These two revision petitions are filed challenging the

judgment passed in Crl.A.No.406/2015 on the file of LXIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City

(CCH-64), dated 22.06.2016.

For the sake of convenience, parties herein are

referred with the original ranks occupied by them before

the trial Court.

The brief factual matrix leading to the cases are

as under:

- 4 -

That the petitioners have filed a petition under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent seeking

protection orders, claiming maintenance, compensation

etc.,

4.

It is said that the revision petitioner No.1 is the

wife of the respondent and revision petitioners No.2 and 3

are the daughters of the respondent born out of the

marriage

wedlock

dated

09.06.1985.

The

revision

petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and they placed

reliance on 17 documents. The respondent himself was

examined as R.W.1 and he placed reliance on 6 documents

as per Exs.R1 to R6. After hearing the arguments and

after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the

learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 by issuing a protection order. Further, he has

awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the

petitioner No.1 till her life time or till she remarries and

further granted maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each to

- 5 -

petitioners No.2 and 3, till they are married. There was

also a direction to pay Rs.40,000/- towards medical

expenses to petitioner No.3 and Rs.5 Lakhs compensation

towards medical and educational expenses of petitioner

No.3. He has also directed compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs to

petitioner No.1.

5.

This order is being challenged by the husband

in Crl.A.No.406/2015 on the file of LXIII Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-64). The

learned District and Sessions Judge after appreciating the

oral and documentary evidence has allowed the appeal

filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in part by modifying the

order passed by the learned Magistrate. He reduced the

maintenance awarded to petitioner No.1 from Rs.30,000/-

to Rs.20,000/- and the compensation was reduced from

Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.2 Lakhs. However, he has confirmed the

order of maintenance as regards petitioners No.2 and 3

and further, awarded compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to

- 6 -

each petitioners No.2 and 3 towards educational and

medical expenses.

6.

This order being challenged in these two

revision petitions. The husband has filed Criminal Revision

Petition No.1302/2016, while the wife and daughters have

filed Criminal Revision Petition No.1127/2016. Since these

two petitions are arising out of same order, they are heard

together and common order is passed.

7.

The main contention of the husband is that the

wife is residing in his house itself and she is also getting

the lease amount as well as rent and hence, he contends

that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m., is on higher

side. Further, he would contend that since the daughters

are majors, they are not entitled for either maintenance or

any compensation under the Provisions of Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 as they does not fall within the

definition of the ''child'' as defined under Section 2(b) of

the Provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which

defines the child as below the age of 18 years. Hence, he

- 7 -

would seek for modification by reducing the maintenance

awarded to petitioner No.1 and for setting aside the order

of awarding the maintenance and compensation to

petitioners No.2 and 3.

8.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners-wife/daughters in Crl.R.P.No.1127/2016

representing wife and daughters would submit that

relationship between the parties is admitted and it is

bounden duty of the father to maintain his wife and

children. He would contend that wife is required to live on

par with the status of tha