1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 06th October, 2017 passed in Criminal Appeal no. 154 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, whereby the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalgaon, came to be quashed and set aside in PWDVA Application no. 100 of 2014 filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act” for short).

3. The petitioner got married to one Balasaheb, who was the son of respondent no.1, on 21st February, 2003. Respondent no.2 is the brother-in-law and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the petitioner. Respondent no.3 is the wife of respondent no.2. The father-in-law of the petitioner viz. Shridhar Parshuram Patil died on 03rd March, 2015. Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are residing in the house belonging to respondent no.1 bearing no. 51, 2/2, Gruharachna Housing Society, Wadgaon Sheri, Pune14. The petitioner is presently residing at Jalgaon.

4. Admittedly, after the marriage, the petitioner started residing in the house in which presently respondent nos. 1 to 4 are residing. After some days, the petitioner and her husband started residing separate in two rooms on the first floor of the said house. It is stated in paragraph no.5 of the application that respondent no.1 used to take rent from the deceased husband of the petitioner in respect of those two rooms. The deceased husband of the petitioner purchased a flat bearing no. 101, D2, Prasad Nagar, Wadgaon Sheri, Pune. The petitioner and her deceased husband started residing separate from respondent nos. 1 to 4 in that flat with effect from 10th October, 2008. The husband of the petitioner died of heart problem on 16th May, 2009. It is alleged that thereafter respondent nos. 1 to 4 did not allow the petitioner and her son to visit their house on the say that after the demise of her husband, her son and herself had no concern whatsoever with them. Therefore, she started residing at Jalgaon alongwith her son.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that her deceased husband Balasaheb was earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month towards salary. He spent a lot of money for repairs and maintenance of the house in which respondent nos. 1 to 4 are residing. It is further alleged that respondent nos. 1 to 5 used to harass, humiliate and insult the petitioner when she was residing with them. They were harassing her even after she started residing separate from them in flat no. 101. It is alleged that respondent no.2 had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from her deceased husband – Balasaheb on 15th May, 2009. The deceased – Balasaheb was under a great mental pressure because of that demand. Therefore, he suffered from heart attack and expired on 16th May, 2009. It is alleged that the amount received from L.I.C., due to demise of Balasaheb, has been grabbed by respondent nos. 1 to 4. The son of the petitioner is suffering from some psychological problem. He needs medical treatment. The petitioner has no source of income. She, therefore, prayed for monetary relief of Rs.30,000/- per month from the respondents. She claimed compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the respondents for subjecting her to domestic violence. She further sought a direction against the respondents that they should purchase a dwelling house for the petitioner at Jalgaon and further claimed share in the house in which the respondents are residing. She alleged that all of her ornaments and other domestic articles have been wrongfully retained by the respondents. She, therefore, claimed those ornaments and domestic articles as well.

6. The application filed by the petitioner was resisted by the respondents. They denied all the adverse allegations made by the petitioner against them. They denied that the deceased husband of the petitioner spent