Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—These two revisions are directed against the order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in two appeals, one filed by Mohd. Rafique and the other filed by Smt. Rahmat Bano and Mohd. Shafeeq. The appellate court rejected both the appeals and affirmed the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Case No.455/2010.

2. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by the above order, had accepted the application filed by Smt. Rahmat Bano and Mohd. Shafeeq being the wife and minor son respectively of Shri Mohd. Rafique under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and directed that Mohd. Rafique shall make payment of an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the applicants in addition to the maintenance already being received by them under the orders passed by different courts. Shri Mohd. Rafique was also directed not to commit any domestic violence upon Smt. Rahmat Bano and Mohd. Shafeeq.

3. The wife and the son, challenged the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by filing an appeal in the Sessions Court on the ground that the learned Magistrate, did not pass any order on the relief claimed by them under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and that, while treating the income of the respondent to be Rs.80,000/- per month, he be directed to pay 1/3rd of the said amount to them by way of monetary relief. Mohd. Rafique challenged the order passed by the Magistrate in appeal claiming that the monetary relief granted to the respondents was unjustified and excessive. His income was only Rs.3,000/- per month and his old aged parents were dependent on him. The claimants had already been awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month by way of maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and thus, the impugned order should be set aside. The appellate court, by its order dated 25.04.2015, rejected both the appeals and affirmed the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence these revisions.

4. Shri Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner Mohd. Rafique submitted that the parties are living separately for a long time and the applicants have already been awarded substantive maintenance in the application filed before the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner Mohd. Rafique has divorced the respondent Rahmat Bano and thus, she ceased to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of the definition provided under the Domestic Violence Act and therefore, the very application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable. In support of this contention, he relied upon the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhatacharjee vs. Sarathi Choudhary & Anr., reported in 2016(2) SCC 705:-

“In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is quite clear that there is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, there is a severance of statute and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the later, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped. Thus understood, the finding recorded by the courts below which have been concurred by the High Court that the parties having been judicial separated, the appellate wife has ceased to be an “aggrieved person” is wholly unsustainable.”

5. Drawing attention of the Court to the statement of Rahmat Bano recorded before the Family Court, Jodhpur on 26.11.2009, Shri Jain contended that Smt. Rahmat Bano admitted that her husband had sent her a written divorce notice which she received on 21.05.2010. He relied on the document (Ex.NA-11) in support of this contention. He also relied upon the order-sheets (Ex.P/8) drawn up in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. going on before the Family Court inter-se between the parties a