. It is stated that husband has paid Rs.5,000/-on 12/3/2013 and Rs.8,000/- on 24/4/2013. Therefore, the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 7 in support of her contention. The husband examined himself as RW1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the husband is liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of maintenance, the wife preferred Crl.A.No.5035/2010 whereas the husband challenged the order by preferring Crl.A.No.5050/2016. The Appellate Court considered the contentions of the parties in both the appeals and dismissed Crl.A.No.5050/2016, while allowing Crl.A.No.5035/2016 and directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife. The husband is before this Court being aggrieved by the dismissal of Crl.A.No.5050/2016 by preferring Crl.RP.No.100307/2019 and Crl.RP.No.100308/2019 against allowing Crl.A.No.5035/2016.

8. Heard