The court underscored that claims under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be judiciously considered without dismissing them based on collateral issues related to the aggrieved person's family.

1. Challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated 24th July, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - 5, Nagpur, whereby appeal preferred by respondent against the order passed by learned trial Court granting monetary reliefs under S.20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2005”) to petitioner of Rs.2000/- per month and to her sons Rs.1000/- each, respectively, and also granting compensation of Rs.5000/- under S.22 of the Act of 2005, was partly allowed thereby rejecting amount of maintenance granted to petitioner - wife, and confirming order of maintenance granted to her children, who were original applicant nos.2 and 3. It is the case of petitioner that the learned Appellate Court did not consider evidence on record in its proper perspective and wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance granted by the learned trial Court. It is contended that in fact evidence of petitioner remained unconverted and in fact respondent did not bring on record any evidence before the learned trial Court establishing that he was not in any manner liable for payment of maintenance. By referring to the evidence of petitioner, it is pointed out as to how the learned Appellate Court failed to hold that respondent has committed domestic violence, and as to why petitioner was constrained to live separately without any monitory support and therefore, contended that impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the proceedings initiated against him are false and has come out with the specific case that when petitioner's father was working in the government service at Gadchiroli, he performed second marriage and thereafter was not providing sufficient monitory relief to petitioner's mother, brother or other family members and therefore, petitioner was behind the respondent to provide money to her mother and other family members which respondent in spite of complying to some effect was finding it difficult to provide sufficient amount of money due to his own financial constraints and on that count petitioner was inviting quarrels. Another ground put forth by respondent is that mother of petitioner started construction of house at Ramtek for which purpose petitioner was pressing respondent to provide Rs.2,00,000/- on obtaining loan, however, since it was not possible for the respondent to satisfy such demand, petitioner on her own left the company of respondent and started residing at Ramtek where respondent visited and requested her to join back his company, however, she refused for the same. Thus, it is the case of respondent that at no point of time he had ill - treated petitioner and submitted that petition be dismissed.

3. In view of submissions advanced as aforesaid, on perusal of facts it is noted that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1st June, 1998 at the native place of respondent and thereafter they resided together at Hingoli till petitioner left the company of respondent and went to Ramtek in September, 2009. Thereafter, in December, 2009 respondent went to Ramtek to bring petitioner back and had agreed not to provide any ill - treated when petitioner accompanied him and after residing for 10 to 12 days left the company of respondent in the month of February, 2010 along with her children and since then is residing with her parents. It is the case of petitioner that she has no source of income while respondent is working as a teacher earning Rs.20,000/- per month.

4. In the background of facts as above, before considering other evidence, it is necessary to consider the scope of “d