Respondent/Revision Petitioner feeling aggrieved by

the judgment of First Appellate Court on the file of

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga in

Crl.A.No.106/2014, dated 05.10.2015, confirming the

order of Trial Court on the file of JMFC-II at Shimoga in

Crl. Misc. 03/2011, dated 26.05.2014 preferred this

revision petition.

2.

Parties to the Revision Petition are referred with

their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

3.

Heard the arguments of both sides.

4.

The petitioner filed the petition under Section

12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred as “D.V.Act”.)

against respondent seeking maintenance. The said petition

after contest came to be allowed by awarding maintenance

of Rs.4,500/- per month to the petitioner from the date of

- 3 -

petition except for four months of period during which she

was residing along with the respondent. The respondent

has challenged the said order of Trial Court before the

First Appellate Court on the file of III Addl.District and

Sessions Judge, Shimogga in Crl.A.No.106/2014. The First

Appellant Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Trial

Court in granting maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month

and also awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the

petitioner.

5.

The said order has been challenged by the

Revision Petitioner/respondent contending that both the

Courts below have not considered the decree of Restitution

of Conjugal Rights passed by Trial Court, Belgaum in

MC No.215/2011 Ex.R.1. The petitioner without there

being any reasonable cause has deserted the company of

respondent and as such she is not entitled for any

maintenance. The Courts below have failed to appreciate

the evidence on record that petitioner and respondent

- 4 -

lived together in Belgaum for about four months after the

decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in MC No.

215/2011 Ex.R.1. Thereafter petitioner has deserted the

Company of respondent without there being any legal

justification, therefore the grant of maintenance as

awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First

Appellate Court cannot be legally sustained.

6.

Per contra, learned counsel Smt.Sohani Holla

learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court has argued

that

respondent

has

obtained

ex-parte

decree

of

Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petitioner has no any

independent income of her own. It is difficult to travel

from Bhadravathi to Belgaum to contest the petition filed

by the respondent seeking decree for Restitution of

Conjugal Rights. The allegations made in the petition and

the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 speaks about petitioner being

subjected to domestic violence and was having justifiable

cause to reside separately from respondent. Therefore, no

any fault can be found with the Courts below in granting

- 5 -

maintenance not withstanding the decree of Restitution of

Conjugal Rights in MC No.215/2011 vide Ex.R.1.

7.

The short question that arises for consideration

before this Court is:

1)

Whether the wife against whom the

decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights

has been passed is entitled for any

maintenance in terms of Section 12 of

D.V.Act?

2) Whether the interference by this Court

is required?

8.

On careful perusal of oral and documentary

evidence placed on record by parties to the Revision

Petition, it would go to show that marriage of petitioner

with

respondent

was

performed

on

26.12.1996

at

Chitradurga and out of the wed lock they have no any

issues. The Doctor has adviced the couple to adopt the

child. The parents, brothers and sisters of respondent have

objected for adopting any child with an intention to grab

the properties belonging to respondent. The respondent is

- 6 -

working as a Police Constable and has got sufficient source

of income. The petitioner was subjected to domestic

violence

by

ill-treating

and

harassing

her

in

the

matrimonial home and she was driven out