The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are independent of those under Section 125 Cr.P.C., allowing for separate maintenance claims.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2017 which was instituted on 19.01.2017 titled as Smt. Pinki Sharma Vs. Sudhir and others.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2005 Act”) against the present petitioner-her husband and other persons and in the said complaint, as is apparent from para 2 of the order dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, it was stated that respondent No. 1 was married to the present petitioner on 21.06.2010 and her parents had given sufficient dowry in the marriage and after the marriage, respondent No. 1 started to reside with the petitioner and his family members and thus, she had domestic relationship with them. It was further alleged that the petitioner and his family members raised demands for dowry from the complainant-respondent No. 1 including demands of motorcycle, gold earrings, cash of Rs.2 lacs, a gold ring etc. and the father of respondent No. 1-complainant was compelled to give a Hero Honda motorcycle and Rs.2 lacs to the petitioner and his family but they were not satisfied with the same and on 19.12.2010, respondent No. 1 was ousted from the matrimonial home and thereafter with the intervention of respected individuals, the petitioner and his family members eventually agreed to take respondent No. 1 back but again on 20.06.2013 and also on 03.07.2013, respondent No. 1 was beaten up and even the petitioner attempted to pour kerosene oil over her with the intention to kill her. It was alleged in the said complaint that the present petitioner was a Teacher by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and was also owning 10 acres of land and was earning more than Rs.5 lacs per annum and accordingly, a prayer for maintenance was also made. In the reply filed by petitioner, as is apparent from para No. 3 of the order dated 21.12.2016, it was stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 was a quarrelsome lady and denied all the allegations levelled against him.

3. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, vide the order dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure P-1), had dismissed the said complaint. Aggrieved against the said order, respondent No. 1 had filed an appeal and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 had allowed the said appeal and observed that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to the compensation of an amount of Rs.20,000/- and also a sum of Rs.3000/- per month for accommodation and had also observed that she would also be entitled to the maintenance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition and the amount received by the respondent No. 1 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would be adjusted towards the same. While allowing the said appeal, it was observed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani that the marital status between the parties was not disputed and the observation made by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, that the respondent No. 1 failed to prove her allegations, was illegal inasmuch as respondent No. 1 had appeared as CW1 and she had reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint under Section 12 of the 2005 Act and evidence of the said CW1 was duly corroborated by the report of the Protection Officer which was duly submitted to the Magistrate but the Magistrate did not take into consideration the said report at the time of passing of the final judgment. It was further observed that the petitioner in his cross-examination had admitted that he had already filed a divorce petition before the Family Court and even if respondent No. 1 wanted to reside with the petitioner then also he was not