ORDER : Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 22.2.2014, passed by Sri Ram Bachan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahebganj in Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj in P.C.R. Case No. 291 of 2009 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act had been-affirmed. 3. Opposite Party No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in which it was stated that marriage - of the petitioner No. 1 with opposite party No. 2 had been solemnized on 21.4.2008 as per Muslim rites and customs. It was alleged therein that there was a demand of, Rs. 3,00,000/- from her in-laws and threat was also meted out to her consistently. Opposite Party No. 2 had demanded monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month on the ground that petitioners are men of means and they have monthly income of Rs. 25,000/-. An application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was considered by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj, who vide order dated 4.8.2012 has directed the petitioners to pay monetary relief of Rs. 25,000/- to the opposite party No.2 as well as for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,500/-. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2012, petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahibganj in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 2012, which was however dismissed on 22.2.2014. 4. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the courts below had taken into consideration the fact that it was the sole duty of the petitioner No. 1 to maintain his wife. Petitioner No.2 who is father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 has also been directed to share the responsibility of one time payment of Rs. 25,000/- as well as monthly maintenance. Learned counsel submits that there is no concept of joint family property in Mohamdan law and therefore liability can be fastened only upon petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 who is father-in-law of the opposite party No. 2 has also been directed to share the responsibility of one time payment of Rs. 25,000/- as well as monthly maintenance. Learned counsel submits that there is no concept of joint family property in Mohamdan law and therefore liability can be fastened only upon petitioner No.1. It is also submitted that so far quantum of maintenance is concerned, same is on higher side, as in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a finding has been given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that earning of petitioner No. 1 is Rs. 10,000/- per month, whereas petitioner No. 1 has further been saddled with liability of making payment of maintenance of Rs. 3,500/- per month in the application filed by the opposite party No. 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Learned counsel submits that Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines shared household and since it is the joint family property the petitioner No.2 cannot be directed to share the burden of payment of monthly maintenance. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1118 as well as in the case of Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel VS. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2008 Supreme Court 2675. 5. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has supported the impugned order and has referred to various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and has stated that if family members stay together jointly, liability can also be fixed apart from husband upon any of the relatives of the husband and therefore both the courts below have correctly interpreted the provisions of law and that directed both the petitioners to deposit one time payment by Rs. 25,000/- as well as regular payment of maintenance @ 3,500/- per month and it is also submitted that awarding the amount under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act would not preclude opposite party No. 2 from claiming maintenance under 125 of the Cr.P.C. Such circumstance also favours the opposite party No.2. 6. 25,000/- as well as regular payment of maintenance @ 3,500/- per month and it is also submitted that awarding the amount under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act would not preclude opposite party No. 2 from claiming maintenance under 125 of the Cr.P.C. Such circumstance also favours the opposite party No.2. 6. Section 2(f) defines domestic relationship and the same is quoted hereunder : "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time; lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;" 7. Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act defines respondents which reads as under :– "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner." 8. Conjoint reading of Sections 2(f) and 2(q) would reveal about the adult male person in a domestic relationship with a woman and against his relatives, complaint can be filed by the aggrieved wife. Domestic Relationship includes family members living together as joint family. It would therefore appear that Section 2(q) and 2(f) if read together would reveal that an aggrieved wife can prefer an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband, as well as relatives of the husband who are living together as a joint family. There is no dispute to the fact with respect to the petitioners being members of the joint family. In the said' view of the matter, therefore, neither the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj nor the Appellate Court has committed any illegality in directing the petitioners to share the responsibility of making payment of maintenance as well as one time monetary amount. 9. In the said' view of the matter, therefore, neither the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj nor the Appellate Court has committed any illegality in directing the petitioners to share the responsibility of making payment of maintenance as well as one time monetary amount. 9. So far quantum of maintenance is concerned, in view of the finding of this court given above by affirming the order passed by the learned court below, the petitioner No. 1 has to share the liability of making payment of maintenance along with his father and the individual payment of maintenance by the petitioners, if the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, is taken in isolation, will get reduced substantially. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders and therefore this revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.