1. Heard Shri P.A. Masram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.G. Moharir, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 18-11-2016 rendered by the learned 25th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court PWDV Act), Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Case 2150/2014 and the judgment and order dated 24-7-2017 rendered by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal 2/2017, by and under which the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, (“DV Act” for short), is upheld.

4. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 12 of the DV Act in July 2014, the prayer clause of which reads thus :

“(i) Pass a protection order in favour of applicant prohibiting and restraining the non-applicant from committing any act of domestic violence and from causing physical and mental harassment and abuse to the applicant.

(ii) Pass an order directing the non-applicant to allow to occupy his flat in 'Nirman Classic' apartment which is situated at Gajanan Nagar, Nagpur or from arranging a suitable accommodation for the applicant in Nagpur in the area where her brother stays and make the arrangements of the same status and style as the non-applicant enjoys in the matrimonial home i.e. payment of electricity bill, expenses for other necessary requirements for the day to day use and also for the daily provisions.

(iii) Pass an order by allowing Rs.25,000/- for the subsistence of applicant.

(iv) Pass an order for payment of damages amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, emotional blackmailing and economical harassment because of ill behaviour, treatment of non-applicants.

(v) Pass an order for payment of litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- as the applicant is not earning and residing on the mercy of her parents.

(vi) Pass an order prohibiting and restraining the non-applicant from aiding or abetting in the commission of the acts of domestic violence either through themselves, or his agents, representatives etc.

(vii) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in the interest of justice.”

5. The petitioner contended that her marriage with the respondent Mr. Anand Tambe was solemnized on 28-8-1979 at Nagpur and was dissolved by the judgment and order dated 09-1-1987 rendered by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge in H.M.P. 201/1981.

6. The petitioner further contended that she is living at the mercy of her aged brother and is totally dependent on him for food and shelter. The petitioner then avers that the respondent is an agriculturist by avocation and is extremely well to do. The respondent owns agricultural land worth crores and a residential apartment at Gajanan Nagar, Nagpur and his monthly income is Rs.75,000/-, is the averment in the petition. The petitioner then contends that she is legally entitled to claim maintenance under Section 12 of the DV Act since she is facing financial hardship and is finding it difficult to live with dignity. Significantly, the edifice of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act is entirely constructed on the averment that since the petitioner is facing destitution and the respondent is well to do, the petitioner is entitled to relief under the provisions of the DV Act. The application is absolutely silent on the extent or nature of the domestic violence to which the petitioner is subjected nor is an attempt made to explain the seeking of relief twenty-seven years after the dissolution of marriage. Be it noted, that there is absolutely no averment in the application that there was any interaction between the petitioner and the respondent post the dissolution of marriage, muchless a domestic relationship.

7. The respondent appeared before the learned Magistrate and preferred an application (Exhibi