Relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, requires a reasoned finding of domestic violence. Furthermore, maintenance and rent awards must consider the financial status of both parties and mandatory disclosure of assets as per the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna (in short ‘the II ASJ’) in Cr. Appeal no.104/2025 reversing the order dated 05.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna (in short 'the JMFC') in MJCR no.04/2015 whereby the JMFC dismissed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (in short ‘the D.V. Act') filed by the respondent/wife holding thereby that the respondent/wife has failed to prove any act of domestic violence, however, in criminal appeal filed by the respondent/wife, the II ASJ has reversed the order passed by the JMFC and awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards house rent allowance.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of the petitioner 1 and respondent was solemnized on 13.02.2011 and immediately after 3 months of the marriage, the petitioner 1 and respondent are residing separately. He submits that the respondent/wife moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 30.08.2014, which was allowed vide order dated 22.06.2020 by awarding an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards monthly maintenance. He submits that immediately after filing of an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act on 07.10.2015, and upon due consideration of the entire material available on record and in presence of the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, it was rightly dismissed by holding specifically that the respondent/wife has failed to prove any act of domestic violence. He further submits that even in presence of availability of a house situated in Satna owned by respondent/wife's deceased father, the II ASJ has committed an illegality in awarding the house rent allowance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent that too without taking into consideration the capacity of the petitioner 1/husband, who is suffering 90% disablement. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in the case of Koushik vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and others , 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2398. With these submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the criminal revision.

3. In turn, learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that since the petitioner 1/husband has left the respondent/wife without there being any sufficient cause immediately after 3 months of the marriage, therefore, the Family Court rightly awarded an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards monthly maintenance and since the JMFC did not consider that the respondent/wife is in need of residence also, committed an illegality in dismissing the application and upon filing criminal appeal, the II ASJ has rightly allowed the application under Section 12 of the Act and awarded an amount of Rs.3000/- towards house rent allowance. She also submits that the petitioner 1 is an able-bodied person and no certificate in respect of 90% disablement has been placed on record even before this Court. As such, she prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of the order dated 22.06.2020 passed by the Family Court, it is clear that vide paragraph 22 of this order, income of the petitioner 1/husband was found to be Rs.13,000/- per month and while passing the order date