JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. The petitioner/husband has preferred the revision against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in PWDVA Appeal No.7 of 2018, dated 03.12.2019.

3. The dispute between husband and wife has a checkered history since 2005. The wife, first in time, had preferred the divorce petition against the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Her petition was dismissed. The appeal preferred against the said Judgment was also dismissed. The said Judgment has attained the finality. Then the husband filed a petition for custody of the children. However, the Court returned his complaint for want of jurisdiction. He did not file an application in the Court having jurisdiction. Again, in the year 2006, the wife filed a petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for the maintenance of the children only. It was allowed. The husband accepted the said order and paid the maintenance to the children. Then again, the wife filed a petition for enhancement of the maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was allowed. The husband again accepted the said judgment and order. In the year 2015, the wife again filed a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was partly allowed. That order was challenged. The District Court set aside the said order. After that, in the year 2014, she filed a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (short ‘D.V. Act’). Appreciating the evidence led by the respective parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed her petition by its order dated 07.12.2017 in PWDVA No.296 of 2014. Dissatisfied with the dismissal order, the wife preferred an appeal. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the petition and granted the maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month and the house rent of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/wife.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge incorrectly applied the ratio in the case of Hitendrakumar Vs. Nilima 2018 (2) Mah.L.J. (Cri) 622. He would have to discuss the evidence and then record his disagreement with the reasons of the trial Court. Disagreeing with the trial Court in a single line and reasoning, is not the rule of writing Judgment under review. He referred to the reasons recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and argued that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is well reasoned. He would argue that since 2005, the wife did not reside with the husband. She never complained of the commission of domestic violence when she was living in the shared household with her husband. The Civil Court has discarded the allegations of cruelty and desertion. The findings of the Civil Court are binding on the Criminal Court. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, has committed a grave error of law in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate in a single line. Unless the aggrieved person proves the domestic violence, no relief under the D.V. Act can be granted. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, has ignored the legal preposition. The order is mechanical and without reason. Hence, it is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/wife has argued that the husband has performed a second marriage. He never accepted the responsibility of the respondent/wife. The husband is enjoying his life with his second wife and children, and the wife is suffering alone. She was ready to cohabit with her husband, but he did not allow her. The wife has been completely deserted. She has no source of income. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, has correctly granted the maintenance though it is meagre. He relied on the case of Shomen Nikhil Danani Vs. Tania Banon Danani, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl