JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Jaishree Thakur, J.

By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the above titled two revision petitions as they arise out of a similar set of facts, involving similar question of law. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Criminal Revision No. 3084 of 2016.

2. In brief the facts, as alleged, are that a marriage was solemnized between Naresh Kumar and Usha Rani on 18.6.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After some time, the husband of Usha Rani and his family members started demanding dowry and a motorcycle and threatened that in case the demands are not met, she would be turned out of her matrimonial home. There was no improvement in the behaviour of her husband and his family members and ultimately she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Under these circumstances, Usha Rani was constrained to approach the police with a complaint, on the basis of which FIR No. 70 dated 23.10.2005 was registered under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC. In the said proceedings, the husband Naresh Kumar was declared as proclaimed person. Thereafter, a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "Domestic Violence Act") was filed by Usha Rani against her husband Naresh Kumar, Smt. Santara (mother-in-law), Vikas, Narender and Dinesh (brothers-in-law) and Smt. Saroj (sister of Naresh Kumar). In the said complaint, petitioner Usha Rani, (for short 'the petitioner') submitted that the respondents Naresh Kumar (husband), Smt. Santora (mother-in-law), Vikas, Narender and Dinesh (brothers-in-law) and Smt. Saroj (sister of Naresh Kumar) (for short 'the respondents') have committed domestic violence, gave beatings and threatened to eliminate her and, therefore, they be stopped from committing any kind of Domestic Violence against the petitioner. Protection order was issued under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner also sought relief under Section 19 as well as monetary relief to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Domestic Violence Act was sought, apart from compensation.

3. The petition was contested by all other than Naresh Kumar husband, who was proceeded against ex-parte. Eventually, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (JMIC), Dadri, Bhwani, after taking note of the fact that the petitioner is the wife of Naresh Kumar allowed interim claim of the petitioner by directing the aforesaid family members of Naresh Kumar to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month collectively, from the date of filing of the present application as well as to provide residential house constructed in 60 square yards. Aggrieved against the said order, an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who modified the said judgment to the extent that the petitioner wife would hand over the possession of the share household to the respondents but maintained that the respondents No. 2 to 4 would pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month collectively to the petitioner wife. Aggrieved against the said order, Criminal Revision No. 3084 of 2016 has been filed by the Vikas, Virender and Dinesh (brothers-in-law) respondents for dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner-wife, whereas Criminal Revision No. 2985 of 2016 has been preferred by the petitioner-wife for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which maintenance has been reduced to Rs. 3000/- per month as well as her right to residence in the shared household has been taken away.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Vikas, Virender and Dinesh (petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 3084 of 2016) contends that the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 4.12.2015 before the JMIC, Charki Dadri, Bhiwani, is not maintainable and would be barred by limitation. It is further argued that as per the case set up by the petitioner-herself she had been turned out of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document