A divorced individual lacks the status of an aggrieved person under the Domestic Violence Act, and thus is not entitled to claim residence rights post-divorce.

1. The present revision petition under S.397 and S.401, Cr. P. C. has been filed assailing the judgment dated 25-2-2015 which later on also got modified on 19-5-2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2013.

2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the instant case are that the applicant was married to respondent No. 1 in February, 2004. It was the second marriage for respondent No. 1 as his first wife had expired. But barely after a year of the marriage, the relations between the two got strained and an FIR for the first time was lodged on 20-5-2015 against the respondent No. 1 under S.498 - A of IPC. The said case was finally compromised between the parties. However, later on, the applicant lodged another case against respondent No. 1 under the " Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the DV Act") seeking for relief of permanent residence, protection from domestic violence, sufficient monetary support, compensation etc. which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 28 of 2013.

3. The trial Court taking into consideration the evidence which had come on record vide its judgment dated 20-6-2013 partly allowed the claim of the applicant - wife by awarding Rs. 4,000/- per month to her as maintenance to be paid by the respondent No. 1. In addition, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered to be paid within a period of 2 months. Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded for medical treatment and Rs. 5,000/- for obtaining the certified copies of her documents. However, the Court below did not grant the relief of sharing the residence in favour of the applicant.

4. The said order dated 20-6-2013 was put to challenge before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2013. The appellate Court also vide its order dated 25-2-2015 rejected the appeal affirming and upholding the order of the Magistrate dated 20-6-2013.

5. It is order dated 25-2-2015 which is under challenge by way of the present revision petition.

6. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence which has come on record. He argued that the Court below has also not granted the compensation and the maintenance amount what was otherwise well within the paying capacity of the respondent - husband for which he was duty bound and legally obliged for providing the same. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Court below should have taken into consideration the fact that the applicant - wife does not have a proper shelter to stay at and therefore as per the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, the Court below ought to have considered the relief of providing the facility of sharing the residence. The Court below having not done so the impugned order deserves to be modified to that extent. In addition, according to the counsel for the applicant, granting of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance and the amount awarded towards medical expenses being too meager amount deserves to be enhanced. Likewise, since the applicant - wife is living separately for a considerable period of time, she is also entitled for compensation more than Rs. 50,000/- that has been awarded by the Court below. Thus, counsel for the applicant prayed for modification of the order of the JMFC, Bilaspur dated 20-6-2013 accordingly.

7. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents opposing the petition submitted that a bare perusal of the two impugned orders by itself clearly reflect that the two orders passed by the Courts below are proper, legal and justified which do not