IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that a relationship in the nature of marriage qualifies for protection under the PWDV Act, and economic abuse is a recognized form of domestic violence.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to a common judgment and order dtd. 13/5/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Criminal Appeal Nos. 13 and 18 of 2018. Both those appeals were preferred under Sec. 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'PWDV Act'), against the judgment and order dtd. 25/7/2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (J.M.F.C.), Navapur in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.18 of 2014, preferred under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act. The learned J.M.F.C. partly allowed the application (Criminal Misc. Application No.18 of 2014) directing the respondent No.1 herein to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,000.00 per month towards monetary relief/maintenance from the date of application and Rs.500.00 per month towards rent of alternate accommodation from the date of the order. The respondent No.1 was further directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.5,000.00 and Rs.3,000.00 as compensation and cost of the proceedings, respectively. The application was dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the father and second wife of respondent No.1.

3. Both, the petitioner and respondent No.1, preferred two separate appeals taking exception to the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. The petitioner preferred the appeal, seeking enhancement in the amount of monetary relief. The respondent husband preferred the appeal for setting aside the order directing him to pay the petitioner monetary relief as stated herein above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and allowed the appeal preferred by the husband and thereby set aside the order dtd. 25/7/2018 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Hence, the present criminal writ petition.

4. The facts in short, giving rise to the present petition are as follows: The petitioner and respondent No.1 belong to Adivasi community. The petitioner claims to have married the respondent No.1, 25 years before filing of the application (Criminal Misc. Application No.18 of 2014). She claims to have been blessed with a child, born of the said marriage. The respondent No.1 contracted second marriage with respondent No.3 whom six daughters have been born of the said marriage. The petitioner claims to have continued to cohabit. The respondents, however, harassed and ill-treated her. It is her case that a year before filing of the application under Sec. 12 of the PWDV Act, the respondents turned her and her son out of the matrimonial home. The respondent No.1 did not make any provision for maintenance of the petitioner wife and their son, Manoj. It is also her case that the respondent No.1 is financially well. He owns a big house and agricultural land. He is also the owner of a tractor. It is also her case that respondent No.1 is the Chairman of local co-operative milk society. He owns number of buffaloes. He also cultivates the lands of others on crop share basis. As such, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 and his father are affluent persons. The petitioner, therefore, preferred application for various reliefs.

5. The respondents contested the application denying to have marital or marriage like relationship between the petitioner. He also denied paternity of the child of the petitioner. It is his case that his financial position is weak. He is unable to pay any amount towards maintenance. His wife and daughters are dependent on him. With all these contentions, rejection of the application was prayed for.

6. The learned J.M.F.C. allowed the application holding that there was matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. He, therefore, granted the application. The appellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that no relationship between the pe