Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. —This Criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr. P.C. is preferred to set aside the judgment dated 3.10.2013 passed in Cri. A. No. 338/2013 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bangalore and the order passed in Cri. Misc. No. 68/2011 dated 16.4.2012 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-Il, Bangalore.

2. The parties are referred to their rank before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-Il, Bangalore. The respondent herein is referred to as ‘petitioner’ and the petitioner-husband is referred to as respondent during the course of this order. The petitioner Smt. S. Vanitha filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Cri. Misc. 68/2011 stating therein that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent, their marriage was solemnized on 4.3.2007 at Bangalore, at the time of marriage, the respondent husband was given 100 gm. of gold in the form of ornaments, a suit worth Rs.25,000, silver articles and cash of Rs. 1.00 lakh in the form of dowry. In addition to that, the family members of the petitioner spent about Rs. 5.00 lakhs towards marriage expenses. After the marriage, petitioner and respondent started residing in the house of parents of the petitioner. Respondent proclaimed himself as co-ordinator in Chirasree Institute of Research and Development and also that he is working as lecturer in Pushpagiri Management College, Arunodaya Law College and Venkatagiri college of Management. Bangalore. It is further alleged that the respondent used to tease and taunt the petitioner as she brought very meager dowry at the time of marriage. Out of their wedlock, a female child is born. But the respondent after the birth of the child, never used to give food, clothing and shelter to the petitioner and her daughter. In short, she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment both physically and mentally by the respondent husband which made her to file petition under Section 12 of the Act.

3. Respondent opposed the petition contending that the petitioner and her parents are not in good terms with the respondent and that they always tried to interfere with the affairs of the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner deserted the respondent on her own and as such she is not entitled to maintenance or any other monetary benefits at the hands of the Court. Both the parties have led their oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court gone into the evidence placed on record by both the parties both oral and documentary and by order dated 16.4.2012 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner, directing the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3,000 p.m. from the date of the petition and pay Rs. 1,000 per month to each of the minor children, till they attain the age of majority. It is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh to the petitioner within one month from the date of the order apart from granting prohibitory order against the respondent from committing violence upon the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent husband preferred Cri. A. No. 338/2012 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV Bangalore. The Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate by its judgment dated 3.10.2013 confirming the order passed by the Magistrate so far as maintenance and compensation awarded to the petitioner and her children. The Appellate Court further ordered to pay lumpsum of Rs. 20,000 per year to each of the children towards their education expenses. Aggrieved by both the order this revision is preferred.

5. From the material on record, it is evident that the marriage and relationship of husband and wife is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that out of their wedlock, two children are born. There is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner underwent both