JUDGMENT

Mr. T.V. Nalawade, J. - The petitions are filed to challenge the decision given by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1683 of 2010 decided on 18.06.2011 and also the decision given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 170 of 2011 and 172 of 2011.

2. Both the sides are heard.

3. The proceeding was filed by the respondent Smt. Archana and her two minor sons under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. ( Hereinafter referred to as " D.V. Act") They had claimed the relief of maintenance, the relief of residence order and damages from the husband Dayanand and his relatives including the parents. The matter was contested by the present petitioner husband and his relatives. The proceeding as against the relatives of the husband came to be dismissed, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, had directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 4,000/to the wife. Direction was also given to pay Rs. 1,000/as rent for house to the wife and direction was given to pay Rs. 30,000/as the damages in respect of the domestic violence, to which the wife was subjected. As maintenance was refused to the two minor issues and as they felt that maintenance granted in favour of the wife was meagre they filed Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2011. The husband filed Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2011. The Sessions Court has increased the monthly maintenance granted in favour of the wife making it Rs. 6,000/. Relief of maintenance is granted in favour of the two minor issues and the father is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/each to the two minor issues. The amount of damages is increased making it Rs. 1,00,000/.

4. This Court has carefully gone through the evidence given before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The marriage had taken place on 05.12.2004 and it is case of the husband that wife had left his company in the year 2008 and she had approached Women Redressal Forum, Aurangabad. It is contention that he was always ready and willing to resume the cohabitation, but wife did not return to the matrimonial house. There was contention of both the sides that in the month of October 2008, there was compromise, but again the wife gave complaint against the husband and the relatives and due to her insistence, first crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and then the case was filed in the said crime. Then the wife filed proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Aurangabad Petition No. E121/ 2009 for granting maintenance of Rs. 10,000/to her and Rs. 5,000/each to the daughter and son. In the said proceeding again compromise took place between present petitioner and respondent s on 17.08.2009 and in that compromise pursis in clause No.2 there is mention that the wife was to complete first Dietitian Course in Mumbai and then she was to return to her matrimonial house at Aurangabad.

5. It is contention of the husband that even after completion of the said course, the wife did not return to matrimonial house and so he was required to issue notice on 12.06.2010. It is contended that as there was insistence from the wife to leave separate from the parents, the husband started living separate from the parents and they started living in separate house from 22.08.2010. It is contention that on 16.10.2010, the wife again left his company and after that, she did not return to matrimonial house. He contended before the Women Redressal Forum that the wife had expressed in October 2010 that she was not ready to return to the matrimonial house.

6. The Domestic Violence proceeding involved in the present matter was filed by the wife in the month of December, 2010. She had claimed maintenance of Rs. 25,000/and she had claimed allowance for separate residence. She had prayed for protection order and she had prayed for dam