O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent though served, unrepresented.

2. The Trial Court taken note of the material available on record i.e., the evidence of PW1 to PW4 and also the documents at Ex.P1 to P26 and also the evidence of RW1 and RW2 and also the documents at Ex.R1 to R11. The Trial Court taken note of the admission on the part of RW1 wherein he has categorically admitted that he himself has given the advertisement in terms of Ex.P25 that is the complimentary publication made by respondent No.1 himself in which he has been shown as LIC agent and apart from that he has admitted that his family has got two houses and also having account in SBI as well as in Canara Bank but now, he says that the same are not in existence. Having taken note of the act of the petitioner, under domestic violence, the respondent invoked Section 19(f) of P.W.D.V Act and ordered to secure the alternative accommodation to the petitioner and her child at Holenarasipura and also directed him to pay the rent for the same with household articles for the livelihood of the petitioner and her child and also ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner as a monitory relief and also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental torture and domestic violence caused to the petitioner by invoking Section 20(1)(d) as well as Section 22 of P.W.D.V Act and the same is also challenged in Crl.A.No.15/2016.

3. The Appellate Court also having reassessed the material available on record in paragraph 18 comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error and given anxious consideration to the material available on record and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order of both the Courts, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

4. The main contention of the petitioner that compensation awarded by the Trial Court is on higher side since the respondent is working as a teacher in SLN Primary School at Holenarasipura and drawing salary. Though contend that the respondent is working as a teacher, no document is placed before the Trial Court to substantiate the same. The documents produced at Ex.R1 to R11 are also not in respect of her employment is concerned. In order to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court since, the Trial Court in paragraph 24 in detail discussed the documents produced by the petitioner as well as the respondent and in paragraph 25 also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of RW1 so also the evidence of RW2 in paragraphs 26 and 27 and considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and awarded the compensation. The Trial Court also taken note of the fact that the respondent is having a child and an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded by the Trial Court as a monitory relief from the date of petition and the same is not an exorbitant.

5. The petitioner contended that the compensation awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is also on higher side. Having taken note of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record particularly, the evidence of PW2 to PW4 who have been examined with regard to the act of the petitioner, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in awarding the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental torture and domestic violence by taking note of the capacity of the petitioner and it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to look after his wife and child and also directed to secure the alternative accommodation and directed to pay the rent with household articles for livelihood. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the revisional jurisdiction when the order is not suffers from any legality and its correctness and the scope of the revision is also very limited. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORD