ORDER
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.
1. The matter arises under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the said proceedings, the wife maintains an application seeking maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month and compensation under Section 22 of the Act and for such other reliefs.
2. The case of the wife is that she and her husband married on 1-6-1989 as per their customs at Chinthamani. After the marriage, they stayed together for a considerable period of time. During the wedlock two children were born. It appears, the marriage life was a smooth sailing affair for about a couple of years. But however, the husband started ill-treating her and used to come home late. Her main allegation is that he is living with another lady. It is her case that the husband is earning Rs. 50,000/- as Bar bender. In view of the physical violence and mental violence she is taking treatment at a private nursing home and the husband has refused to pay the bills. She would further allege that the husband has taken away the gold ornaments, two wheelers and cash which was realised from the sale of a site on 24-5-2006.
3. On notice, the husband enters appearance and files objections contending that the application is not maintainable. Nevertheless admitted the relationship and denies the statement made in the petition is false. He would submit that out of his earnings earned the property and the same has been transferred to the wife pursuant to the sale deed dated 21-2-2003 and the same is registered with the Sub-Registrar at Kengeri. The contentions of the husband is that his monthly income is Rs. 5,000/- and that he is not in a position to pay maintenance as claimed by the wife. Learned Magistrate, having regard to the material placed was of the view that maintenance is to be awarded to the wife and children, thus determining the monthly maintenance at Rs. 5,000/-to the wife and Rs. 2,500/- each to the two children. Aggrieved by the said order, husband files a criminal appeal. In the appeal, the learned Appellate Judge, having regard to the material placed on record has modified the order and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/-per month as maintenance to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- each to the two children. The said order is questioned in this petition.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the husband is willing to maintain the wife. He further submits that the determination of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- each to the two children is excessive, inasmuch as, the total earnings of the husband is not more than Rs. 6,000/-. Another contention is that she is getting enough rents from the buildings.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order. She submits that she was every ready and willing to stay with the husband but however the husband still continues to have a liaison with another lady. Hence submits that the wife is entitled for maintenance.
6. I have perused the impugned orders. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the wife and the two children are entitled for maintenance. The only question is with regard to the amount awarded as maintenance.
7. Before awarding maintenance, the Courts are required to take note of the income of the husband and also the probable income of the wife. Indeed, in the case on hand, except for the assertion that the wife is receiving rents, no documents are forthcoming to show that the wife is receiving the rents. The Courts have proceeded on the premise that the wife is not earning anything. The said finding cannot be faulted, inasmuch as, the husband has failed to produce any documents in support of his contention.
8. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, we are concerned with three living souls. Indeed, the wife and two children put together require some amount for their sustenance. The question is, how much? Indeed, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that his earnings is hardly Rs. 150/-per day. Obviously, the specific case made out by the wife is that her husband is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. But, however, the said assertion is not accepted by both the Courts. The Courts have proceeded to decide the matter on the probability of the case and the probable income of a Bar bender. Indeed, the case of the husband is that he is getting only Rs. 150/- per day. I am afraid, the said statement cannot be accepted. Indeed, the amount awarded by the Courts towards maintenance might border on excessive side. But however, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that it does not warrant interference.
No merit. Petition rejected.