PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 3rd February 2018 passed by the Sessions Court, Mumbai rejecting the applicant's appeal filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('D.V. Act') which was filed challenging order dated 5th January 2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, Mumbai.

2. The relevant facts for determining the issues raised in this application are as follows :

(a) The marriage between the applicant and respondent no.1 was solemnized on 7th May 2008. Out of the wedlock child Vihan was born on 14th September 2012;

(b) On 17th July 2017 the applicant filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of DV Act seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the DV Act. The said application was filed against respondent no.1 and his mother. The proceedings were numbered as CC.122/DV/2017;

(c) The applicant left her matrimonial home on 2nd December 2017 with child Vihan and made separate residential arrangement along with her parents;

(d) The applicant addressed a letter dated 6th December 2017 to the school authorities of Vihan. The respondent no.1 preferred application vide Exhibit-9 dated 20th December 2017 seeking access of Vihan;

(e) The applicant filed her affidavit-in-reply before the learned Magistrate opposing the said application on the ground of maintainability;

(f) By order dated 5th January 2018, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 31st Court, Vikroli, allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 and he was allowed to exercise his visitation rights and keep custody of his child for 48 hours for twice in a month i.e. on every second and fourth Friday from 6 pm to Sunday 6 pm i.e. on alternate week ends;

(g) The applicant challenged the aforesaid order by preferring appeal before the Sessions Court. The applicant also preferred an application for stay of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The Sessions Court by order dated 12th January 2018 granted interim stay to the order of the learned Magistrate pending hearing of the appeal. The respondent no.1 filed his affidavit-in-reply on 18th January 2018. The Sessions Judge by order dated 3rd February 2018 dismissed Appeal No.30 of 2018 filed by applicant and upheld the order dated 5th January 2018 passed by learned Magistrate.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of law. The applicant was constrained to prefer an application under the DV Act seeking reliefs u/s 18 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the DV Act on 17th July 2017. The said application was preferred on account of immense verbal, emotional, physical, economical violence at the hands of respondents. The respondent no.1 did not file his written statement denying any charges against him on several dates and had threatened the applicant to withdraw the complaint. The applicant was constrained to lodge the NC complaints with police. Due to severe apprehension and scary atmosphere at the matrimonial house, the applicant had no alternative but to leave her matrimonial home on 2nd December 2017 with child Vihan and made separate residential arrangement along with her parents. It is further submitted that the applicant had to address letter dated 6th December 2017 to the school authorities of Vihan as the respondent no.1 had threatened kidnapping of child, which is reflected in the NC dated 28th November 2017. Without filing written statement and after a period of about five months of filing the complaint under DV Act, the respondent no.1 had preferred an application for urgent interim relief vide Exhibit-9 on 20th December 2017. The applicant filed her affidavit-in-reply opposing the application on the ground of maintainability. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 5th January 2018 erroneously allowed the application preferr