JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S Patil, J.

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. The learned advocate for the Respondents waives service. At the request of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The Applicant was married to the respondent no.1 on 15.05.1993 and the couple was blessed with Respondent nos. 2 and 3 daughters out of the wedlock. He is impugning the concurrent findings in the judgment and order passed by the Magistrate in a proceeding initiated by the Respondent no.1 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as to the 'D.V. Act') dated 02.11.2017 and the one passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal preferred by him whereby the Sessions Judge dismissed it by the judgment and order dated 17.10.2018.

3. Shorn of verbiage the averments of the Respondent no.1 in her complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are to the effect that since after the marriage on 15.05.1993 she started cohabiting with the Applicant in his house at Tandalwadi (Bhilla) Taluka and District Beed. Since the marriage itself he subjected her to physical and mental abuse by declaring that he wanted to marry with an educated girl but had to marry her who was illiterate. Some how she continued to pull on. She then alleged that he played a fraud by deceiving her to get an admission to D.Ed. course by showing her to be a divorcee and compelled her to obtain a divorce in Hindu Marriage Petition No.66 of 2000. He compelled her to give consent for such divorce by threatening her to desert her and the daughters. He promised her that the decree would only be a paper decree and obtained a decree for divorce on 20.10.2000. She further averred that in spite of passing of such a decree for divorce she continued to cohabit with him in the same household as husband and wife along with their daughters and stayed there for a period of ten long years.

4. She further averred that in April 2010 he solemnized marriage with one Sheetal Niwas Bade and brought her home. He declared that since there was a divorce there was no relation between her and him and threatened her of dire consequences if she objected. Since thereafter the second wife has been cohabiting with them in the same house. She then alleged that on 22.08.2010 she was abused, beaten and driven out from the house. She approached police and a Non Cognizable Case No.226 of 2010 was registered. Annoyed by it he again assaulted her on 24.11.2010 therefore she again approached police and another Non Cognizable Case No.361of 2010 was registered. A similar episode occurred again on 15.10.2011 and another Non Cognizable Case No.331 of 2011 was registered. She then alleged that even on the date of that complaint she was cohabiting in the same household with their daughters. She was subjected to physical torture. She is not being provided for her maintenance. He is also not providing for the education and other daily expenses of the daughters and persistently insisted her to leave the company.

5. She then alleged that he is serving as a lecturer in a college and was earning Rs. 27,000/- and odd. Besides he has agricultural land and was earning handsomely. He also derives income from rent.

6. Lastly she averred that she has also filed Regular Civil Suit No.342 of 2011 on 08.08.2011 seeking declaration that the decree for divorce was null and void and has also filed a police complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494, 420, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly she claimed various reliefs under the D.V. Act.

7. The Applicant contested that proceeding by filing his written statement. He admitted to have solemnized marriage with the Respondent no.1 and even admitted paternity of both the girls. He denied to have ever subjected her to any domestic violence or to have driven out of his house. He contended that after the birth of first daughter she started frequently quarreling with h