JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. 1. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly requested to finally decide the instant criminal revision petitions together. Hence same are being decided by a common order. Facts of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1287/2015: 2. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the applicant/petitioner under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. praying therein to grant the reliefs as prayed for by her in the application for enhancement of the maintenance. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/petitioner submitted a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act of 2005' for short hereinafter) against the non-applicants Harit Dheer, Ashok Dheer and Usha Dheer for doing domestic violence with her, restraining the non-applicants for doing domestic violence under section 18 of the Act of 2005, providing her an alternative accommodation under section 19 of the Act of 2005 and also provide to her maintenance etc. under section 20 of the Act of 2005. 4. The non-applicants filed reply to the complaint wherein they admitted about solemnization of marriage with the applicant/petitioner (wife) but rest of the contents of the complaint were controverted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 5. Thereafter, the learned court below after hearing arguments on the application for interim relief, passed an order on 10.3.2011 by which he granted an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. to her. 6. During the pendency of the matter before the learned court below, the applicant/petitioner moved an application on 1.2.2014 under section 25(2) of the Act of 2005 mentioning therein that on the date of passing the order dated 10.3.2011 the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband) was earning Rs. 7,000/- p.m., more than three years have lapsed after passing the said order, the cost has become more than the double, the non-applicant/respondent (husband) is earning approx. Rs. 15,000/- p.m. Thus looking to the increase in the salary of the non-applicant/respondent No. 2 (husband), Rs. 6,000/- p.m. may be increased as interim maintenance instead of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. 7. The learned court below after hearing dismissed the said application vide order dated 25.3.2015. The applicant/petitioner (wife) aggrieved with the said order preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2015. 6,000/- p.m. may be increased as interim maintenance instead of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. 7. The learned court below after hearing dismissed the said application vide order dated 25.3.2015. The applicant/petitioner (wife) aggrieved with the said order preferred an appeal before the appellate court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2015. The applicant/petitioner (wife) aggrieved with both the impugned orders has preferred instant criminal revision petition before this Court. 8. During the pendency of instant revision petition, the non-applicant/respondent No. 2 Harit Dheer (husband) filed an additional affidavit before the Court mainly mentioning therein that the applicant/petitioner (wife) has shown his income Rs. 25,000/- p.m. but she has failed to submit any proof on record to this effect, otherwise also no new fact at this stage can be entertained and that too in a state where it has not been supported by an affidavit. The non-applicant/respondent No. 2 (husband) In the affidavit also mentioned that since October 2015 he Is out of job and he has no source of income since then. 9. In rebuttal, the applicant/petitioner (wife) filed counter affidavit to the additional affidavit wherein she has specifically mentioned in para No. 2 of the same that the non-applicant/respondent No. 2 Harit Dheer (husband) is working as Service Manager in Roshan Cars Private Limited, where he is getting salary of Rs. 25,000/- p.m., which is clear from the certificate dated 19.9.2015 (enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annex. CA/1) and thus the applicant/petitioner (wife) rightly showed his income as Rs. 12,000/- p.m. In the additional affidavit, the non-applicant (husband) wrongly averred that he is out of job since October 2015, whereas as per the salary statement which is duly sealed and signed on 7.5.2016 commencing from April 2015 to January 2016, it is clear that the non-applicant/respondent (husband) is working as Service Manager In Roshan Cars Pvt. Limited, as is evident from Annex.CA/2 to the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Limited and others, wherein it has been held that the High Court was justified in imposing costs of Rs. 10 lacs on filing a false and misleading affidavit by M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. Thus, a heavy cost of Rs. v. BOC India Limited and others, wherein it has been held that the High Court was justified in imposing costs of Rs. 10 lacs on filing a false and misleading affidavit by M/s. Sciemed Overseas Inc. Thus, a heavy cost of Rs. 8 lacs be imposed upon the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer for filing a false or misleading affidavit. Facts of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 552/2016: 10. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment/order dated 8.3.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur ('appellate court' for short hereinafter) in criminal appeal No. 57/2015 (Sugandha Chhabra v. State & Ors ), whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 25.5.2015 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur ('the trial court' for short hereinafter) in application No. 14/2011 (Sugandha v. Harit and others) filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act of 2005') for short hereinafter. 11. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/petitioner (wife) filed an application on 1.11.2014 before the trial court praying therein for granting residential facility as an interim relief, as she is residing at her parent's home. 12. The trial court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 25.5.2015. 13. The applicant/petitioner (wife) aggrieved with the order dated 25.5.2015 preferred an appeal under section 29 of the Act of 2005 before the appellate court, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 8.3.2016. 14. The petitioner (wife) aggrieved with both the orders passed by both the learned courts below has preferred instant criminal revision petition. 