Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This revision is directed against the order dated 16.1.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari.

2. Few facts are essential for disposal of the petition.

3. Munni Devi was married to Satyander in 1998. They have two children out of the wedlock. A complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed in June 2010 against the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, younger brother of the husband and his wife. The complainant had alleged that her husband was having illicit relations with Poonam Devi of Rajasthan and the husband used to go Jaipur to meet her. She had also mentioned that they had two children and the elder child was taken away forcibly and was with the husband. It was also mentioned that she was turned out of the house on 13.06.2009 and she lived in village Bisoha till March 2010. It was pleaded that threats were given to her and there was a demand of money. She had mentioned that on 18.05.2010 when she had gone for her duty, Satyander took the elder son with him. The complainant wanted maintenance for herself and residence in the three storeyed house owned by her husband. She had also pleaded that she wanted to live with the husband and wanted to settle with him and did not want any police action. She sought custody of the elder child if he was not admitted in the hostel.

4. During the proceedings an attempt was made by the Court to enable the mother to meet the child. The child was produced but he refused to accompany the mother.

5. Respondent No. 1 in his reply took the plea of maintainability and concealment of material facts. It was pleaded that he was living separately from his family since 1999 and there was no harassment or humiliation or cruelty and his elder son was residing with him and was in the hostel and he was bearing the expenses. It was pleaded that the house situated at Dharuhera was rented out and he was living in a separate room at his parental home in village Bisoha. It was pleaded that the son had told him that he did want to live or study in village Bisoha as his mother used to beat him and, therefore, he had brought him back. It was denied that the complainant’s father had paid for Maruti Car. It was pleaded that the car was purchased form CSD canteen in the name of the father of the complainant but the amount was paid from his account and it was encashed in May 2001. The details were also given. It was denied that any amount had been given by the father of the petitioner for the plot situated in Sector 6, Dharuhera. It was pleaded that the complainant left village Bisoha in March 2010 without his knowledge. It was pleaded that he was called to the SP office but no compromise could be effected and false allegations had been levelled.

6. Both sides led evidence. The complainant summoned the record from HUDA Rewari to prove the re-allotment letter and the possession certificate in favour of Satyander. He had stated that original allottee was Chanan Singh and the land was allotted in 1990 and Satyandar had purchased it in July 2002.

7. The complainant stepped into the witness box and reiterated the same facts as given in her complaint. Besides this, the petitioner had examined the Protection Officer and Assistant in the office of P&G Gillette India Ltd. Bhiwani who brought the service record of Satyander and the salary certificate Ex. CW 4/A to show that Satyander was earning Rs. 13986/- per month.

8. The respondent examined two of tenants in defence to show that they were in occupation of three storeyed house. The respondent examined himself as RW-2 and reiterated the case set out in his reply.

9. The trial Court without adverting to the monthly expenses of the wife or the husband awarded Rs. 8000/- per month as maintenance. Directions were given to the husband to hand over the vacant possession of the first floor of the house to the wife. Respondents No. 2 to 5 were restrained from interfering in the life of the petitioner.

10. Aggrieved with the order,