The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in deciding claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the need for reasonable compensation and maintenance based on the husband's financial status and previous claims.

P.K.BHASIN, J.

1. Both these petitions arose out of a complaint case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005( in short ‘the Act of 2005) though were filed against different orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court. Since both the petitions were heard together and common submissions were advanced at the Bar by the counsel for the parties the same are being disposed of together by this common order.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these petitions may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner in Crl/M.C.No.2748/10 (reference to whom shall now onwards be made as ‘the petitioner-wife’) and respondent no. 1 in that petition and who is the petitioner in Crl.Rev.P.No.148/098(who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘the respondent-husband’) were married on 31st January, 2004. They celebrated their honeymoon in Australia, New Zealand and Thailand and on 2nd November, 2005 they were blessed with a son. However, the sweetness of their married life did not last long and within short time relations between them became bitter and so bitter that the petitioner-wife had to file a criminal complaint in Court in the year 2007 under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 against her husband and his parents and two sisters in which she had levelled allegations of physical and mental torture to her by her in-laws. Many reliefs were claimed in the complaint by the petitioner-wife including a right on residence in the property in Ashok Vihar which she claimed to be her matrimonial home and maintenance of Rs.1,50,000/-p.m. on the ground that he himself had been claiming that he was paying that much money to her as pocket money. In the complaint some interim reliefs including that of payment of Rs.50,000/-as interim maintenance during the pendency of the complaint were also claimed by the petitioner-wife.

3. The respondent-husband only appears to have contested the complaint and in his reply he refuted the allegations that he and his family members had been harassing the petitioner and demanding car etc. from her parents. He claimed, while not refuting the claim of his wife that he belonged to an affluent business family having many properties and businesses, that he himself was employed with his uncle and his annual income was around two lacs of rupees only and that he had been paying to his wife a sum of Rs.15,000/-p.m.

4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate relying only upon the pleadings and the affidavits filed by the parties and the report of the Protection Officer disposed of the complaint finally vide order dated 5th September, 2007 and held respondent-husband only guilty of causing domestic violence to the petitioner-wife and certain directions were given to him including a direction for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/-to her under Section 20 of the Act of 2005 for the acts of domestic violence committed by him and a sum of Rs.5000/-p.m. only as maintenance for the mother and son from the date of the complaint since the husband had offered to stay with her. However, no relief was given against his parents and two sisters. The relevant parts of that order are reproduced below:-

“18. After hearing the parties and going through the contents of the same it is clear that she is covered under Domestic Violence Act being the aggrieved party as defined in definition U/s 2(a) of the Act and she is also in domestic relationship with respondents which is covered as per the definition of domestic relationship u/s 2(1) of the Act and further the allegations leveled are also covered u/s 3 of the Act whereby domestic violence has been defined. But it has to be seen as to what relief can be given to her and to what extent. She has claimed protection order against all the respondents but respondent no.4 and 5 are sister in laws of petitioner and no specific allegations could be alleged against them. Hence, no order is required against them and complaint is dismissed qua them. Respondents no. 2