15. The matter was listed before the Court on 24.5.2016 and on that date both the counsel appearing for the respective parties jointly prayed to list S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 552/2016 along with S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1287/2015 and also jointly prayed to list the case on 26.5.2016. Upon that both the criminal revisions petitions have been clubbed together. 16. On 26.5.2016 both the criminal revision petitions were listed before the Court and on the said date both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties requested to list the matter on 27.5.2016. 17. Mr. Upon that both the criminal revisions petitions have been clubbed together. 16. On 26.5.2016 both the criminal revision petitions were listed before the Court and on the said date both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties requested to list the matter on 27.5.2016. 17. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner (wife) has contended that the owners of house No. 307, Gurunanakpura, Vijay Path, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, are Harit Dheer (respondent No. 2 - husband herein), Ashok Dheer and Smt. Usha Dheer. Counsel has further submitted that the respondents have four show-rooms which are also located in Raja Park, Jaipur, which is a posh area and the same are having worth of more than rupees ten crores, from which they are getting rent of more than Rs. one lac. Counsel has submitted that from the salary certificate dated 19.9.2015 (Annex. CA/1) issued by the Manager, Accounts, of Roshan Cars Private Limited, it is clear that salary of the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband) is Rs. 25,000/- p.m. Counsel further submitted that the respondents are having luxurious cars as well and living a lavish life, they usually attend kitty parties, which shows their high standards. Counsel has further submitted that the applicant/petitioner (wife) is living separately, thus she be allowed to reside in the house of respondents, by giving her two rooms and one kitchen and also requested that minimum Rs. 25,000/- p.m. may be granted as maintenance to her. In support of his case, counsel has drawn attention of the Court to ascertain photographs of the house No. 307, situated in Guru Nanakpura, Vijay Path, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur and the showrooms, which are situated in posh area, as also the documents showing the monthly salary of the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband). Counsel has further submitted that the learned courts below have committed material irregularity or illegality in passing the said orders. Thus, the relief as claimed by her be granted in her favour in to. 18. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the responders has submitted that by an interim order dated 10.3.2011 the applicant/petitioner (wife) was granted Rs. 3,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Counsel has further submitted that against the order dated 10.3.2011 the applicant/petitioner (wife) did not file either an appeal or revision, thus the interim order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the trial court attained finality. 3,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Counsel has further submitted that against the order dated 10.3.2011 the applicant/petitioner (wife) did not file either an appeal or revision, thus the interim order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the trial court attained finality. Counsel has further submitted that the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer has made payment of Rs. 4 lacs to the petitioner-wife towards compromise and on the said amount she is getting the interest. Counsel has further submitted that still the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer is ready to give Rs. 15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the petitioner/applicant (wife). Thus, both the learned courts have not committed any material illegality or irregularity in passing the said orders. 19. At this stage, counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly requested to decide both the criminal revision petitions on the basis of compromise. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me such as salary statement of respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband), photographs showing four showrooms located In Raja Park, and a house (bearing No. 307, Guru Nanakpura, Vijay Path, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur) of the respondents which is located In a posh area, having worth of more than rupees ten crores, from which they are getting rent of more than rupees one lac, the fact that the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband) is ready to give Rs. 15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the petitioner/applicant (wife), as also the fact that the respondents are having luxurious cars and living a lavish life, attends kitty parties which show their high standards. However, looking to the aforesaid facts both the counsel appearing for the respective parties have jointly requested and agreed to dispose of both the criminal revision petitions on the basis of following terms and conditions of the compromise : 1. The respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer will keep the petitioner as a wife at his residence where the applicant/petitioner-wife was residing a (sic) solemnization of marriage and they will live together peacefully; 2. Because of any reason both the spouses fail to live together, in such circumstances, the respondents shall provide one room having size of minimum 15 x 10 ft. and also one kitchen having size of 10 x 8 ft. Because of any reason both the spouses fail to live together, in such circumstances, the respondents shall provide one room having size of minimum 15 x 10 ft. and also one kitchen having size of 10 x 8 ft. permanently to the petitioner, where the respondent No. 2 - Harit Dheer (husband) kept the petitioner as a wife at such residence, just after solemnization of marriage and the respondent No. 2 Harit Dheer (husband) shall also make payment of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the applicant/petitioner (wife); 3. If the respondents create any obstruction in the peaceful living of applicant/petitioner (wife), where one room and kitchen of the aforesaid size is provided by them to her, then the applicant petitioner (wife) shall submit an application mentioning therein the complete facts along-with the copy of this order, for assistance before the jurisdictional SHO; 4. The jurisdictional SHO, on receiving such an application from the applicant petitioner (wife), shall redress the grievance of the applicant petitioner (wife), in accordance with law, immediately. Both the aforesaid criminal revisions petitions accordingly stand disposed of.