JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is instituted against the judgment dated 11.9.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Criminal Appeal No. 81/2013. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent has instituted petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is averred in the petition that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent was solemnized in the year 2000 as per Hindu rites. Three issues were born to them. Petitioner No.1 at the instance of petitioner No.2 started maltreating and torturing the respondent. In the month of July, petitioner No.1 came under the influence of liquor and gave merciless beatings to the respondent and threatened to kill her. Petitioner No.2 also gave beatings to the respondent. Petitioner No.1 has not provided maintenance to the respondent. She was forced to leave her matrimonial home and to take shelter in the house of her parents. Petitioner No.1 has not provided any accommodation to her. He is man of means having fruit bearing orchard earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. 3. Petition was contested by the petitioners. According to them, respondent has failed to perform her matrimonial obligations. They have never beaten up the respondent. 4. Issues were framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. He allowed the petition and petitioner No.1 was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month to the respondent and Rs. 400/- per month to the three minor children. Petitioner No.1 was also directed to provide one room alongwith kitchen and bathroom in his house to the respondent and minor children. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.6.2013 filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. He dismissed the same on 11.9.2013. Hence, the present petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Respondent Manju has appeared as AW-1. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW-1/A. It is averred in the affidavit that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner No.1 and respondent as per Hindu rites in the year 2000. They lived as husband and wife. She was looked after for four years. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 at the instance of petitioner No.2 started maltreating and torturing her. Petitioner No.1 was habitual drunkard. They lived as husband and wife. She was looked after for four years. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 at the instance of petitioner No.2 started maltreating and torturing her. Petitioner No.1 was habitual drunkard. In the month of July, 2011, petitioner No.1 came under the influence of liquor and gave merciless beatings to her. Petitioner No.2 also gave beatings to her. Petitioners have failed to provide maintenance to her. Thus, petitioner No.1 was guilty of economic abuse. She was entitled to Rs. 50,000/-. They were also entitled to monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-. Petitioners were torturing her physically and mentally. She had no source of income. She is a poor lady. Her children were school going. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she never made any complaint to the Panchayat. However, she has told this fact to her patents. Her parents tried to settle the matter but the petitioner did not agree. Petitioner switched off her phone. He used to abuse her. Petitioners were neither maintaining her nor her children. 7. Petitioner No.1 Prem Singh has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. According to the averments made in the affidavit, respondent was kept properly. Respondent used to leave the matrimonial house without intimating the petitioner. Still he was ready and willing to maintain the respondent and minor children. She was never thrown out of her matrimonial house. 8. RW-2 Chandu Ram testified that he accompanied petitioner No.2 to take back the respondent. 9. It is duly proved that respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1. Three children were born out of the wedlock. Petitioner No.1 has failed to maintain the respondent and her children. He used to earn Rs. 30,000/- per month from the orchard as well as from the vehicle. Respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial house. She is presently staying with her parents. She has not been provided with separate accommodation by petitioner No.1. Both the courts below have correctly ordered petitioner No.1 to provide one room alongwith kitchen and bathroom in his house to the respondent and her children. The amount of maintenance allowance allowed to the respondent is merely a sum of Rs. 800/- per month and Rs. 400/- for three minor children. 10. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate has vehemently argued that there was no domestic violence. The amount of maintenance allowance allowed to the respondent is merely a sum of Rs. 800/- per month and Rs. 400/- for three minor children. 10. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate has vehemently argued that there was no domestic violence. However, fact of the matter is that it is a case of economic abuse since respondent No.1 has been deprived of maintenance and accommodation. She has to look after herself and three minor children. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee versus Sarathi Choudhury and another, (2016) 2 SCC 705 have held that the definition of "domestic violence" covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep "economic abuse" and the words "economic abuse", have many facet. Their Lordships have further held that it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the facts from all angles whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct. Their Lordships have held as under: 2. Prior to the narration of facts which are essential for adjudication of this appeal, we may state that the 2005 Act has been legislated, as its Preamble would reflect, to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The 2005 Act is a detailed Act. The dictionary clause of the 2005 Act, which we shall advert to slightly at a later stage, is in a broader spectrum. The definition of "domestic violence" covers a range of violence which takes within its sweep "economic abuse" and the words "economic abuse", as the provision would show, has many a facet. 3. Regard being had to the nature of the legislation, a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts where under the 2005 Act no relief can be granted, it should never be conceived of but, before throwing a petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability, there has to be an apposite discussion and thorough deliberation on the issues raised. It should be borne in mind that helpless and hapless "aggrieved person" under the 2005 Act approaches the court under the compelling circumstances. It should be borne in mind that helpless and hapless "aggrieved person" under the 2005 Act approaches the court under the compelling circumstances. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise the facts from all angles whether a plea advanced by the respondent to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person is really legally sound and correct. The principle "justice to the cause is equivalent to the salt of ocean" should be kept in mind. The court of law is bound to uphold the truth which sparkles when justice is done. Before throwing a petition at the threshold, it is obligatory to see that the person aggrieved under such a legislation is not faced with a situation of non-adjudication, for the 2005 Act as we have stated is a beneficial as well as assertively affirmative enactment for the realisation of the constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.