{1} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.109 OF 2010 Narayan Adhar Shankpal APPLICANT Age-37 years, Occ-Labour R/o Chalahardi, Tq-Chopda Dist-Jalgaon VERSUS 1. Sau.Shamal w/o Narayan Shankpal RESPONDENTS Age-34 years, Occ-Labour R/o Kurkhedi, Tq-Shirpur Dist-Dhule 2. The State of Maharashtra ....... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant Mr.S.R.Indhale h/f Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for R-1 Mr.S.D.Kaldate, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th September 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, this revision application is heard finally at the stage of {2} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 admission. 2. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant-husband, has questioned the correctness of the judgment and order dated 03.04.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.22/2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule by which the Additional Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment dated 24.11.2008 rendered by JMFC, Shirpur in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.154/2008 granting monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to the respondent No.1-wife. 3. It appears that the respondent-wife had filed an application u/s 12, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Herein after for the sake of brevity will be referred as “Act of 2005) seeking maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month, return of Stridhan, golden ornaments of Rs.42,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% for mental cruelty and violence. 4. Perusal of the record further indicates that the {3} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 application was contested by the present applicant by filing written statement (Exhibit-11). All the allegations made in the application were denied by the present applicant. It further appears that the respondent-wife had contended that she got married with applicant-husband on 05.02.1995 and she resided with him till 11.11.2008 and during that period of 12 years, she had not conceded and medical treatment was provided to her by the applicant, but was of no use. It is further alleged that she was abused in filthy language by the applicant and non applicants. She has further alleged that while she was driven out of her matrimonial house, on 11.01.2007, golden ornaments of Rs. 42,000/- were allegedly removed by the applicant from her person and she was asked to bring Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, after about a year, she filed an application under the Act of 2005. In the written statement filed by the present applicant (Exhibit-11), applicant- husband had denied all the allegations of ill-treatment and it was specifically asserted that respondent-wife was taken by her parents for Deewali festival and she did not turn up thereafter and thus the applicant has not driven her house. In any event, it was contended by the applicant husband that the respondent-wife is residing at {4} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 her parents house on her will and hence she was not entitled for any relief, as prayed for in the said application. 5. Record further indicates that the parties were directed to lead evidence. Trial Court, after appreciating the pleadings of the parties, came to the conclusion that respondent-wife has failed to prove that there was domestic violence at the hands of the applicant-husband and hence she cannot claim compensation on that count. Trial court further came to the conclusion that respondent-wife has also failed to prove that golden ornaments of Rs.42,000/- were removed by the applicant-husband. The trial court, however, came to the conclusion that respondent-wife has no means to maintain herself and hence she is unable to maintain herself and therefore, allowed the application u/s 20 of the Act of 2005 and granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to her. The order awarding maintenance was challenged by the applicant- husband by preferring Criminal Appeal No.22/2009 before Sessions Judge, Dhule. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal by observing that the applicant-husband has not made any provision for maintenance of respondent-wife and hence she is {5} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 entitled for the maintenance. 6. In this background, heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention towards the provisions of section 20 (1) (d) of the Act of 2005 and according to him, perusal of the said provision indicates that to grant maintenance, it is necessary that there must be strict compliance of the ingredients of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to learned counsel for the applicant, though the trial court has came to the conclusion that respondent- wife has failed to prove that there was any domestic violence and she also failed to prove that any golden ornaments were removed from her person, yet proceeded to award maintenance to respondent-wife, which findings are contrary to each other. Even the lower appellate court has simply concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court and observed that as the applicant- husband has neglected to maintain respondent-wife and granted maintenance u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, supported {6} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 the impugned judgments. 8. Considering the rival submissions, it may be useful to advert to section 20 of the Act of 2005, which reads thus - 20. Monetary reliefs.- (1) While disposing of an application under sub- section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,- (a) the loss of earnings; (b) the medical expenses; (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974 ) or any other law for the time being in force. 9. Considering the provisions of section 20, it is clear that it is a pre-requisite condition that for allowing maintenance u/s 20 the applicant has to satisfy the compliance of all the ingredients of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Perusal of the record clearly indicates that there is no compliance of the {7} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 ingredients of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the lower appellate Court has not considered the appeal from this angle and has came to an erroneous conclusion. Certainly, the point, which is raised by the learned counsel for the applicant-husband involves a legal issue, which ought to have been considered by the lower appellate court and without considering the same, the appellate court has upheld the judgment, which requires to be quashed and set aside by remitting the matter back to the appellate court to decide the same afresh on its own merits in accordance with law on the basis of the record. 10. In view of this, Criminal Prevision Application succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first appellate court. Parties are directed to appear before the appellate court on 29.09.2011. Learned counsel for both the parties undertake to communicate this order to their respective clients. The first appellate court is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal in accordance with law, within 6 months after 29.09.2011. It is hereby made clear that the lower appellate court need not be influenced with the above {8} Cri. Revision No.109/2010 observations and dispose of the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. The interim protection granted in the present revision application to continue till disposal of the appeal by the appellate court. Revision is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B11/crirevn109-10