JUDGMENT

K.L. Wadane, J. - Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, both the matters are taken up for final disposal.

3. The aforesaid criminal writ petition and criminal revision are filed against the common judgment and order dated 13.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in PWDVA Cri. Appeal No. 95/2013 and PWDVA Cri. Appeal No. 102/2013 which were filed by the respective parties challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in Cri. M.A. No. 1640/2011.

4. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:

(1) The petitioners/original applicants had filed Cri. M.A. No. 1640/2011 under the provisions of section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2015 (for short, ''D.V. Act'') seeking reliefs under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/original respondents. The parties herein are referred to by their original status in Cri. M.A. No. 1640/2011. Applicant No. 1 is wife and applicant No. 2 is minor son of applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 1/husband. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appears to be in-laws of applicant No. 1.

(2) On 27th April, 2008, applicant No. 1 married with respondent No. 1 as per Muslim religious customs and ceremonies. After the marriage, applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 1 resided at Ahmednagar, Pune and Aurangabad during the period from 2008 to 2011. Meanwhile, respondent No. 1 husband started giving ill-treatment to applicant-wife by abusing her physically, mentally and economically. Respondent No. 1 caused mental harassment to applicant no. 1 by sending messages on her mobile. Ultimately, the parties issued notices to each other and in one of the notices, respondent No. 1 husband said that he has given "Talaq" by issuing legal notice through advocate. Applicant No. 1 did not admit the same nor she accepted the amount of amount towards Mehar or Iddat.

(3) Looking to the averments of the applicant in the application, it appears that due to mental and physical harassment, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 were constrained to reside separately from respondent No. 1. Therefore, in view of the provisions of the D.V. Act, as referred above, the applicants have claimed maintenance, rent as well as compensation.

(4) To establish her claim, applicant No. 1 relied upon her oral evidence filed by way affidavit at Exh. 19, oral evidence of her father Sayyad Shamsham at Exh. 36 in the form of affidavit and also examined one Sayyed Afak Ahmed Hashmi at Exh.41 to prove that rented house was arranged for residence of the applicants, however, the respondent husband did not pay the rent amount. As against this, respondent No. 1 husband had filed affidavit of oral evidence at Exh.52 and affidavit of his father-respondent No. 2 at Exh.63. Besides the oral evidence, the parties have relied upon the copies of notices and replies at Exh. 55 to 58.

(5) The learned Judicial Magistrate, F.C., after scrutiny of documentary as well as oral evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to maintenance of Rs. 3000/- each per month and in addition to that, applicant No. 1 is entitled to rent amount to the extent of Rs. 3000/- per month and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from respondent No. 1 and accordingly disposed of Criminal M.A. No. 1640/2011.

(6) The order passed by the learned Magistrate was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by both the parties in appeals. PWDVA Cri. Appeal No. 95/2013 was presented by the respondents whereas, PWDVA Cri. Appeal No. 102/2013 was presented by the applicants. Learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and the order of rent awarded to the applicants was set aside, whereas, the appeal presented by the applicants was dismissed in toto. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred present criminal writ p