IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that maintenance under the DV Act can only be awarded to aggrieved persons and children, and not to unmarried daughters who have attained majority. The court also emphasized that damages or compensation cannot be equated in terms of money and are granted for the mental or physical injuries suffered by the aggrieved person.

ORDER :

These two petitions are filed by the husband and wife challenging the order passed by MMTC-III, Bangalore, in Crl.Misc.No.153/2012 dated 05.10.2013 and the judgment dated 09.06.2015 passed by the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.580/2013. The husband has filed Crl.RP.No.795/2015 while the wife has filed Crl.RP.No.1031/2015.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the learned Magistrate in Crl.Misc.No.153/2012.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the petitioner-wife has filed the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’), seeking injunction against the respondent-husband from committing any domestic violence, seeking relief for separate residence and also sought maintenance as well as compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 15.03.1998 and after the marriage, the petitioner joined the respondent and out of the said wedlock two children are born by name Navyashree and Uma. K born in 1999 & 2001 respectively. It is asserted that the respondent is working as Assistant Teacher in primary school and he has subjected the petitioner-wife to domestic violence demanding dowry. It is further asserted that she has also lodged a complaint under Section 498A of I.P.C against the respondent for dowry harassment and matter is still pending. It is asserted that the respondent having sufficient means neglected the petitioner and hence, this petition.

4. The respondent-husband appeared and denied all the allegations. The petitioner is examined as PW1 and placed reliance on 47 documents while respondent was examined as RW1 and he placed reliance on four documents. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Section 12 of the DV Act in part directing the respondent not to commit any domestic violence and further directed that the children of the petitioner & respondent are entitled for monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-each till they are married. Further, he has also awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-by way of damages. This order is being challenged by the respondent-husband before LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.A.No.580/2013.

5. The learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, has partly allowed the petition filed by the husband by directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/-each to children from the date of filing the petition and further reduced damages from Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by these findings, the husband as well as wife are before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent. Perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would contend that daughters were granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/-each by the Magistrate which was reduced to Rs.4,000/-and damages were reduced from Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-and there is no reason for reduction of the maintenance as well as damages. It is also asserted that the relationship between the parties is undisputed and respondent being the father did not make any provision for maintenance of the minor children and it is the duty of the father to maintain his children. He would contend that when the appellate Court in para No.17 has observed that the children are required maintenance of Rs.5,000/-to Rs.6,000/-per month, there is no reason for reducing it to Rs.4,000/-. He would also contend that there is no reason for reduction of compensation from Rs.5,00,000/ to Rs.1,00,000/-and hence, he would seek for restoring the order of the learned Magistrate.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband would contend that both petitioner and respondent are governme