Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Present petitioner, claiming herself to be an aggrieved person having lived together with the respondent, in domestic relationship in a shared household, through a relationship in the nature of marriage, has called upon this court to answer an important question of law, as to whether having lived in such a domestic relationship, she is entitled for different reliefs, mainly the monetary relief, under the relevant provisions of law contained in Chapter IV of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short).

2. By way of instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court, for quashing of the order dated 7.11.2013 (Annexure P-13), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby Crl. Revn. No. 163 of 2013 (Vijay Kumar Jindal v. Poonam) and Crl. Rev.No.350 of 2013 (Poonam v. Vijay Kumar Jindal) were decided together, thereby dismissing the revision of the petitioner for enhancement of maintenance amount and allowing the criminal revision filed by the respondent, declaring the petitioner not entitled to any amount towards maintenance, from the respondent, under the DV Act.

3. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, respondent appeared through counsel. However, no reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent. Trial court record was requisitioned and respondent was directed to keep on paying the interim maintenance @ Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner, vide order dated 4.6.2014 passed by this court. Again, vide order dated 29.9.2014 passed by this court, respondent was directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- to the petitioner, in addition to the amount of Rs.9000/- paid by him in compliance of the above said order dated 4.6.2014.

4. Petitioner appeared in person and submitted that earlier she was married and was having a child from her first marriage. However, her first husband namely, Sanjay Kumar got an ex-parte decree of divorce by playing fraud on her in the year 1993-94. Since the petitioner and respondent were known to each other closely, their relationship further developed and took the shape of marriage. Respondent used to say that he will adopt the son of the petitioner after the marriage. Respondent told the petitioner that he was unmarried. Petitioner believed the respondent. When the petitioner was assured by the respondent of a happy married life and he also assured adoption of her son from the earlier marriage, petitioner agreed for marriage with the respondent. She submits that finally marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place on 17.9.2005 in a temple situated in Grain Market, Tohana, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies.

5. Petitioner and respondent started living together as husband and wife. Petitioner alongwith her son used to reside with the respondent in the shared household. Respondent adopted the son of the petitioner for all intends and purposes, however, it was not reduced to writing. They were living in a rented accommodation at H.No.1812, Sector 7, Kurukshetra. They lived at this address from the month of February 2007 to 2010 and earlier to that they had been living in other rented accommodations mentioned by the petitioner, in her pleadings. Petitioner would next contend that respondent was a wealthy businessman owning huge property. He had been running a rice sheller at Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur, in the State of Punjab. He had been performing all the duties of a husband, while cohabiting with the petitioner. He used to bring all the household articles in the matrimonial home and also used to deposit the amount in her bank account, as and when required by the petitioner and her son, her bank account No. being 2949000100164536 in Punjab National Bank, Pipli, Kurukshetra, which is a matter of record. In this regard, she refers to the bank statements as Annexure P-1 to show that the las