The Court found the direction to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife reasonable and refused to interfere with the quantum of compensation of Rs.50,000/- granted to the wife

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. These three writ petitions arise out of a common judgment and order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the Sessions Court at Akola. By the said common judgment and order, the Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.372/2019 i.e. Aruna w/o Omprakash Shukla and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 707/2018 and 718/2018 i.e. Omprakash S/o Devanand Shukla and others.

3. The said petitioner Aruna w/o Omprakash Shukla filed an application under the provisions of The Protection of Women of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as D.V.Act) for various reliefs. The said application bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1314/2012 was partly allowed by the Court of 9th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, directing the said Omprakash s/o Devanand Shukla to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month as house rent to his wife i.e. Aruna w/o Omprakash Shukla. The prayer of the wife for grant of compensation and return of Stridhan and household articles was rejected.

4. Both the wife and husband were aggrieved by the said order of the Magistrate and they filed appeals before the Sessions Court at Akola. By the impugned judgment and order, the Sessions Court partly allowed the appeal of the wife by enhancing the monthly maintenance to Rs.4,000/-, while maintaining the amount payable towards monthly rent. Additionally, the husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to his wife towards compensation. The appeal filed by the husband was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and order present writ petitions were filed in which this Court issued notices.

6. Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.372/2019, who is respondent in the other two writ petitions, submits that the quantum of maintenance granted to the wife deserves to be enhanced further and that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record in the correct perspective.

7. By inviting attention to the material placed on record before the courts below, it was submitted that the monthly maintenance amount ought to have been higher and further that the quantum of compensation granted should also have been enhanced to a higher figure.

8. On the other hand, Shri Anand S. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 707/2018 and 718/2018, submitted that the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the appeal of the husband and partly allowing the appeal of the wife. It was submitted that the petitioner was constrained to file two writ petitions, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. It was further submitted that on facts the courts below had erred in granting amount towards monthly maintenance and rent, as also towards compensation, because the financial status of the husband was not properly appreciated by the Courts below. It was submitted that when the Sessions Court itself had found that the husband was earning a meager salary of about Rs.15,000/-, the amount of monthly maintenance and rent granted by the Sessions Court was not sustainable. It was further submitted that the Magistrate had found that the wife had not placed on record any evidence to support her prayer for grant of compensation, thereby rejecting the aforesaid prayer, yet, the Sessions Court granted relief of compensation and fixed the amount at Rs.50,000/- without any basis. It was submitted that the wife had never filed any police complaint nor had she undergone any medical examination to demonstrate injuries suffered, in order to support her prayer for grant of compensation.

9. Apart from this, the learned counsel appearing for the husband raised a question of law on the aspect of limitation, in order to claim that the Magistrate ought to have thrown out the complai