JUDGMENT

A. M. Dhavale, J. - The original applicant has filed this revision challenging the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in D.V. Appeal No. 17 of 2017 dt. 09.04.2018 and judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani in Misc. Cri. Case No. 284 of 2011. dt. 23.03.2017.

2. Respondent No. 1 is father-in-law of the petitioner and respondent is her brother-in-law who is advocate. The petitioner married to one Anil son of respondent No. 1 on 20.04.1996 and thereafter cohabited with him at the house of respondent No. 1 at Parbhani. The husband of respondent No. 1 is serving at Latur as Sales Tax Inspector. The petitioner is residing along with her 2 children at Aurangabad. She filed application u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act") in the court at Aurangabad, through the Protection Officer and claimed three reliefs.

(i) She and her children should be allowed to reside in the shared household at Parbhani by order of residence u/s 19.

(ii) Protection u/s 18.

(iii) Order for compensation u/s 23.

3. The applicant has argued in-person efficiently. It is her case that, she was residing with her husband in the house of joint family at Parbhani. She resided there from 1996-2011 and it being a shared household, she should be permitted to reside there and necessary restraint order should be passed u/s 19 of the DV Act. She also claimed that, as per the partition between her husband and inlaws, there was ancestral land allotted to her husband. The mutations were accordingly effected and when she was trying to cultivate the same, the respondents were obstructing her. In spite of orders of this Court, they were not allowing her to cultivate those lands. In consonance with these main reliefs, there is also prayer for compensation. Learned advocate Shri. Milind Patil argued that, the house at Parbhani is not ancestral house. It was purchased by respondent No. 1 in the name of respondent No. 2, who and husband of the petitioner were minor. According to him, the husband of the petitioner joined as Sales Tax Inspector and the petitioner was travelling along with him at various places like Jalna, Latur, Nanded and Aurangabad. She has no differences with husband. She resided after the marriage in the house at Parbhani only for two days. Since the house does not belong to joint family, it is not the shared household. The respondents have filed special suit bearing No. 92/2010 for declaration of ownership of respondent No. 1 to the house and the same has been decreed in favour of the respondents. The applicant submitted that, she has preferred appeal against the same and the decree has been stayed. The respondents claimed that, the dispute regarding the agricultural lands is not a case of domestic violence and, therefore, the application filed under Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable. It is the property dispute between the respondent and the husband of the petitioner.

4. In the trial Court, the petitioner herein examined herself and produced the documentary evidence. The respondents examined Ajay Thanedar, Sunil Chopade and respondent No. 2 himself. The applicant-in-person filed written notes of arguments and relied on number of rulings. The learned trial Judge held that, there was no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner has relied on compromise decree passed in Reg. Civil Suit No. 455 of 1970, whereby the disputed land was allotted to her husband. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the said decree has been set aside and the suit claiming declaration of ownership filed by respondent No. 1 has been decreed. The ld. trial Judge held that, it was a property dispute which cannot be converted into domestic violence case. The applicant challenged this judgment before District Jude, Parbhani. The learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbhani dismissed the appeal.

5. Considering the nature of dispute ra