Criminal Petition Nos. 1016 and 125 of 2012. Case: Asitha Prasad Vs Soami Prasad. Karnataka High Court
|Case Number:||Criminal Petition Nos. 1016 and 125 of 2012|
|Party Name:||Asitha Prasad Vs Soami Prasad|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Jayna Kothari, Advocate and For Respondents: Farah Fathima, Advocate|
|Judges:||John Michael Cunha, J.|
|Issue:||Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 12(1), 19, 20, 22|
|Judgement Date:||March 23, 2017|
|Court:||Karnataka High Court|
John Michael Cunha, J.
Crl.P. No. 125/2012 is filed by the respondent before the lower court, hereinafter referred to as "husband" calling in question the order dated 13.8.2010 in C.Misc. No. 727/2009 on the file of the I Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru and the judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-III in Crl.A. No. 25104/2010.
Crl.P. No. 1016/2012 is filed by the petitioner "wife" in respect of the very same orders passed by the Courts below in so far as they relate to the quantum of monetary relief and has sought for grant of monetary relief as prayed for by her in the application under section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("PWDV Act 2005" for short).
The brief facts essential for the disposal of the petitions are as follows:
That the petitioner/wife filed an application under section 12 r/w. sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking monetary relief of Rs. 1,43,000/- p.m. under various heads for her and for her two children for life sustenance including payment of monthly rentals, alternate residence among other reliefs in Crl.Misc. No. 727/2009. She examined herself as PW.1 and produced as many as 212 documents marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P212. In rebuttal, the respondent/husband examined himself as RW.1 and relied on 46 documents marked as Ex. R1 to Ex. R46. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned Magistrate partly allowed the petition filed by the wife and directed as under:
Feeling dissatisfied with the said order, both the parties preferred separate appeals in Crl.A. No. 25104/2010 and Crl.A. No. 25116/2010 respectively and the learned Fast Track Court-III by order dated 30.11.2011 dismissed both the appeals and consequently, confirmed the order passed by the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru in C.Misc. No. 727/2009.
The contention of the petitioner/wife is that the courts below have failed to consider her requirement of Rs. 1,43,000/- p.m. towards the maintenance as sought for under various heads which is inconsonance and in confirmation with the standard of living they were adopted to. It is contended that the respondent/husband is working in a multinational company and is earning Rs. 2,00,000/- p.m. Hence, he should have been directed to pay atleast 1/3rd of his income towards maintenance of his wife and...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL