The main legal point established is the importance of evidence and proper procedure in granting interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The revision petitioner / respondent / petitioner had preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1321 of 2011 against the judgment made in C.A.No.197 of 2010, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, setting aside the order made in Crl.M.P.No.1582 of 2010 in C.C.No.277 of 2010, on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, awarding a sum of Rs.7,500/-as interim maintenance to the petitioner herein and remanding the matter back to the trial Court

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner / wife has filed a petition under Section 12 r/w Section 18(a), (b), (d), Section (19)(1)(f), 19(8), Section 20(1), Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, along with an affidavit praying for

(A) Protection Order: Preventing the respondent from (a) Committing any act of domestic violence, (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence, (c) attempting to communicate with the petitioner; in any form whatsoever,

(B) Residence Order: (a) direct the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by the petitioner in the shared household or to pay rent of Rs.7,500/- per month for a similar accommodation; (b) to return all her household articles, jewels, clothes and furnishings etc., as furnished in the schedule hereunder.

(C) Monetary Order:-directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month towards maintenance for the petitioner.

(D) Pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)towards damages for injuries, mental torture and emotional distress caused by the acts of domestic violence.

3. It was submitted that the petitioner married the respondent herein on 10.11.2008, at Balaji Sree Mahal, 3rd Avenue, 3rd Floor, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40 and the marriage was an arranged one with the consent of the elders of both families. It was stated that soon after marriage, the petitioner began living with the respondent and his family at Chennai. It was submitted that on the first night of her marriage, the respondent had told her that he had married her only because he was told that her parents would give him 100 sovereigns of gold and conduct the marriage at their expense and that he was not keen on marrying her otherwise as she was only 5 feet tall. It was submitted that the respondent was not interested in conjugal relationship right from the beginning of her marriage and that the marriage has not been consummated. It was submitted that within a week of marriage, the respondent along with his parents and sisters started ill-treating and harassing her. It was submitted that on 25.11.2008, the petitioner was instructed by the respondent and his family that she must not meet or talk to any of her own family members. It was submitted that the demands for more jewels and money continued and for pongal festival, the respondent's family demanded Rs.5,000/- in cash and also 5 sovereigns of gold. When the petitioner's parents asked for some time to arrange for the same, the respondent insisted that she must stay with them and not set feet in the matrimonial house until they brought him the 5 sovereigns of gold as per his demand. Left with no other option, the petitioner's parents made arrangements for the required amount and the respondent was given a gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns and Rs.5,000/-. It was submitted that in February 2009, the respondent demanded Rs.5,00,000/- to set up a new business. When the petitioner confronted him about his salary and asked him about his earnings, he admitted that he had not actually completed his M.B.A. as was represented at the time of marriage negotiations. The petitioner was shocked, since at the time of marriage, the respondent had told her that he had completed his M.B.A and earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. It was submitted that the petitioner was subjected to constant cruelty, both physically and mentally by the respondent. On the night of 23.