The main legal point established in the judgment is the careful analysis of evidence in cases of domestic violence, the consideration of the income of the parties when determining maintenance payments, and the responsibility of both parents in contributing to the maintenance of the child.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 18.11.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.78/14 by which order dated 24.04.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court (South) in Complaint Case No.331/1 was modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-each, the petitioners shall pay in all Rs. 80,000/-as compensation to the respondent; the petitioner No.1 shall pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/-p.m. instead of Rs. 6,000/-p.m. from the date of filing of the petition before the Trial Court. The Revision Petition is contested by the respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that the petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Voilence Act (hereinafter referred to as D.V.Act) was filed by the respondent against the petitioners which was duly contested by them. By an order dated 24.04.2014 the respondent was granted various reliefs including compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/-each to be paid by the petitioners and Rs. 6,000/-p.m. as maintenance for the respondent and her child from the date of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred the appeal which was disposed of by an order dated 18.11.2014. Review Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.01.2015.

3. The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and maintenance awarded by the Courts below. They are also aggrieved whereby petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have been ordered to share the compensation. The impugned order dated 18.11.2014 records that the petitioners had no grievance so far as relief protection under Section 18 and order under Section 19 of DV Act were granted by the Trial Court. The appellate court categorically observed that there were no allegations of domestic violence against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the evidence of the respondent as CW-1. She had levelled allegations of domestic violence only against her husband and mother-in-law. The appellate court further observed that the Trial Court did not analyze the testimony of CW-1 (Chanchal-the respondent) carefully. Apparently, there were no allegations of domestic violence against petitioner No.2 and 3 (father-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent respectively). The Courts below had no occasion to direct petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to share the compensation amount to be paid by petitioner No.1. Order of the learned appellate court to that extent cannot be sustained and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 cannot be asked to share the compensation amount. Accordingly, the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 80,000/-shall be paid by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent.

4. The Trial Court had granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-p.m. to the respondent and her minor child from the date of passing of the order. The appellate court reduced the quantum to Rs. 5,000/-and stated that it shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition before the Trial Court. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent had not filed any appeal/revision petition against the impugned order of Trial Court to claim arrear of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. Hence, it was not permissible for the appellate court to order the payment of arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and not from the date of the impugned order.

5. The appellate court observed that the income of the petitioner No.1 has not been ascertained by the Trial Court and the amount of Rs. 6,000/-as total maintenance for the respondent and her child was based only upon presumptions. It noted that earlier petitioner No.1 had claimed of doing business of computer learning in the name and style of ANTEC and generating total income of Rs. 5,000/-to Rs. 6,000/-. It was also noted that the maintenance amount granted was on the higher side and acc