ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) aggrieved by the common judgment dated 13.06.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos.13 of 2018 and 31 of 2018, both on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the findings of learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide order dated 04.12.2017 in DVC No.97 of 2013 were modified.

2. Heard Sri K.Devanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/1st respondent. None appeared for Sri VK Gopinath, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. DVC No.97 of 2013 is filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking protection order under Section 18 of the Act, residential order under Section 19 of the act directing the 2nd respondent/husband to provide alternative accommodation or rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, order under Section 20 of the Act directing the husband to provide maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the petitioner and her children, order under Section 21 of the Act directing the 2nd respondent to handover the custody of younger daughter of the petitioner and order under Section 22 of the Act directing the 2nd respondent to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation alleging that the 2nd respondent, who is her husband, used to neglect her and their two daughters, used to go abroad frequently on the guise of exigencies of his job, developed intimacy with another girl, persistently insisting her to give divorce, her mother-in-law, in the absence of the 2nd respondent, treated her as a maid servant, failed to provide maintenance to the petitioner and her children who are residing away from him due to the harassment meted out to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent/husband denied the said allegations contending that the petitioner is a troublesome lady and quarrel monger, used to insist the 2 nd respondent for setting up a separate family, since the petitioner is a working woman, the parents of the 2nd respondent took the responsibility of the family, she developed intimacy with another person, she used to mix some unknown powder in the water or butter milk which made the 2nd respondent to sleep for ten hours per a day, she with the help of her sister-in-law assassinated the character of the 2 nd respondent and that matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent has broken irretrievably and hence, he approached family Court.

4. The trail Court, upon considering the material available on record in the form of PW1, RW1, Exs.P1 to P10 and R1 to R9, holding that both the couple are having earning sources in the form of salary and that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence granted the following reliefs :

“(1) A protection order under Section 18 of the PWDV Act is granted hereby in favour of the petitioner whereby the respondent or any other person purportedly acting on their behalf is prohibited by this Court from committing any act or conduct which harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the petitioner or any other persons related to them, or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse, or has the effect of threatening the petitioner or any person related to them.

(2) A residence order under Section 19 of the Act is granted hereby in favour of the petitioner whereby respondent is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner towards rent of alternative accommodation from the date of petition, payable by the respondent on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The respondent is directed to pay the a