IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to address domestic violence, provide monetary relief, maintenance, and compensation, and uphold the rights of the aggrieved person and her children.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., the applicants challenge the order dated 22.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No.4100 of 2018, whereby, under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’), learned JMFC granted several reliefs under sections 19(f) and 22 of the Act in an application under section 12 of the Act. Relief granted by the learned JMFC is in tune of Rs.2000/- under section 19(f) of the Act towards rent in-lieu of accommodation and further granted Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance to wife and did not decide to grant relief to minor child as minor child was getting Rs.3000/- from the order of learned Family Court but directed to pay educational expenses of minor son and in addition thereto, also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation under section 22 of the Act. The applicant – husband challenged the said order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by filing Criminal Appeal No.217 of 2022. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 28.11.2023 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and order delivered by the learned JMFC. Being aggrieved by both the judgment and orders, the applicant – husband has filed present Revision Application.

2. Facts of the case are as under :-

2.1 The respondent herein-original applicant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4100 of 2018 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act against the appellants herein and one Jashodaben Jayantilal Prajapati (who died pending the proceedings), inter alia, contending that her marriage was solemnized with appellant No.1 herein on 27.05.2005 and appellant Nos. 2 & 3 happen to be her father-inlaw & brother-in- law respectively and deceased Jashodaben happened to be her mother-in-law (original respondent No.3). Out of said wedlock, one son namely, Jainish is born, who presently stays with the respondent herein. The respondent was staying in joint family with the appellants and after sometime of the marriage, the appellants started mental and physical cruelty to the respondent and appellant No.1 at the instigation of other appellants was taunting her by saying that she has not brought cash amount and ornaments as demanded. The appellants also used to abuse the respondent and demand Rs.5,00,000/-. The respondent was asked to bring all educational expenses of the son from her paternal home. The appellants were continuously harassing the respondent. Appellant No.1 was forced to get remarry by other appellants and thereby torturing her physically and mentally. The appellants tortured the respondent for giving divorce to appellant No.1. The appellants were restraining the respondent from visiting her parents and not giving adequate food as well as restraining her movements. However, in order to see that her marriage life and her son's future are not spoiled, the respondent used to bear the torture. On 15.07.2016, the appellants quarreled with the respondent and drove her out with her minor son with worn clothes. Initially, the respondent stayed with her parents for sometime and now she resides in a rented premises with her son. Though the respondent tried to settle the dispute and showed willingness to go with the appellants, the appellants did not show any readiness. Appellant No.1 does work on lathe machine and earns Rs.30,000/- per month whereas appellant No.2 also works on lathe machine and earns Rs.70,000/- per month. Appellant No.1 has no responsibility except the respondent and her minor son.

On the above factual background, the respondent prayed for reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 & 22 of the Act as well as return of Stridhan before the learned trial Court.

3. Heard learned advocate for the applicants. Learned advocate for the applicants would submit that learned Court below has committed serious error in believing that domestic relationship exists between the parties and also domestic vi