IMPORTANT POINT
Father has obligation to provide maintenance to his children.

JUDGMENT

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Petitioner married the respondent on 11.5.2006. Out of the wedlock, they have two male children. Petitioner is working as a driver and respondent is working as a conductor in BMTC. On account of matrimonial discord, they are living separately. Children born out of wedlock, are living with respondent.

2. A petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed against petitioner. Notice of the petition sent by RPAD to both the addresses i.e., working place and native place were returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. Learned Magistrate considering the case, allowed the petition and directed petitioner herein to pay maintenance of Rs.2.500 p.m. to each of the children viz., Master Srishela and Master Mallikarjuna, till they attain majority, from the date of petition. Petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. Crl.A. No. 70 of 2012 filed in the Sessions Court at Bangalore City was dismissed by an order on 25.2.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the husband has filed this criminal revision petition.

3. Sri Jayalingayya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds for consideration viz.

(1) that the petition has been allowed by the learned Magistrate without serving a notice ‘on respondent in the complaint and hence, the impugned orders are illegal.

(2) The amount of maintenance ordered to be paid to the children and the compensation ordered to be paid to the wife is without lawful basis and highly excessive.

4. Sri Sangamesh G. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand made submissions in support of the findings recorded by the Courts below in the impugned judgments.

5. I have perused the record. Point for consideration is whether the impugned orders call for interference?

6. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties and the two children born out of the wedlock. The children are of tender age and are school going children. Petitioner and respondent are employed in the BMTC. Petitioner has an obligation to provide maintenance to his children, since they are not living with him. Petitioner being employed in BMTC is drawing salary of more than Rs.10.000 as is evident from his pay-slip of January 2012. Learned Magistrate without taking into consideration the salary income of petitioner and making a reference to the lands possessed by him at a far off place i.e., Lingsugur, has determined the maintenance amount payable by petitioner to the children at Rs.2.500 p.m. each and has determined the compensation payable to the complainant at Rs.50.000. Learned Appellate Judge also has not considered the said aspect of the matter in the correct perspective. The maintenance amount payable when determined should have lawful basis and should not be arbitrary, as has been in the instant case.

7. As far as the ground of non-service of notice is concerned, there is no dispute that the notice of the petition was sent by RPAD to the working address and the native place address of the petitioner. The notices have been returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. Since intimation was delivered and petitioner did not receive the registered envelope, there is a deemed service. In the circumstances, the Appellate Court is justified in holding that there is no merit in the claim made that the petition was allowed without service of a notice.

8. Since the gross salary of petitioner is around Rs.10,000 p.m., it is reasonable to direct him to pay maintenance to the children at Rs.1,350 each p.m, Petitioner will have to pay Rs.3,500 p.m., towards maintenance of both the children. Petitioner is directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.20,000 to respondent.

9. In the result, petition is allowed in part. Impugned orders are modified. The maintenance amount payable to the two children is determined for time being at Rs.3,500 p.m. That apar