Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Heard learned counsel for Mr. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. and Mr. Usman Gani, father of Aneesha.

2. These two cross petitions, one S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 882/2009 - Khushi Mohd. and Ors. vs. Aneesha and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1698/2007 - Annesha vs. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. are directed against the order dated 4.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh disposing of the criminal appeal No. 33/2007 - Aneesha vs. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. and Criminal Appeal No. 32/2007 - Khushi Mohd. and Ors. vs. Aneesha. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed he appeal by the wife Aneesha and partly allowed the appeal of the husband Khushi Mohd.

3. Both these criminal appeals wee filed by them against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sujangarh on 22.3.2007 in Criminal Case No. 47/2007 - Annesha vs. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. The learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directed that the respondents No.1 to 6 (husband Khushi Mohd. and his family members) shall not cause any domestic violence against the applicant wife Aneesha and daughter Aisha alias Asu under Section 18 of the Act. The learned trial Court further directed under Section 19 of the act that the said respondents will permit the applicant - wife and her daughter to live in the portion of the respondents house and under Section 20 of he Act, the learned trial Court directed that husband Khushi Mohd. shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to Aneesha and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and domestic violence caused to her. The said maintenance of Rs. 4000/- was directed to be paid from the month of March, 2007 and continued to be paid on monthly basis.

5. The appellate Court vide its order dated 4.8.2007 while partly allowing the appeal of the husband Khushi Mohd. directed payment of maintenance to the wife to the tune of Rs. 2500/- and since her daughter Asu was residing with husband Khushi Mohd., therefore, payment of maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month towards the maintenance of said minor child would be subject to the condition if the custody of the child is handed over to the wife Aneesha. The relief under Section 19 of the Act was modified by the appellate Court and alternatively of payment of rent of Rs. 1500/- for arranging the alternative accommodation of the applicant wife was also added to the direction of allowing her to reside in the shared accommodation of the respondent.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order, both the parties have filed the aforesaid criminal revision petition as well as criminal misc. petition.

7. The learned counsel Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot appearing for the husband Khushi Mohd. raised the following contentions:

(i) The petitioner husband had divorced respondent-wife Smt. Aneesha way back in the year 2005 orally on 30.8.2005 and by registered letter dated 21.10.2005 and thus, the respondent - wife did not fall within the definition of 'aggrieved person' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and therefore, she was not entitled to the relief granted by he Court below.

(ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that upon grant of divorce, the respondent-wife was to be governed by the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Divorce) Act, 1986 and therefore, no relief of maintenance and other relief could be granted in her favour under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband also urged that the parties and arrived at a compromise and upon such compromise only, the father of the respondent - wife Usman Gani had withdrawn the complaint of the respondent-wife and thus, the complaint case No. 88/2007 (regular criminal case No. 339A/2007) was withdrawn from the competent Court on 13.10.2007 and ther