JUDGMENT :

1. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State, are present. None responds on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6.

2. By means of this criminal revision the revisionist Smt. Deep Sharma and Yagyawal Sharma have challenged an order dated 27.08.2022 passed by Special Judge (Gangster Act) Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad in a criminal appeal no. 204 of 2019, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad arising out of Case No. 585 of 2019 (Smt. Binu Sharma vs. Dhirendra Kaushik and Others), under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by which the appeal was partly allowed and the order passed by the trial court was modified.

3. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. None responds on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6.

4. The relevant facts are as below:-

The respondent no. 1-Smt Binu Sharma filed against final order passed in a complaint case no. 585 of 2019 against her husband, father in-law, mother in-law, jeths and jethanis under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to “the Act”)with certain allegations; the trial court gave a finding that her husband committed domestic violence and not rest of the opposite parties; the learned trial court allowed the relief to the revisionist/applicant Smt. Binu Sharma by order dated 11.09.2019 under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act against her husband only; the appellant Binu Sharma filed an appeal no. 204 of 2019 against the respondents challenging the trial court’s order with a prayer that she is entitled for relief against all the respondents who included her mother in-law, father in-law, jeths and jethanis; her husband-Dhirendra Kaushik filed another (cross) appeal no. 209 of 2019 against his wife praying for setting aside the order of the trial court dated 11.09.2019; the learned appellate court heard both the appeals together and modified the order to certain extent; the learned appellate court, partly allowing the appeal no. 204 of 2019 modified the relief granted under Section 19 of the Act to the extent that all the respondents/opposite parties were directed to not to interfere in her right to entry and residence in a shared household and dismissed the rest of the prayer of the appellant Smt. Binu Sharma; At the same time the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of husband appeal no. 209 of 2019 and modified the relief granted under section 20 of the Act to the extent that the wife shall be entitled for Rs. 6,000/-per month instead of earlier Rs. 8,000/-per month and their daughter shall be entitled for Rs. 5,000/-per month instead of earlier Rs. 6,000/-per month; the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal for the rest of the reliefs claimed by the husband; the learned trial court affirmed rest of the order passed by the trial court excluding the portions as above.

5. The grounds taken in this revision are as below:-

(i) The order passed by the appellate court is devoid of reasoning, is illegal and passed against the evidence available on record;

(ii) The son of the revisionist i.e. husband of Smt. Binu Sharma has not been residing with their parents and instead he resided in a rented accommodation in District Gautam Buddh Nagar and this fact is admitted therefore the appellate court cannot legally direct the revisionist to let their daughter in-law reside in their house where the revisionist are residing;

(iii) The house in question was purchased by the revisionist no. 1 o