The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to revise the order dtd. 16/2/2017 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama, which was confirmed on 11/9/2019 in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2017 on the file of the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama, Krishna District.

2. The 1st petitioner herein is the husband and the 2nd petitioner herein is the mother-in-law and the 3rd petitioner herein is the father-in-law of the 1st respondent herein, who is the petitioner and aggrieved person in D.V.C.No.1 of 2014. The 2nd petitioner herein passed away during the pendency of the present Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as abated against the 2nd petitioner herein.

3. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as 'petitioner- aggrieved person' and the 'respondent-husband' as arrayed in the D.V.C.

4. The petitioner-aggrieved person filed a complaint under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'DVC Act') through the Protection Officer claiming reliefs under Sec. 18 for grant of protection order, under Sec. 19 for grant of residential order, under Sec. 20 for monetary relief and under Sec. 22 for compensation order, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nandigama, as she was subjected to domestic violence under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act.

5. On perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, it manifests that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence against the petitioner-aggrieved person and the documents, i.e., Exs.P6 to P11, filed in support of the contentions of the petitioner-aggrieved person also substantiates the same the respondent-husband has committed the domestic violence towards the petitioner-aggrieved person and the documents, i.e., Exs.P12 to P22, also manifest that the respondent-husband has possessed the landed property and they also establish that he is having sufficient source of income.

6. It is the case of the petitioner-aggrieved party that the respondent-husband has caused physical harassment and the injuries apparently found on the body of the petitioner-aggrieved person would show that the respondent-husband has committed domestic violence as contemplated under Sec. 3 of the DVC Act.

7. It is the case of the respondent-husband that the petitioner-aggrieved person is having illegal contacts with one person by name R.Ravi Shankar, owner of Siri Kalamandir, Nandigama.

8. The contention raised by the respondent-husband was turned down by both the Courts and as the respondent-husband is not able to establish the illegal connection between his wife, who is the petitioner-aggrieved person, and R.Ravi Shankar.

9. The trial Court by relying on the documents relied on by the petitioner-aggrieved person and after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the other High Courts, has granted protection order under Sec. 18 of the DVC Act not to cause any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner-aggrieved person and also against her daughter and granted residential order under Sec. 19 of the DVC Act to stay the petitioner-aggrieved person along with her daughter in the house bearing Door No.7-118 of Raithupet, Nandigama, along with respondents and shall be continued and cannot be disturbed except under due process of law. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner-aggrieved person herself chooses to leave the said house either for the purpose of higher studies of her daughter or for any other reason, the respondent- husband has to pay Rs.6, 000.00 per month towards rental accommodation and by granting monetary relief under Sec. 20 of the DVC Act to pay an amount of Rs.10, 000.00 per month towards maintenance of the petitioner-aggrieved person and also granted a relief under Sec. 22 of the DVC Act d