ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner/wife had filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-01, Central, Delhi under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) which was registered as CC No.291/6/08 seeking protection order under Section 18; residence order under Section 19; monetary relief under Section 20 and compensation order under Section 22 of the Act.

2. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 13.07.2015 directed that the petitioner be paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her and her minor daughter’s maintenance and for her alternative accommodation from the date of the judgment. It was specified that any amount paid to the petitioner in other proceedings would be adjusted. The respondent was directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within three months and to pay the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- by 10th day of every month of English calendar. The respondent was also restrained from causing any harassment or cruelty to the petitioner from the date of the order.

3. As against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Mahila Court, both, the petitioner and the respondent preferred respective appeals vide CA No.8/2015 and 5/2016. Both the appeals were heard together and vide order dated 22.02.2016, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed but the appeal of the respondent was partly allowed to the extent that the monthly allowance to be paid by him was reduced to Rs.5000/- per month towards the maintenance of the minor daughter of the petitioner and nothing to her, payable from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of attainment of majority of the child.

4. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by the Courts below by the present petition.

5. The petitioner was married to the respondent on 07.08.2005 in accordance with Muslim custom. A child was born on 20.04.2006. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that despite good amount of money having been spent in the marriage, she was not treated well and was subjected to cruelty and harassment. The paternity of the child was also doubted by the respondent. Because of such cruel behavior meted out to the petitioner, a complaint was made but ultimately, settlement was arrived at whereupon the petitioner along with her child went to her parental home. Later, the petitioner was asked to move in a separate accommodation in Trilok Puri which was purchased by the respondent for an amount of Rs.5,22,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount, only Rs.3,70,000/- was paid by the respondent and his family members whereas the balance amount was paid by the petitioner and her mother. Both, the petitioner and the respondent lived in the aforesaid accommodation at Trilok Puri for some time. The aforesaid accommodation was later sold out and the spouses shifted to a rented accommodation. Later, the petitioner was refused to be kept in the new flat which was purchased. The petitioner, as alleged, has been living with her mother since 14.10.2008. Hence the complaint.

6. The learned Mahila Court after taking into account the evidence brought before her, assessed the income of the respondent at Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and directed for payment of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance and accommodation of the petitioner and her daughter.

7. The Appellate Court though accepted, in principle, the assessment of the income of the respondent and the requirement of the respondent to maintain the daughter born out of the wedlock but refused to enhance the maintenance as was claimed by the petitioner; rather declined to grant any maintenance to the petitioner on the ground that she was earlier married to one Noor Mohd, which fact was never disclosed and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid earlier marriage of the petitioner had been dissolved. As such, the Appellate Court directed the respondent to pay only an amount of Rs.5000/- towards the maintenance o